Zompist Bboard Again

Contents:

Context http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15375
Climate Map: http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15379
Country Map: http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15439
Nouns: http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15653
Caste: http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15824
Pronouns: http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15936
Verbs I - Politeness, Past, Present and Future Tenses, Active Voice, Passive Voice http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15936
Verbs II - Causatives http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=395#p15936
Subordinate Clauses - http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t ... =20#p18420


Vedreki is the native first language of about 190m people in total. Vedreki speakers comprise the majority of Azdrai (non-human) inhabitants of the Empire of Cheyaden (approximately 161m within the borders of the empire proper and maybe another 10m in the occupied Naxaqeen territories). It is also spoken by approximately 18m in the principality of Erelese Vedrek on the north coast of the continent of Erelan, which forms the south side of the roughly triangular Inner Sea. The continent of Naxaq forms the north-west side of the Inner Sea and is separated from Erelan by the Western Passage. The north-eastern side is made up of the southern end of the Khardan continent, which politically comprises the south of the Tarkentian Empire; that continent is separated from Naxaq by the Northern Passage and from Erelan by the Eastern Passage. The Empire is centred on the Cheyadeneen archipelago, a volcanic chain of islands approximately 1000 miles long, which consists of 6 large islands and multiple smaller ones, in the eastern part of the Inner Sea, but extends all the way up the eastern seaboard of the continent of Naxaq.

Erelese Vedreki is different in a number of respects – spelling and pronunciation – from standard Vedreki, which is the speech of the largest Vedreki city in the Empire, Black City or Moris Udrek. This introduction concentrates on the language of that city. Vedreki is part of the Central family of languages, mainly found in the northern part of Erelan and is most closely related to the languages of Nakhese (spoken in Xalnakh and Kornakh), Uralan, and Katrardheen all of which are spoken on the north coast of Erelan. While the consonantal complexity of proto-Central has been simplified in all these languages, Vedreki, along with Uralan, has retained the most complex inflectional morphology of the languages in the group. It is unrelated, despite significant borrowings between the two, to the human language of Cheyadeneen spoken across the Cheyadeneen archipelago and the rest of the empire.

In terms of phonology

Consonant	bilabial	labio-dental	alveolar	velar	uvular	post-alv
stop	p, b		t,d	k,g	q
fricative		f,v	s	kh, gh	qh	x (sh)
approximant			r,l
nasal	m	n

The “q” sound should be pronounced as in Arabic (Qatar) – note the lack of voiced uvular stop or fricative.
“qh” should be pronounced as in Classical Arabic, without the velarisation found in modern Arabic dialects, to distinguish it from the separate Vedreki voiceless velar fricative (“kh”). Erelese Vedreki is rapidly eliding these two sounds and Nakhese has lost the distinction altogether.
Note also the lack of voiced alveolar fricative.
Word-final “r” is essentially silent and elongates the previous vowel, so ghaxar (wide) is pronounced “ghaxaa”; be careful, however, to pronounce the “r” in other contexts – so sevardok (house) is not pronounced in standard Vedreki as sevaadok (although non-rhoticity is gaining ground across the archipelago, but not interestingly in Erelese Vedrek which has less contact with Cheyadeneen, where non-rhoticity is the norm).
As with Cheyadeneen, voice assimilation both progressive and regressive occurs eg a voiced obstruent (stop or fricative) is unvoiced prior to a following unvoiced obstruent, or alveolar lateral approximant - “l”: eg “neb” eleven becomes “nep” prior to “taal” twelve to form neptaal, which means 132. By the same token “ved” six assimilates to vettaal (6 x 12; 72). “Dalb” sun therefore becomes “tlab-” in cases other than nominative singular. It also becomes “talb” in “fleqtalb” east. Labio-dental nasal consonants also assimilate to following bilabial nasals; “nm” assimilates to “mm”.
Unvoiced initial stops are aspirated; elsewhere unaspirated (a rule shared with Cheyadeneen).
Syncope breaks up otherwise illegal consonant clusters formed by either inflectional morphology, derivation or combinations of words to form compounds by deleting a medial consonant.
Historical interchange between the liquids r/l and dissimulation (usually m to b) where two different nasals are beginning and end of the same final syllable.

vowels	front rounded	back rounded	front unrounded	back unrounded	front long	back long
high	i		ü	u		uu
mid	e				ee
low	a	o	ö		aa	oo

Three diphthongs exist: “au” which is pronounced as in cow, “oe” which is pronounced as in coin – and with very few exceptions exists word-finally - and “ae” pronounced as in sky.

Generally each syllable should receive roughly equal stress, consistently with the syllable-timed nature of the language. Maximal syllable structure is
C(C)V(C)(C)
This can be set out as
(Stop/Fricative) + (Approximant) + V + (n, Fricative, Approximant) + (p, b, t, d)
(Stop/Fricative) + (Approximant) + V + C
(Stop/Fricative/Nasal/Approx) + V + C
(Stop/Fricative/Nasal/Approx) + V + (n, Fricative) + (t, d)
Nb f or v + r is almost never found, although there are instances of kh + r or qh + r. Generally this rule is becoming fricative + l at start of syllable
Syllable-splitting:
a) If syllable ends in CC, next will start with vowel
Dakht-un (to say)
b) Three consonants together are forbidden (in same syllable)
Fleq-tlab-a (East (acc sg))
c) Split between forbidden combinations
Flakh-noe (a speech
d) If two vowels are together split between the vowels

If anyone's interested, they have a choice. I can either move straight on to nouns and nominal morphology, or give you some geopolitical context for the empire or non-human-human relations. There is also a spectacularly unhelpful world map.

