Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 29, 2022 2:19 am

Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Dec 29, 2022 1:00 am What we call "variables" and a "constants" the Tim Ar called igús hóntá (sg. kîs hóntá) 'countenances, (facial) expressions' and irúdkar (sg. tîdkar) 'skulls'. Exponents and powers are iurëĝ ar (sg. ïrëĝ, cf. my earlier remarks on simple operations); similarly, roots are ésa (sg. [/b]séḫ[/b]).

The derivative is called the hadál ḫaług 'mountain man, mountaineer'; to take the derivative of an expression is to ḫaług 'climb' it. The integral is edaoł 'cargo, a consignment' (this is, senso strictu, a plural noun but in mathematics jargon it is often reänalyzed as a singular); you don't "integrate" an expression, you ëdkana 'audit, inventory' it instead. The partial derivative is a dïg 'billy goat' and the partial integral ratsó 'scum' (though the verbs haług and ëdkana are still used).

I’d be quite curious to know if any of these terms have any kind of sensible etymology — or do they all fall in the ‘essentially random’ category?

- The idea behind variables and constants is that facial expressions go over the skull and are subject to variability, whereas the skull itself is essentially fixed (constant).
- Exponents and powers are simply nominalizations of the appropriate operators (see the earlier post).
- The derivative of a function is just the rate of change at a given point, the slope of the tangent line. The metaphor is climbing the slope (of a mountain).
- The integral is the area under the curve, so it's like that is a storehouse with the "cargo" (area) underneath.
- The partial derivative relies on the mountain metaphor again, like how goats are able to get footing on impossible grades.
- ratsó is one of the essentially random ones. I was scrolling through my lexicon and I found it and the thought of using the "pond scum" glyph amused me greatly.

áge /áʕè/ [áʕè] v.

1. to be
2. to exist
3. (mathematics) to total, to sum (to), to reach, to make

Etymology. From Proto-Beheic phrase *ʔal e 'to stand there', fused into a single term.

---

sad /sàθ/ [sàθ] v.

1. to work for, to be in s.o.'s pocket
2. to brown-nose, to flatter

Etymology. From Proto-Beheic *kas 'fall down' + *-ɹ- 'BENEFACTIVE'.

---

tal /tàl/ [tàl] n. (pl. arl /àɹl̩/ [àɹl̩])

1. colony, planned remote settlement

Etymology. From Classical Khaya dal 'village'. The Classical Khaya were another people group encountered by the early Tim Ar-O peoples and dominated various segments of the population at various times; this term is a relic of those interactions.

Reported speech in CT is indicated using the anaphoric hae:

Saman áłag hae hé, hae ĝreg eḫrîr hé.

saman

speak

áłag

DISC.PRF

hae

that

hé

3SG

ĝreg

ignite

/ḫerîr

PL/straw

hé

3SG

'he said (that) he is burning the straw'

Tiḫkór irü hae hétság ĝus łn hé.

tiḫkór

command

irü

CONT.PRF

hae

that

hétság

obey

ĝus

1SG

łn

2SG

hé

3SG

'he ordered you to obey me'

Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 12:29 am Reported speech in CT is indicated using the anaphoric hae:

Saman áłag hae hé, hae ĝreg eḫrîr hé.

saman

speak

áłag

DISC.PRF

hae

that

hé

3SG

ĝreg

ignite

/ḫerîr

PL/straw

hé

3SG

'he said (that) he is burning the straw'

Tiḫkór irü hae hétság ĝus łn hé.

tiḫkór

command

irü

CONT.PRF

hae

that

hétság

obey

ĝus

1SG

łn

2SG

hé

3SG

'he ordered you to obey me'

I want to be sure I understand this...I understand the "he said (...) " part.

But in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?

...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:02 amBut in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?

...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.

The latter. I'm sorry for any confusion (and for not posting here for a month).

I'm rather curious to hear how your conception of CT pronouns is—would you mind providing your analysis? Interesting to see an outside observer's perspective.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:12 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:02 amBut in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?
...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.

The latter. I'm sorry for any confusion (and for not posting here for a month).

I'm rather curious to hear how your conception of CT pronouns is—would you mind providing your analysis?

For the most part, I can't remember the majority of what I'd been thinking at the time (this is as true of this post in this thread, as any other thread anywhere on the internet)...but from what scraps are still available to me, in my brain and on paper, I can offer this:

If you'd asked me at the time, I might have been able to provide it - it was mostly bound up in how the persons in

hé ĝreg /ḫerîr hé
3SG ignite PL/straw 3SG

vs

ĝus łn hé
1SG 2SG 3SG

were ordered, with an action verb and an object (which was also the location of the verb) framed/bookended by the 3SG.....while the latter had no such thing: it was all bookends, no books - which is a nice look all its own.

Yes, it was probably that shallow of a thought. Based on what of my notes I can find from around then, I was reading about Piraha again, as well as the recced article about Moloko, and more from the former than the latter, I framed the question's second option as "he said (obey me (you will) ) "

I wish I could remember why I thought hae was handling it when the 1st Person wasn't present...but I didn't jot it down, so it slipped my mind; sorry.

Interesting to see an outside observer's perspective.

I wish I had more of a perspective to offer; sorry. Normally I try to make sure I understand things at least nominally when a new post is made (though we both know that what I think I understand, is sometimes correct and sometimes not; no worries)...and it was upon that perceived understanding that I made the observation and questions to which you replied recently.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:12 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:02 amBut in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?

...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.

The latter. I'm sorry for any confusion (and for not posting here for a month).

You were busy. No reason needed.

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:38 pm the recced article about Moloko

Hmm, which one’s that? I like Moloko.

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:38 pm the recced article about Moloko

Hmm, which one’s that? I like Moloko.

I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)

it was here: langsci-press.org/catalog/book/118

...and that link was from here:

Re: Keenir's scratchpad - 1-vowel naming lang (numbers only)
Post by bradrn » Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:14 pm
keenir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:57 pm
When you asked, I wasn't sure about allophony...I had been thinking this could be the closest I get to completing a One Vowel Project...but I had no thoughts about how to do allophony or wherein to aim, but I at least had a thought about where to place stress.
Languages with only one or two underlying vowels always have many more at the surface level. For instance, Moloko has an underlying vowel inventory /a (ə)/ (with the latter epenthetic), but a surface vowel inventory of [a ɛ œ ɔ ə ø ɪ ʊ i u]. Similarly, Abkhaz has /a ə/ realised as [a e o ə i u], and Kaytetye Arrernte has /a ə/ realised as [a ə i o u]. Usually the allophony is related to the surrounding consonants: e.g. /əj/ might be realised as .

(my emphasis)

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:30 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:38 pm the recced article about Moloko

Hmm, which one’s that? I like Moloko.

I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)

it was here: langsci-press.org/catalog/book/118

Oh, Friesen’s grammar. I thought you were talking about something different.

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:30 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 pm Hmm, which one’s that? I like Moloko.

I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)
it was here: langsci-press.org/catalog/book/118

Oh, Friesen’s grammar. I thought you were talking about something different.

sorry; i didn't mean to mislead or cause a misunderstanding.

keenir wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:39 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:30 pm
I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)
it was here: langsci-press.org/catalog/book/118

Oh, Friesen’s grammar. I thought you were talking about something different.

sorry; i didn't mean to mislead or cause a misunderstanding.

No worries, everything’s fine!

Over at the Other Place, chris_notts wrote:deictic distinctions [Ed.: in some Mayan languages] (this/that, here/there, …) are not marked by individual words or morphemes but are split between a distance neutral deictic trigger word which determines the function (presentative, adverbial, adnominal, …) and a series of clause final particles (not necessarily adjacent) which mark location

I have restructured CT deictics to work similarly. They are binarily composed in the way chris_notts describes.

The three trigger words:
ma – default
rel – presentative
tó – topical

The proximal deictics:
rmé – no, none
dú – one, some, any, few
iglí – any of these
l – certain, specific
híl – certain of these
en – all
hí – all of these
gí – this/that/these/those

The medial deictics:
réam – no, none
dúi – one, some, any, few
híehí – any of these
é – certain, specific
éhí – certain of these
dám – all
dáma – all of these
gía – this/that/these/those

The distal deictics:
réa – no, none
dúe – one, some, any, few
gíhí – any of these
néa – certain, specific
níehí – certain of these
m – all
gímí – all of these
tó – this/that/these/those

Presentatives give a sense of "here is X", "here goes X", "there's your X":

áge rel dołar iglí

áge

COP

rel

PRST

dołar

estate

iglí

one.of.those.PROX

'here's one of the estates (in question)'