Good to see this language finally up!
Personally, I should very much like to learn more about the world (and what makes these non-humans so different, considering their phonetic inventory seems pretty much identical to that of a human). I can also offer you a redo of your world map, should you wish it...

As you wish - we'll move through some context first and then on to nominal morphology.

Essentially not much different! We are starting from the hopelessly scientifically implausible premise that humanoid aliens evolved independently on an entirely different planet. 20,000 actual humans were then dumped on Azdra and left to fend for themselves by another group of inscrutable aliens for reasons nobody understands, but this has led to a minority human religion "Vlannarism" worshipping these aliens.

"Azdra" if you're paying attention is not a Vedreki word, but a Cheyadeneen one - although just to be confusing they sometimes refer to the planet as Cheyaden (and the Empire, and one of the islands, and the capital city). Vedreki for the world is "navak" and so the Azdrai, the original native species are the navakatnae (people who live in the world). One difference is plain first up. The eagle-eyed will have noticed from the first post that 132 is neptaal in Vedreki (7 12s) and therefore Vedreki numbering is base 12. They have six fingers on each hand (and toes too) and refer to humans as velnasu (five fingers). The aliens are approximately 1.35-1.6m tall, with their hair in a mane down the back of the neck to below the shoulder blades (which has implications for tunics and shirts which cut down off the shoulder to fit below the mane). Hyper-extensible claws on a six-fingered hand, and a cartilage ridge from the back of the ear, which is itself swept back and curls upwards, down the neck, framing the mane. Bottom eyelid is bigger than top, so Azdrai blink upwards over almost jet black eyes (no central pupil). Anatomically similar to humans, but tend to longer life (approximately 140 A years; 160 E years); this reflects in the lack of marriage for life in most Azdrai cultures. Rather individuals tend to "bind" together to produce children over a period and then when the child is born form part of an extended band (or family) which will live together in houses of up to twenty persons to bring up the children, but otherwise feel free to drift into relationships with other people within the band (certainly if it's a large and powerful band). Azdrai tend to produce singletons, but with a significantly higher proportion of twins than humans; the longer gestation period (1 A year) means that children are at a higher level of development when born. They are telepathic, able to communicate with other Azdrai whose mental patterns have been learnt. Technically there is no maximum range to this, but in practice Azdrai tend to have a mental block on long-distance communication.

Points for anyone who correctly guesses which actual star system I've borrowed.

Azdra is part of a trinary system and orbits the larger of the two central stars (Dalb and Dadalb - essentially translated as Sun and Second Sun) which orbit around each other. Their orbital period around each other is 79.9 Earth years (or 70.27 Azdrai years). The A and B components of this binary star can approach each other to 11.2 AU (1.68 billion km), or about the mean distance between the Sun and Saturn; and may recede as far as 35.6 AU (5.33 billion km), approximately the distance from the Sun to Pluto.

Dalb is 1.1 x mass of our sun with a luminosity 1.331 x that of our sun and a G2V type star. Dadalb is smaller - at 0.9 x mass of the sun and is a K-type star. The planet orbits at a distance of 1.09AU = 101m miles (Dalb is significantly brighter than the sun at this distance). The third star (a red dwarf) is approximately 0.25 ly away and gravitationally bound to the inner binary system, pushing cometary material inside their frost lines and allowing for life.

Orbital Period = 1.137 Earth (E) years (414.005 days)
Radius = 1.011 that of Earth; equatorial diameter = 8012 miles; circumference = 25173 miles (equatorial); surface area 201,657,852 sq miles (due to slightly smaller polar circumference); approximate land surface area = 60,100,000 sq miles
Mass = 1.033 that of Earth
Gravity = 1.036 = 10.16 m/s/s

Retrograde-spin planet as against magnetic north so sun rises in west: Orbit around Dalb is retrograde vis-a-vis the orbit of Dalb against its binary partner (Dadalb. It has a solar day 1.1788 x that of Earth (approx. 28.3 hours) and a year of 352.05 Cheyadeneen days (414.005 Earth days)

Axial tilt 19.186 degrees
Orbital inclination against the Aca-ACb orbit 1.2 degrees

The rest of Dalb's solar system consists of a small moon around Azdra (approximately 780 miles in diameter at a distance of 89,000 miles) and two small planets Talak (Mercury sized) about 55m miles out and Karlax a Mers-sized planet approximately 2.3 AU out. Frart orbits Daldalb, with a radius of 0.87 Earth (diameter = 6895 miles; mass 0.91); distance 66.03 m miles from Dadalb and is the location for our first off-world colony. The third star has a single planet.

Next up some geopolitical context and a crappy map

This is what passes for a map. Anyway the action, so to speak, takes place in and around the enclosed sea in the Southern Hemisphere - that's the Inner Sea. The big continent to the right going up to towards the North Pole is Khardan - almost all of that is the Tarkentian Empire. The Empire of Cheyaden takes in the islands in the middle of the Inner Sea and pretty much everything to the right of the red slash on the dog bone shaped continent to the left of the Inner Sea. That's Naxaq. The continent to the south is Erelan. Two of the other great powers, the Republic of Xalnakh and Kingdom of Hertad are located either end of the north coast. Hertad at the east end and Xalnakh taking up the bit to the east of the mountains (again in red). The Verekeen Confederacy is the long blue archipelago in the Northern Hemisphere and is a close and long-standing ally of Cheyaden (possibly it's the volcanic island connection!). The Antarctic continent is basically uninhabited and the northern circum-polar continent is sparsely inhabited.

The two big islands to the right are Xalkelt in the North and Korkelt in the South and the equatorial continent has been divided up between Xalnakh and Hertad into their colonial empires.

As you may have guessed, this is supposed to indicate climate. Dark Green = Tropical; Brown = Savannah; Dark Yellow = desert; Red = Mountain; White = Arctic; Black = Humid Sub-tropical; Grey = steppe; Light Blue = Oceanic; Dark Blue = Humid Continental; Light Yellow = cold desert; Light Green = monsoon. The final colour is Mediterranean (slightly orange-y-yellow?)

Remember it should be wrong way round; planet has retrograde spin.

evmdbm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:26 amAzdra is part of a trinary system and orbits the larger of the two central stars (Dalb and Dadalb - essentially translated as Sun and Second Sun) which orbit around each other. Their orbital period around each other is 79.9 Earth years (or 70.27 Azdrai years). The A and B components of this binary star can approach each other to 11.2 AU (1.68 billion km), or about the mean distance between the Sun and Saturn; and may recede as far as 35.6 AU (5.33 billion km), approximately the distance from the Sun to Pluto.

Dalb is 1.1 x mass of our sun with a luminosity 1.331 x that of our sun and a G2V type star. Dadalb is smaller - at 0.9 x mass of the sun and is a K-type star. The planet orbits at a distance of 1.09AU = 101m miles (Dalb is significantly brighter than the sun at this distance). The third star (a red dwarf) is approximately 0.25 ly away and gravitationally bound to the inner binary system, pushing cometary material inside their frost lines and allowing for life.

Is this a coincidence or is Dalb the star we know as Alpha Centauri?

And the prize goes to... drum roll.... WeepingElf

Indeed so. Azdra is second planet out from Alpha Centauri A. Here's an even worse map - I'm not sure anybody will be able to read the legends with the country names, but here you are anyway. Pedant probably can't do anything with these, but you're welcome to try!

evmdbm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:10 am And the prize goes to... drum roll.... WeepingElf

Indeed so. Azdra is second planet out from Alpha Centauri A. Here's an even worse map - I'm not sure anybody will be able to read the legends with the country names, but here you are anyway. Pedant probably can't do anything with these, but you're welcome to try!

Political Boundaries map cheyaden.jpg

I’d hardly call it worse--just as I’d hardly call the other one bad--but I do have one question. These are, quite frankly, some astoundingly large territories. Even Hertad’s big enough, but the Takertian Empire crosses from desert to jungle to plains to a climate not unlike northern China--in the process filling up an entire continent. And most of the subcontinent kingdoms comprise, well, their entire subcontinent, and usually these have at least three different climate zones. Remind me what level of tech these people are at again? Only it may be a tad difficult to maintain such extensive empires without some form of near-modern development...

That is one thing I never really explained. In terms of technological development we are say 150 or so years in advance of Earth, so travel across the planet is by way of maglev train with vacuum tube trains being introduced for for the longest cross-continental routes, north to south of the Tarkentian Empire or between Mingha (capital of Hertad) and Motrempa (capital of Xalnakh). Transport links around the Cheyadeneen archipelago are by way of maglev trains - distances aren't really long enough to justify a vac-train. Short haul air travel is largely superfluous except for island hopping. However, hypersonic passenger planes still take long-distance travel as they typically run at approx. 3500-4000 mph, making a flight from Cheyaden to Verek (approximately 8,000 miles) around 2 ½ hours, and from Mingha to Motrempa around an hour (and maybe two and a bit on the train).

Remember I pointed out earlier that Frart (which as you've all realised by now orbits Alpha Centauri B) is the site of our very first off-world colony - or two given the Tarkentians went off in a huff to do their own thing. Hypergolic rockets from the Cheyadeneen spaceport facility on Naxaq allow for orbital access for payload and passengers and other major powers have their own space ports, usually as close to the equator as they can get. There are several on Arkleb, the tropical continent. Interplanetary fusion trips are common – daily – with frequent contact between Azdra and Frart - and we are on the verge of developing a workable Alcubierre Drive.

Vedreki can be considered as a generally SVO language; since the nouns, as we see, are highly inflected for case this quite frequently does not matter as the subject and object can be discovered relatively easily wherever the word might be found – and can be shifted about for emphasis therefore, but many of the corollaries are also found: prepositions rather than postpositions, postnominal genitives, but adjectives are found prior to the qualified nouns which might suggest that in the past it had been an OV language (and indeed the tendency of Central – and indeed most Azdrai - languages such as Nakhese and Katrardheen, counter to human languages, is for OSV or OVS word order).