áge rel kôr n łn gí

áge

COP

rel

PRST

kôr

problem

n

GEN

łn

2SG

gí

this.PROX

'well, here's your problem' — Jamie Hyneman, MythBusters

But you can also embed them into non-copular sentences:

łántá dúhłë łn, Amrołïs, rel tálga mío gía

łántá

be.able

dúhłë

eat

łn

2SG

Amrołïs

NAME

rel

PRST

tálga

ground

mío

via

gía

this.MED

'here, Ambrosius, you can eat from the ground' I've been listening to "Ambrosius" by Gnome for like the past two hours on repeat

The difference between ma and tó is a little hard for me to describe. Closest I can come to it is that ma tends to refer to things in physical space whereas tó is more abstract. If you're discussing possible new flats to move into, you would be more likely to use ma to refer to places you've been to and tó for places you're looking into but haven't actually visited. If I'm talking about my many cousins, I'd use ma to refer to them and tó if I were to get exasperated and exaggeratedly say "this one went home, this one stuck around, this one drove off I don't know where! It was confusing!". I don't know. It's weird.

Also thinking about implementing serial verb constructions into CT. It'd make discourse structure a lot easier but also more interesting.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:32 am

Over at the Other Place, chris_notts wrote:deictic distinctions [Ed.: in some Mayan languages] (this/that, here/there, …) are not marked by individual words or morphemes but are split between a distance neutral deictic trigger word which determines the function (presentative, adverbial, adnominal, …) and a series of clause final particles (not necessarily adjacent) which mark location

He also said it on this place:

chris_notts wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:27 pm Cross-posting something I submitted on CBB about a real feature of some Mayan languages which I thought was cool enough to steal for my latest conlang. …

I missed his post here. Mine apologies.

----------------------------------------------------------------

níir áłag harún ü tégé hé

níir

take

áłag

DISC.PRF

harún

book

ü

DEF

tégé

come.to

hé

3SG

'he brought the book, he came here to bring the book (but he and/or the book is no longer here)'

There is some nuance:

toḫ irü ałríhka Łési Uál l

toḫ

hand.over

irü

CONT.PRF

ałríhka

PL/money

ü

DEF

Łési

NAME

Uál

NAME

l

at

'Jesse gave Walt (the) money, Jesse handed money (over) to Walt (who still has it/used it for relevant reasons)'

níir irü ałríhka tîh Uál Łési

níir

take

irü

CONT.PRF

ałríhka

PL/money

tîh

give.to

Uál

NAME

Łési

NAME

'Jesse gave Walt some money (who still has it/used it for relevant reasons)'

Also compare how this might differ from simple conjunction of clauses:

tíhom áłag öd uh áłag érí

tíhom

dance

áłag

DISC.PRF

öd

and.V

uh

sing

áłag

DISC.PRF

érí

3PL

'they danced and sang'

tíhom áłag uh érí

tíhom

dance

áłag

DISC.PRF

uh

sing

érí

3PL

'they performed, they put on a performance'

hôu irü hé öd tégé ĝús

hôu

discern

irü

CONT.PRF

hé

3SG

öd

and.V

tégé

come.to

ĝús

1SG

'he achieved (an) understanding, and (then/therefore) I went there'

ḫôu irü hé tégé ĝús

hôu

discern

irü

CONT.PRF

hé

3SG

tégé

come.to

ĝús

1SG

'I tracked him here'

This can get ridiculous:

túl éden ihtiḫ egno edlmári gagné náaḫl érí

túl

begin

éden

drive

/tiriḫ

PL/wheel

egno

chase

/delmári

enemy.combatant

gagné

catch

náaḫl

kill

érí

3PL

'they began to pursue the enemy soldiers'

Confusingly, there are certain derivational morphemes that precede the referent and look a whole lot like verbs, but are bound—they can only coöccur with a referent, no words can intervene, and can (in some cases) take objects of their own. These themselves can be made part of a serial construction:

tr súlag hé łn

tr

CAUSE.STATE

súlag

joy

hé

3SG

łn

2SG

'you make him happy'

okseĝ idmísto tr súlag hé tr súlag ĝús łn

okseĝ

finance

idmísto

vacation

tr

CAUSE.STATE

súlag

joy

hé

3SG

tr

CAUSE.STATE

súlag

joy

ĝús

1SG

łn

2SG

'your paying for his vacation made him happy, which made me happy'

Also note that you can call the same verb multiple times in the same construction.