Vedreki nouns come in two genders – masculine and feminine - and decline for case and number. Nouns ending in consonants are masculine; those ending in vowels feminine, subject to not very many exceptions. There are three numbers – singular, dual and plural - and five cases in a nominative-accusative alignment – nominative, accusative, dative, genitive and ablative. Note that since the dual refers to precisely two, not “about two” or “roughly two” it cannot be used if you are not sure of the number, but it is definitely more than one. In those cases the plural must be used. There is in any case significant overlap – or syncretism - in the declension of dual and plural in nouns (only in the nominative and ablative cases do they differ) and they are often merged in pronominal declension, and in some verbal conjugations.The cases are used in pretty much the way you would expect from Latin or German. In particular the use of the ablative case is worth highlighting. First, it is used in conjunction with most (but not all) prepositions. Secondly, it is the predicate in a comparison. The thing being compared (ie the subject) is in the nominative case, but the thing with which it is compared is in the ablative and takes the conjunction qa. Thirdly the material from which something is made is put in the ablative – naqa velknau – a tower made from bricks. Likewise verbs of origin and motion requiring a starting point use the ablative to indicate that starting point. Unlike in English or Latin where the genitive is used to indicate partivity – partitives in Vedreki are also put in the ablative, to indicate a sense of taking “from”. Beg naqau = part of the tower

These tables give the standard declensions - there is no definite or indefinite article

masculine	singular	dual	plural
nominative	sireg (man)	siregna	siregnae
accusative	sirega	siregnat	siregnat
dative	sireget	siregnet	siregnet
genitive	siregem	siregne	siregne
ablative	siregem	siregne	siregnau

feminine	singular	dual	plural
nominative	flenta (word)	flentna	flentnae
accusative	flentu	flentnat	flentnat
dative	flentu	flentnet	flentnet
genitive	flentem	flentne	flentne
ablative	flentau	flentne	flentnau

Vedreki is reasonably tolerant of clusters, and the syllable-splitting rules above mean that although CCC is not permitted within a syllable inflections start a new syllable so the plural of flenta is flent-nae. However, there are cases where the cluster is otherwise impossible to say. This explains the declension of miklu (stone). Mikln… simply can’t be said without dropping the “l” through syncope so the nominative plural is miknae. Erelese Vedreki by contrast deals with the issue through epenthesis, the addition of an “e” to yield miklenae. One kink. Feminine nouns in -u in the nominative singular do not then go on to have the same form in the accusative and dative. Miklu declines miklu (acc), mikla (dat), miklem (gen), miklau (abl).

A second quirk with noting. Dalb - sun/star and nouns like it such as qalb (war) collapse the first syllable in all other forms. So the accusative singular of qalb is qlaba not qalba, and of dalb, tlaba.

Adjectives agree with the noun in gender, case and number, and will (usually) precede the noun with which they are associated or qualify. Their feminine declension is in -a in the nominative singular. betax (hot); betaxa (fem nom sg).

Pronouns and verbs next and then I can explain the caste structure.

So caste is a disaster. It is the reason why nothing of note was ever developed or invented by a Vedreki. The Azdrai have invented lots - biotech and genetech from the laboratories of Xalnakh and Hertad; vac-trains were first developed and made commercially in the Tarkentian Empire and so on, just not Vedreki. It is the reason why a slum of corrugated iron, jury-rigged electricity lines and open sewers exists almost directly opposite the steel and concrete skyscrapers of Kachalpa (human city) central business district. It is the reason why although the richest noble and warrior caste bands are as rich as any human average Vedreki income is only 2/3 that of Cheyadeneen humans and 3/4 that in the Tarkentian Empire.

So why does it persist? Basically there are five castes: noble, warrior, worker, farmer and servant. Two upper and three lower or primitive castes. Caste governs what jobs you can do, what you can wear, even what your name is: Vedreki names come in three parts - the personal name, band name and then a caste prefix before Vedrek. Noble caste are kanaVedrek, warrior caste dorbaVedrek, worker castes idriVedrek, farmer caste xaVedrek and servant caste daVedrek. The structure was basically in place 2500 years ago when the First Caste Rebellion rocked the archipelago. Essentially the lower castes rose up. They had had some practice at war. The warrior caste used to be perfectly happy to stick swords in the hands of worker castes and send them out as fodder. They had charismatic leadership. The nobles and warriors had training and proper leadership, but not the numbers. Chaos reigned across the archipelago for almost 2 decades. Eventually the rebels took to hiding out in the lands of the then Kingdom of Cheyaden and upper caste armies and raiding parties would come hunting them. This - as you might imagine - endeared nobody to the humans, who promptly intervened and the rebellion was snuffed out under human swords. The King of Cheyaden basically saved the noble and warrior bacon. There was a price to be paid; the price was that they acknowleged the suzerainty of the king, who promptly had himself crowned emperor. This, humans call, empire. Vedreki call it confederation or alliance. Recognising that they (humans) could not now risk another exhausting war though the deal was - bow to me and I'll let you govern yourself as you wish. This the Vedreki heard as "You carry on as before and we'll snuff out any rebellion." Further the "your species your rules" principle wasn't just tacitly accepted, clause 1 of the Treaty of White City (Arven Udrek) which formed the empire states quite clearly "All matters of personal law governing Vedreki shall be the sole competence of the Vedreki authorities." Even as imperial rule solidified human control over security, defence and foreign affairs and over "conflict of laws" rules when Vedreki and humans came into contact, that clause underpinned the retention of caste. It therefore fossilised and carried on even as it was outlawed and abandoned on the mainland.

2500 years later, it is a disastrous anachronism. Most powerful noble and warrior bands (families essentially) want to keep it - to shore up their own power, although the more thoughtful recognise that even if it were abolished it would take decades at least to break down the entrenched wealth and power of the important/wealthy nobles and warriors and some suspect that it would in fact improve the position of those warrior bands. Some religious fundamentalists point to the fact that God created nobles from his head, warriors from his arms, workers and farmers from his body and servants from his feet as proving that abolition would simply be against God's will and threaten war if the emperor abolishes it. Lower caste agitators engage in low level terrorist attacks against Vedreki police stations and so on while liberal humans on the left (the Social Action Party) or even libertarian nationalists (the Nationalist Party) call for its forcible abolition. But then if the fundamentalists do carry through with their threat, a civil war would destroy the fabric of an advanced major power...it is politically toxic, but an apparent sword of Damocles sustains the unsustainable....

Caste has one other major impact. Politeness is a major thing in the language with two sets of personal pronouns: common and higher and different verbal forms to show politeness and deference towards the person you are speaking to or towards the subject or object of the sentence. That's up next...

Looking at Earth history, caste has never acted as a complete block to development.

Maybe not, but you can plausibly see it as holding development back, I think.

There are two sets of pronouns: the neutral/inferior set and the superior set. Vedreki society is highly stratified by caste and this also goes with the fact that the verb inflects for politeness as well. The dual and plural forms are identical, except for the second person – which is essentially regular - where the nominative and ablative dual and plural differ. The first table gives the common or neutral personal pronouns. The second gives the higher or superior pronouns

nom	acc	dat	gen	abl	meaning
a	am	as	me	ae	I
ut	uta	utet	ute	ute	you
on	ona	onet	oneb	oneb	he/it
one	onu	onet	ona	onau	she/it
dae	det	dem	de	dau	we
utna(e)	utnat	utnet	utne	utne (utnau)	you
ili	ilim	ilis	ile	ilau	they

The superior forms are essentially the same but with ka(d)- prefixed.

nom	acc	dat	gen	abl	meaning
kada	kadam	kadas	kadme	kadae	I
kadut	kaduta	kadutet	kadute	kadute	you
kadon	kadona	kadonet	kadoneb	kadoneb	he
kadone	kadonu	kadonet	kadona	kadonau	she
kadnae	kadnat	kadnet	kadne	kadnau	we
kadutna(e)	kadutnat	kadutnet	kadutne	kadutne/ au	you
kadili	kadilim	kadilis	kadile	kadilau	they

The general rule here is that the higher ranking person in the conversation – either because of their caste or position or age - is referred to in superior terms. The speaker will therefore refer to themselves in the superior if they are clearly higher ranking than the person they are speaking to, so a noble caste will refer to himself as “kada” when speaking to a servant who in turn will be referred to as “ut” (and therefore the servant caste will refer to himself as “a” and the noble as “kadut”; if they are speaking about – or referring to - another noble caste that person will be “on” for the noble caste but “kadon” for the servant. There is clearly the scope for embarrassment when speaking to strangers so usually everyone starts by referring to themselves in the inferior/neutral before establishing the relative caste hierarchy. One easy rule: The emperor (and God) is always referred to as “kadon” or “kadut,” although, as the emperor (not God) is human, usually it is considered impolite to speak to him in Vedreki even with an interpreter if one understands Cheyadeneen, which pretty much all noble or warrior caste do.

Reflexives are formed with a clitic –nix : eg
ammix; asnix; menix; aenix (myself)
utanix, utetnix; utenix (yourself)

Verbs.

This will take some time as there's quite a bit to get through. Vedreki verbs inflect for tense, voice and politeness. Three simple tenses - present, past and future and three perfect tenses formed periphrastically with an auxiliary akaq; there are three other auxiliary verbs - torun, sutun and nareq which have very un-standard average European functions.

Among the finite forms there is no morphological distinction between the different moods found in some language (eg the subjunctive) other than with the imperative. Irrealis forms are formed with a particle “bi” placed after the verb. There is some dispute as to whether there is a true causative voice (otherwise interpreted as I'm not sure what I've done here). Questions are formed via the particle “ba” placed at the end of the sentence (in effect replacing the question mark in English). Vedreki verbs inflect for the gender and number of the subject, so it is typical to only provide third person forms. It is therefore necessary to provide the subject in all cases except a small number of avalent verbs, usually referring to the weather, where no subject (or object) is provided. Infinitives in the active voice end in -aq, -eq, or -un; and the passive voice -aghaq, -agheq or -unur.

The following gives the plain or neutral forms of the active voice. Present tense first then past and then future. When speaking to a superior (although not necessarily about a superior) the polite version is used, adding a prefix: pro(n)-. Negation is also indicated via prefixation: ü(n) -, which will be prefixed to the polite prefix if needed. The important thing about the polite forms is that you are being polite to the person spoken to. That will tend to imply that they are referred to by means of the superior pronoun, but there may be other third persons referred to in the superior and superior pronouns may therefore be used when speaking in the plain form of the verb. Secondly until the relative hierarchy is established everyone should speak – unless being deliberately rude – in the prefixed polite verbal forms using the inferior pronouns to refer to themselves.