I'm trying to get back in the conworlding/conlanging groove, both for here and for the Akana relay. I have been bushed the past couple weeks for reasons I only partially understand.

--------------------------------

So I really want the Tim Ar to have an involved caste system (tël hugú, roughly 'census-ology'). I'm not sure how this develops aside from a few facets: I do know that the Caber dynasties had some influence in it and that a few millennia later Bleffys Udd has a hand in propping it up. The form I want it to have is basically a three-metric scheme: What I term méri 'origin', akrár 'station', and këmêm 'guild'. (I don't use "race/ethnicity", "varna", and "jati"; that wouldn't quite map.)

Méri

The term méri (pl. émri) is here glossed as 'origin'. It's not exactly race or ethnicity—the classifications aren't strictly by blood quantum/genetic, though that is a component of the system. From most to least prestigious:

- hía (< CK fi-a 'person of ten')
- uíráha (< CK wita-ha 'person of the mountain')
- konrín ('northerner')
- kía (< CK ki-a 'person of six')

The descriptor hía corresponds to the various descendants of the PTO cultural complex: The Tim Ar themselves, the O, the gPangin, and related peoples. Uíráha is a general term for certain favored peoples in the Empire (the hía themselves are actually a subset of uíráha, but they're worth mention separately), while the term konrín was appropriated by Bleffys Udd to refer to certain groups within the Empire who had willingly submitted to assimilation or were otherwise entrenched by that time; kía is basically a wastebasket taxon for "none of the above".

Specific uíráha constituents include the Caber (kên), the Täptäg (támreg), the peoples of the Mziddyun (all thrown together as sáĝir), the Kgáweq' (láhiḫ—and that is actually a cognate term), and those known as eglór—persons of one- to three-quarters hía heritage, regardless of any other ethnic makeup. It is sometimes possible for one to get "promoted" from eglór status to hía. (The Tim Ar have a system similar to plaçage—you can enter into a semi-formal arrangement with a member of another guild, station, or origin; this gives your placée and family some legal recourse upon your death and in some cases it was able to secure a legal status of hía for your children.)

Being from a specific méri limited your options in society quite a bit vis-à-vis social stratification (q.v.).

Akrár

Akrár, here glossed 'station', is roughly analogous to what you would consider social class in Western-style systems. The following stations exist; I've given some general examples of occupations whose guilds you'll find as members, though this is not a comprehensive list.

- oími (aristocracy) – administrative, land-owning, judges, legislators, gigabusiness, old money, hawaladars, high military officers, supra-local politicians
- oisog (academics) – lawyers, investigators, accountants, bankers, scientists, apothecaries, engineers, architects, educators, researchers, journalists, archivists, historians, military intelligence, creative arts
- łores (commoners) – white-collar jobs, desk jobs, office jobs
- kalahíes (vulgar commoners) – pink-collar jobs, jobs in the service industry, creatives, the gig economy as primary, law enforcement
- soł (thralls) – blue-collar jobs, manual labor, agricultural workers, the energy industry, mining, professional sports
- uígúa (untouchables) – the dirty jobs

You do find military among the ranks of the oími, oisog, and łores—or really most of the stations—but many of the actual boots on the ground (think the front-liners, the marines, black ops, SEALs) are considered uígúa, at least temporarily. Military service often presents roads for advancement of social status; it's one of the few ways that basically anyone has a chance to climb the social ladder. While deployed, the soldier is considered uígúa. If he musters out with a sufficient track record or demonstration of skill, he can often be "promoted" or "assigned" to an appropriate guild (q.v.). Similarly, while being educated, practitioners of medical care are considered uígúa. Medical work is another rare means by which one can be "promoted" or "assigned", though it's also somewhat more difficult to do so this way. (There are also medical guilds that just happen to be uígúa.)

To a first approximation, the difference between łores and kalahíes is, in many respects, "Would this job hire me without five years of experience/a Bachelor's degree"? Continuing this thread, you can think of oisog kind of like Master's- or Doctorate-level. The soł are often chattel; even if they're not formally owned by another (or the state), they're heavily discriminated against regardless. However, even they are considered better off than the uígúa—this descriptor covers jobs of the sort oft featured on Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe and also includes death-, disease-, and bodily-fluid-related professions generally. This deserves special mention because there are very strict rules on hygiene, so you'll get things like an oisog doctor ordering around some uígúa attendants who do the actual work with the (contagious) patient. This causes much needless overcomplication. (The term uígúa itself comes from Classical Khaya wiqhu-a 'people of 12', from the base in which the Khaya counted. As you might guess, the Tim Ar ended up Uno Reverse Carding them.)