Noble to servant:
Did you see my pen
Ut voxes kitenu kadme ba
You - plain nom, see-plain forn past masc sing, pen-acc, my-superior, question particle

Servant's reply
I have not seen (I did not see) your pen
A üprovoxes kitenu kadute
I-plain nom, neg-polite see past masc sing, pen-acc, your superior

infinitive	masc sing	fem sing	dual	plural
kretaq (believe)	kretat	kretata	kretam	kretamma
voxeq (see)	voxet	voxeta	voxem	voxemma
dakhtun (say)	dakhtut	dakhtuta	dakhtia	dakhtia

infinitive	m sing	f sing	dual	plural
kretaq	kretas	kretasa	kretasam	kretasamma
voxeq	voxes	voxesa	voxesam	voxesamma
dakhtun	dakhtus	dakhtusa	dakhtusia	dakhtusia

infinitive	m sing	f sing	dual	plural
kretaq	kretal	kretala	kretalam	kretalamma
voxeq	voxel	voxela	voxelam	voxelamma
dakhtun	dakhtul	dakhtula	dakhtulia	dakhtulia

Perfect tenses are formed with the relevant part of the verb akaq which is only used as an auxiliary and never as a synonym for tenaq, meaning to have. Akaq is regular and combines with the infinitive form of the verb. Negation and politeness always goes with the finite verb.
A akat kretaq I have believed.
A ünakat kretaq I have not believed
A pronakat kretaq

In some circumstances when English uses the present perfect, Vedreki uses the present if the action has not yet been completed. Likewise even if the action took place or started prior to another action in the past and is still going on at the time of the second past action the past tense rather than past perfect is used.

I have been living here for two years
A sevardut illudios viu da toqhodne
I-plain nom, live - pres masc sing, here, for two years- abl pl

Aspectual distinctions are therefore only partly encoded in the language. In many cases completion is indicated by one of the three perfect tenses, but in others it is indicated via the simple past or future – the simple present always refers to a continuing action. In other words while the perfective aspect in Cheyadeneen looks at the event as a complete action, the Vedreki perfect looks at it as having been completed by the time at issue. Equally the simple past tense in Vedreki can not only mean (eg) “I held” as a completed action (perfective) but also “I was holding” (imperfective aspect). In the future as well A nalamul (I will hold) can sometimes in context refer to a completed single action (perfective), whereas the future perfect refers to a completed future action but one completed before the future time being discussed – sometimes called the “past-in-the-future”.

Now for where it gets interesting.... The construction for subject honorification uses the verb nareq (which separately means to become). The teacher sees me: Senkek voxet am might become (in the plain form) Senkek naret voxeq am and in the polite form, honouring the person spoken to as well Senkek pronaret voxeq am. This cannot be used where the object is worthy of deference (by the speaker, although deference might also be due from the interlocutor). If the teacher were in the accusative the person being honoured would be the speaker. Kada naret voxeq senkeka therefore honours the subject “kada” and is seen (in this context) as either arrogant or just plain rude in that it simply doubles up on the implied hierarchy between speaker and interlocutor. This is really only used as a deliberate "put down". If the polite form is used, it (sort of) cancels itself out and therefore just sounds bizarre. (Direct) object honorification requires a different auxiliary sutun (= to do). Indirect object honorification is not possible – except increasingly where the construction with sutun is extended to nominative-dative alignments where the only object argument is in the dative case eg the verb flakhnun – to speak.

A sutut voxeq senkeka therefore means I see the teacher (whom I respect)
A sutut flakhnun senkeket - I am speaking to the teacher (whom I respect)

A prosutut voxeq senkeka also honours the person spoken to, but

A sutut akhtieq kitieba senkeket (I am giving the book to the teacher) rather peculiarly means that you are giving honour to the book (which just about makes sense if it's the Holy Book of Gharax, but in no other circumstances).

Passive inflection
[

infinitive	masc sing	fem sing	dual	plural
kretaghaq	kretaghat	kretaghata	kretagham	kretaghamma
voxegheq	voxeghet	voxegheta	voxeghem	voxeghemma
naskughun (to be sent)	naskughut	naskughuta	naskughia	naskughia

infinitive	masc sing	fem sing	dual	plural
kretaghaq	kretaghas	kretaghasa	kretaghasam	kretaghasamma
voxegheq	voxeghes	voxeghesa	voxeghesem	voxeghesemma
naskughun	naskughus	naskughusa	naskughusia	naskughusia

infinitive	m sing	f sing	dual	plural
kretaghaq	kretaghal	kretaghala	kretaghalam	kretaghalamma
voxegheq	voxeghel	voxeghela	voxeghelem	voxeghelemma
naskughun	naskughul	naskughula	naskughulia	naskughulia

The passive voice reduces the valency by deleting the nominative subject and promoting the accusative object to the subject. Unlike in English the indirect object cannot be promoted so a construction such as he was given the book is not possible; this also goes (strictly speaking) for a sole dative argument. Alternatively an impersonal construction is used where the subject is simply dropped and the dative argument left in the dative. Avalent verbs cannot be passivized. Intransitive verbs cannot be passivized. He died (on qalus) cannot be made “he was died”.

I gave the book to the priest:
A akhties kitieba lenkieket
I-nom give-past act masc sg book-acc, priest-dat

The priest was given the book
kitieb akhtieghes lenkieket
book-nom, give past passive masc sg, priest-dat

I ate the fish
A martas brexu
I nom, eat past masc sg, fish acc

The fish was eaten
Brexi martaghasa
fish nom give past passive fem sg

The agent (doing the eating) can be added with viu + ablative case.
The fish was eaten by the man
Brexi martaghasa viu siregem
fish-nom, give-past passive fem sg, by, man-abl

The priest was given the book by me
kitieb akhtieghes lenkieket viu ae
book-nom, give past passive masc sg, priest-dat, by, me-abl

Perfect tenses formed in the same way as for the active, but note that akaq and the main verb are both passivised.
The fish has been eaten by the man
Brexi akaghata martaghaq viu siregem
fish-nom, akaq-past passive fem sg, eat- passive inf, by, man-abl

In cases of subject and object honorification matters change somewhat, with the auxiliaries swapping around. The logic is that since the accusative object honoured via a construction with sutun is promoted to the nominative subject of a passive construction we are now no longer honouring the object but the subject and so we require nareq instead. If you want to honour the ex-subject now demoted to an obligue construction the Vedreki took the only way out they could and used sutun. These (particularly the construction with sutun) are very uncommon constructions, however. So for instance
The teacher sees me
Senkek naret voxeq am
teacher-nom, nareq-pres active masc sg, see active inf, me-acc

becomes in the passive voice
A sutunut voxegheq viu senkekem
I-nom, sutun-pres passive masc sg, see-passive inf, by, teacher-abl sg

Obviously these auxiliaries can be combined, but in the perfect tenses akaq is always used as the finite verb then nareq or sutun and then the main verb in infinitival form. Causatives up next...

When telling a agglutinative conjugation (also declension if the declension is also complex), please give us verb slot table. This makes the grammar far easier to read. The example is this for isiZulu:


It's much easier if you analyze kretaghamma as:

kreta-gha-(t)-mma

believe-PASS-PRES-PL.S

rather than

kretaghamma

believe-PASS.PRES.PL.S

Also gloss is important.

Also, why dakhtun and naskun receives different suffix for infinitive, plural and passive? They're from different slot!(If there's a diachronic behind it, please spell it out)

Akangka wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:01 am When telling a agglutinative conjugation (also declension if the declension is also complex), please give us verb slot table. This makes the grammar far easier to read.

Ah well - It hadn't occurred to me that it was agglutinative! But I suppose yes there is for verbs in -aq and -eq an infix either -egh or -agh to passivise the verbs. I had simply thought of it as fusional -aghaq or -egheq.

Akangka wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:01 am Also, why dakhtun and naskun receives different suffix for infinitive, plural and passive? They're from different slot!(If there's a diachronic behind it, please spell it out)

Not sure I understand the question. I simply decided that verbs in -un followed a different pattern!

Ok - so while I'm thinking about verbs in -un a bit more: here's a slot table. Hope it makes sense.

slot	Pre-Initial	initial	Root	Pre-final	final	post-final
function	Negative	formal	verb-stem	causative	passive	tense/number/gender/infinitive
example	Ü(n)	pro(n)	tar	ökhax	agh	at/ aq

I suppose I can see Akanga's point now about different slots - the passive marker for (say) the infinitive in naskun goes after the active infinitive ending (ie a different slot). To send = naskun; to be sent = naskun-ur not (which was my other option) nask-ugh-un. I had just wanted something different, so I guess my question is: is this seriously implausible, bearing in mind that there is a different paradigm in the active voice too? I don't envisage very many verbs in the -un conjugation anyway and since all new verbs coming into the language now use the -aq paradigm there won't be any more.

Causatives: These are difficult and I would benefit from some advice. This is because it was originally a just clever way to make new verbs up and then became something more. So some causatives have just been lexicalised as a different verb. kretaq = to believe; kretökhaxaq = to cause to believe = to persuade; qalun = to die; qalökhaxun = to cause to die = to kill

Here - certainly where the root v erb is intransitive the object takes the obvious case which is the accusative. This also goes with a sense that the infix denotes direct and successful causation. If you want something more indirect this is where the final auxiliary verb torun comes in so contrast
qabru qalökhaxusa velnasu
cancer (nom sing) killed (act-past-fem) the human (acc sing) - and did so pretty directly

qabru torusa qalun velnasu
cancer (nom sing) cause (active-past-fem) die (infinitive) the human (acc sing) - so here it was complications caused by the cancer that did for the human

Incidentally I think -ökhaxökhax- is just ugly so the lexicalised verbs have no morphological causative just the periphrastic version, and the base verb likewise only has a periphrastic version.

Transitive verbs can use the infix and the causee is placed in the genitive case. In such cases, the infix again implies directness and success. “I made the man fight the soldier” (I was there and he did fight the soldier)
A tarökhaxas siregem qalgona
I-nom fight-caus/past/masc man-gen sing soldier-acc sing

A torus kretaq qalgonem onu
I-nom cause-past masc soldier-gen sing her-acc
I caused the soldier to believe her

This becomes more complex with ditransitives: I made the man give the book to the soldier.
A akhtiökhaxes siregem kitieba qalgonet
I-nom give-caus,past,masc man-gen sing book-acc sing soldier-dat sing

I cannot decide whether you can passivise causatives. And there's a question as to what argument you promote. Do I promote the genitive soldier to nominative so eg the man was made by me to give the book to the soldier

Do I keep it as the accusative being promoted as with non-causative verbs so eg the book was made to be given to the soldier by the man by me.
The difficulty with the latter is I end up with two arguments in the ablative which seems ugly.