The interplay between méri and possible akrár works this way:
- Hía can be oími, oisog, or łores
- Uíráha can be oisog, łores, or kalahíes
- Konrín can be łores, kalahíes, or soł
- Kía can be kalahíes, soł, or uígúa

Këmêm

The këmêm (pl. egumêm), or 'guild', is the endogamous extended unit to which one belongs and within which one is generally expected to marry. There are too many of these to list, and they operate to varying degrees of specificity. For example, the Úulïd guild are expected to become master chefs, whereas the Tálgahkáhan are specifically theoretical and megastructural engineers, and the Îłtáaî are daredevils and performance artists; on the other hand, you get guilds like the Këlogmê, who constitute basically all restaurant personnel within a given major metropolitan area. In some cases, a locative element is present to one degree of specificity or another; a number of egumêm originated from regional (or sometimes even intra-city!) professional societies, trade guilds, or unions.

You're supposed to marry within your këmêm; any children of that union will be of the same këmêm. However, it is acknowledged that children from mixed-këmêm unions will exist; the rules regarding plaçage are still being ironed out, but generally you default to the méri, akrár, and këmêm of your mother. The exception to this is if the father is at least half-hía (i.e. at least one grandfather was hía); in some situations this can "override" expectations of heritability—though often only in legal force upon reaching adulthood or upon death of the father. You can make one of your placée's children your primary heir, but you'll only do this if a) you have no legitimate children of your own or b) you have judged your legitimate heirs unworthy—though such a move is not to be taken lightly; you're basically insinuating that your flesh and blood is such a failure that you had to go outside the guild to find someone suitable.

Preliminary studies into STK glyphs:

"Mŭy Bǎhon" in STK glyphs (slightly outdated version)

----------------

I suppose I should do some work on the other languages of Tethír and its environs.

Proto-Lakes

/m n nʲ/
/p pʰ b t tʰ d tʲ tʲʰ dʲ k kʰ g q qʰ ɢ/
/f v s z/
/ɹ j w/

/a ə Ø/

(C)(g/r/j/w)V

*wØ, *jØ > *u, *i

This may have implications in that some of the daughters treat the high vowels like consonants instead of vowels, at least in some situations.

When appearing in second position in the onset, *g is given to assimilation in voice/aspiration to an adjacent stop: thana + *-g- = thkhana. This does not happen with fricatives, which themselves voice: sarya + -g- = sgarya (phonetically zgarya)

Some Things that can Happen:
- Heavy onsets attract stress, which becomes pitch accent; the cluster is then lost, phonemicizing tone
- *u *i just…drop, wholesale (maybe after palatalizing something?)
- Broad and slender! Woo!
- *wa, *ja > *ɔ, *ɛ with *wə, *jə > *o, *e

*dhəġwa
*dakhya

Pronouns

*qhu 1SG.F
*ġyabrə 1SG.M
*prə 1PL
*ġyə 2F.SUP
*ġaya 2F.INF
*tjhə 2M
*byə 3.F.SUP
*ġu 3.F.INF
*tjhaphrə 3M
*kha 3.ZOIC
*khrə 3.INAN

-r- infix on masculine verbs: ġutjhwa > ġrutjhwa?

Proto-Lakes is henceforth Proto-Vyə (Archaic Vyə vyə, augmentative of vyə́ 'highlands, piedmont'), at least until I sort out the phonology of Classical Vyə. This is ultimately the source from which Jädewan sprung.

Archaic Vyə actually is attested from very shortly after Proto-Vyə was spoken. The main phonological developments between Proto-Vyə and Archaic Vyə were:

1. Pitch accent developed. The earliest complex onset or bivocalic sequence "won" the stress; otherwise it went to the initial.
2. *u *i deleted when *w *y and/or *u *i were in the following syllable.
3. If the initial two or final two syllables shared a vowel, the first deleted.
4. A lot of final high vowels were lost. Sometimes this "stranded" a glide *w *y, which then syllabified.
5. Under pressure from the existence of *f, *w fortited to v.
6. When a consonant cluster formed that didn't involve *-g-, assimilation in voicing regressed.