I'm equally not sure whether I've created a proper causative voice here. I'm increasing the valency by one, but it doesn't seem to fit the definition here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causative#Causative_voice

And if I have created a proper causative voice, presumably I can't passivise it? Beside -ökhaxagh- looks a bit ugly

I very much admire your work!

evmdbm wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:30 am I suppose I can see Akanga's point now about different slots - the passive marker for (say) the infinitive in naskun goes after the active infinitive ending (ie a different slot). To send = naskun; to be sent = naskun-ur not (which was my other option) nask-ugh-un. I had just wanted something different, so I guess my question is: is this seriously implausible, bearing in mind that there is a different paradigm in the active voice too? I don't envisage very many verbs in the -un conjugation anyway and since all new verbs coming into the language now use the -aq paradigm there won't be any more.

I actually analyze it as (according to the table)

Root	Causative	Passive	Tense	Subject
kreta	ökhaxa	ghV	(t)/s/l	0/a/(a)m/(a)mma

Where the Infinite suffix -aq fills both Tense and Subject slots

The problem is, using the -un verb, the conjugation becomes

Root	Causative	Passive	Tense	Subject
nasku	?	nu	(t)/s/l	0/a/ia

Honestly, many of the -un conjugation form looks like misspelled, like naskuna (did you mean naskunuta?), dakhtiae (did you mean dakhtia?).

Now see the complete form in compact form The form -nur can be explaining that the sequence nVn is avoided and is replaced by nVr. So naskunur is underlyingly *naskunun. Still, it's pretty weird to have duoplural subject suffix, passive suffix, and infinitive suffix to be different, while the tense suffix is identical. My theory is the -un verb is (or originally) an adjective/stative verbs. It takes different suffix for infinitive and person because of the stative/dynamic nature. (It's originally naskutVn, but kretatVq). Originally, verb can take either -Vn and -Vq. Separately, the passive is originally both -ghV or -nV. Later passive -nV is associated with stative -Vn suffix set, while passive -ghV is associated with dynamic -Vq. (Probably because -ghV originally means intentionally V-ed, and it's ungrammatical to use it on a stative verb). However, this has a problem:

1. I don't know if this is realistic
2. Why is the active verbs all end with -a/e while the stative verbs end with -u? Is -u originally a derivation?
3. You then must have an irregular verb that ends with -uq, or -an in the infinitive, as well as the -Vq verb forming passive with -nV.
4. Why is the causative of qalun (to kill) is qalökhaxun, not qalökhaxaq?

TomHChappell wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:20 pm I very much admire your work!

Thanks - I'm just an amateur mucking around so I appreciate it.

Akangka wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:14 am
I actually analyze it as (according to the table)

Root	Causative	Passive	Tense	Subject
kreta	ökhaxa	ghV	(t)/s/l	0/a/(a)m/(a)mma

Where the Infinite suffix -aq fills both Tense and Subject slots

The problem is, using the -un verb, the conjugation becomes

Root	Causative	Passive	Tense	Subject
nasku	?	nu	(t)/s/l	0/a/ia

Honestly, many of the -un conjugation form looks like misspelled, like naskuna (did you mean naskunuta?), dakhtiae (did you mean dakhtia?).

Now see the complete form in compact form

Code: Select all

naskun   naskut   naskuta      naskia     naskia(e?)
         naskus   naskusa      naskusia   naskusia
         naskul   naskula      naskulia   naskulia
naskunur naskunut naskun(ut?)a naskunia   naskunia
         naskunus naskunusa    naskunusia naskunusia
         naskunul naskunula    naskunulia naskunulia

The form -nur can be explaining that the sequence nVn is avoided and is replaced by nVr. So naskunur is underlyingly *naskunun. Still, it's pretty weird to have duoplural subject suffix, passive suffix, and infinitive suffix to be different, while the tense suffix is identical. My theory is the -un verb is (or originally) an adjective/stative verbs. It takes different suffix for infinitive and person because of the stative/dynamic nature. (It's originally naskutVn, but kretatVq). Originally, verb can take either -Vn and -Vq. Separately, the passive is originally both -ghV or -nV. Later passive -nV is associated with stative -Vn suffix set, while passive -ghV is associated with dynamic -Vq. (Probably because -ghV originally means intentionally V-ed, and it's ungrammatical to use it on a stative verb). However, this has a problem:

1. I don't know if this is realistic
2. Why is the active verbs all end with -a/e while the stative verbs end with -u? Is -u originally a derivation?
3. You then must have an irregular verb that ends with -uq, or -an in the infinitive, as well as the -Vq verb forming passive with -nV.
4. Why is the causative of qalun (to kill) is qalökhaxun, not qalökhaxaq?

So I come back from holiday to find my language deconstructed

Seriously though this is useful and not something I would have thought about otherwise. Typos now corrected as well in the earlier post. I can't say you're right because I didn't create a protolanguage and I can't say you're wrong for the same reason, although I did do a little retrofitting to see what the related languages would look like. Certainly the -un verb is no longer adjective/stative. The conjugation runs the gamut from dakhtun through flakhnun ("to speak to" which would now on Akanga's theory have to be flakhnur) which has a nominative-dative alignment and the ditransitive naskun.

A naskus kitieba qalgonet
I (nom) sent (past masc sing) the book (acc sing) to the soldier (dat sing)

I guess there are two options - firstly to leave as it is and simply say there is academic controversy over how we ended up like we are, which might be realistic given academic controversies over historical development of natlangs, although I would probably expect Vedreki to be a heavily studied language. Secondly to modify the suffix endings slightly. I do like the aesthetics of the different duo-plural suffix, but a new rule that nVn is replaced with nVr could change rather too much, so that might be the better route.

Also definitely something to think about when I do the Cheyadeneen verb which will be quite different.