Not all words had a tone, but generally you could have a maximum of one (bar compounds and the like). Examples of minimal sets include:

kryá (< *kirya) 'soul, essence' vs. krya (< *kriya) 'apricot'
phəġvá (< *phəġwa) vs. phə́ġva (< *phəġawa) vs. phəġva (< *phəġəwa)
vyə́ (< *əwyə) 'plain, foothills' vs. vyə (< *əəwyə) 'Vyə Mountains'
kyáv (< *kuyaawi) ' vs. kyav (< *kayawi)
phá (< *pha) 'to twirl' vs. pha (< *phaa) 'javelin, lance'

Dgvə́gvə khsatk bhrágəvg

dgvə́

man

-gvə

VOL

khsadh

temple

-k

ACC

bhagə

see

<r>

PST

-vg

M

'the man looked at the temple'

See that M? That is the masculine subject marker. It means the agent of the verb is male. You can suffix -vg to an accusative noun to imply a male object as well.

The nominal augmentative in Archaic Vyə descended from reduplication in Proto-Vyə: *khadhu > khádh 'room', *khá~khadhu > khsadh 'temple'. The descendant of *=gəfə was -gvə, a volitive marker. *=ki lived on as an accusative marker -k: khsadh 'temple' + -k 'ACC' > khsatk 'temple.ACC'.

When two stops of the same place stood together thanks to infixes or other phonetic shenanigans, the second changed to s (or, if it was labial, f or v, and usually the latter)—cf. the example of khsadh above.

Ignore the below, it's for recordkeeping purposes only:

Verbs had an irrealis in K-, a velar obstruent that assimilated in voicing and aspiration to its neighbors.

*phasra > phsrá 'do, act, take action' + K- > phkhsra 'would do'
*wəgi > və́g 'duplicate, multiply' + K- > gvə́g 'would increase' (úgəg 'to envy' < *wgəg from before analogy took over)
*sikyəra > skyə́ra 'eat' + K- (> *skgyə́ra > *sksyə́ra) > ksyə́ra 'would eat'
*radgasra > rdgásra 'nourish, feed' + K- > rgdsra 'would feed'

There was also an *a- inceptive in PV that led to some lexicalization shenanigans. Basically, when the first vowel of the original verb stem was *a, the *a- prefix would delete, but after attracting the tone. This led to a lot of derivations, analogical forms, and general idiocy. Note that some idiomatic forms exist.

*a-phasra > aphsrá 'start, begin; step in' + K- > khphsra 'would begin'
*a-wəgi > avə́g 'copy, mimic' + K- > gavə́g 'would imitate'
*a-sikyəra > askyə́ra 'begin to eat' + K- > gaskyə́ra 'would begin to eat'
*a-radgasra > radgásra (> aradgásra by analogy) 'begin to feed' + K- > garadgásra 'would begin to feed'

The a- forms won out for the inceptive. By analogy, we get forms like:
phsra 'plan to'
vəg 'establish, found'
skyəra 'convene for a meal, gather together to eat'
rdgasra 'hand out (originally food), dispense, parcel out, assign'

ġyabrəgv khrə́k gvrəgivg

ġyabrə

1SG.M

-gv

VOL

khrə́

3SG.INAN

-k

ACC

g-

IRR

vəg

establish

<r>

PST

-vg

M

'I would have established it'

There was also an experiential in -rg (< *-irgi), implying some sort of great effort, focus, or effect on the doer:

ġyabrəgv khsyə́k skyə́rarg

ġyabrə

1SG.M

-gv

VOL

khsyə́

quinoa

-k

ACC

skyə́ra

swallow

-rg

EXP

'I (m.) ate the quinoa'

qhúgv khrə́k phsrárg

qhú

1SG.F

-gv

VOL

khrə́

3SG.INAN

-k

ACC

phsrá

do

-rg

EXP

'I (f.) have done it, I have seen it done, I have achieved it'

…rav qhú rgú dírghə́k khsirə́rg…

rav

and

qhú

1SG.F

rgú

in.like.manner

dírghə

animal

-k

ACC

khsyə

change

<r>

PST

=rg

EXP

'…and I became as an animal…'

Here's a good example of the differences in practice:

qhúgv sárigirg

qhú

1SG.F

-gv

VOL

sárig

serve

-rg

EXP

'I have served' (i.e. and I did it because it fulfills me)

qhúgv srárig

qhú

1SG.F

-gv

VOL

sárig

serve

<r>

PST

'I served' (i.e. "for me it was Tuesday")

More things to ignore: