Pazmat mk.II (NP: Roadmap for future posts)

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Relative Clauses)

Post by Chagen »

Relative Clauses:

I got nearly two and a half hours to kill here in the uni library, so here we go:

Pazmat's relative clauses are some of the more bizarre/baroque constructions in the language. The original idea for their current form came from Micamo, which I then altered a little; just making sure she gets the credit for the original idea.

Pazmat does not have a relative pronoun. Relative clauses are formed with deranked infinitive clauses. Basically, the infinitive clause is put in the genitive, and then it possesses the noun it modifies. Which means that for "The student who is working on the assignment", Pazmat literally says "The student of the working on the assignment":

śrayautnāya marjhvūtṛ vūqanā
assignment-DEF.SG-ACC work-INFIN-GEN student-DEF.SG.NOM
the student who is working on the assignment

Since the infinitive marks no TAM contrasts, this means that much of it either requires context or requires strings of infinitives with various auxillary verbs, many which are very rare outside of relative clauses. For instance, the irregular verb ro- "to desire" is used to show wanting in relative clauses, taking the main infinitive clause as an object:

Sunselāva ḥīsvūya rāvūtṛ cṛsū
A girl who wants to live in Sunzaku

The clauses can just keep nesting:

Sunselāva ḥīsvūya rāvūya itṛ cṛsū
A girl who does not want to live in Sunzaku

This is the method to use as long as the relativized noun is either the direct object or subject of the sentence:

Of course right now you are probably wondering how Pazmat handles things like "the house in which..." Well, first of all, the structure listed up here is some that dates back to Proto-Pasuu. PP had no way of relativizing obliques. Pazmat, however, does. How? Through a relative pronoun!

Yes, I did say at the beginning of this post that Pazmat does not have a relative pronoun. Well, it does, but only for relativizing obliques. It is uźa, which inflects with the pronominal inflection mentioned in the previous post (obviously, it does not have a nominative or accusative form). To relativize obliques, the same structure as mentioned before is used, with uźa simply stuck inside the sentence:

kansnīyya uźav śnirḥvūtṛ ḥesrā
corpse-DEF.PL-ACC REL-LOC discover-INFIN-GEN house-DEF.SG.NOM
The house in which (we) discovered these corpses

This works for all cases:

vēgūyoya uźaye otibāstṛ qiḥo
The man to whom the book was/is given

jarā úzat zraṣrīyyīm mētvūtṛ wurfarā
The boy whose relatives I had spoken to
(Note how the pluperfect is simply assumed here)

swotātṛ narẓūyeyya uźam soybvūtṛ ngrauvrīyya varśnīṣrīyya otibiruzzir
criminal-DEF.SG-GEN wrongdoing-DEF.PL-ACC REL-INSTR learn-INFIN-GEN record-DEF.PL-ACC official-DEF.PL-ACC give-PASS-PLUPERF-1P.EXCL
We had been given these official records with which we had learned about this criminal's offenses


And there we have relative clauses. I'm not sure what will come next.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Relative Clauses)

Post by Chagen »

A small note about Syllabics

This is another small post detailing some changes and clarifications I've made. Specifically, about this thing I mentioned in the first post.
The syllabic are a little tricky. Their long and overlong variants are <aC, āC>, except after palatals where they are <iC, īC> and retroflexes and labials, where they are <uC, ūC>:

tṛs-: tarsṛna "I pluck"
cṛs-: cirsṛna "I help" (cf. cṛsū "girl")
chṛs-: chursṛna: "I spoil, make unclean"
vṛdh-: vurdhṛna "I place down, I display"
I have been applying this rule REALLY inconsistently and now I've decided to actually clarify it.

First of all, the various sounds which cause this (<R> stands for "resonant"):

iR: ś, ź, c, j

uR: m, b, p, f, v, ṣ, ẓ, ch jh

aR: All other sounds.

Moving on, here are the rules for this:

When inflecting a verbal root, always expand the syllabic to aR unless there is a palatal or retroflex directly in front of the syllabic. Basically, this keeps things a little more consistent. Thus, the root mṛjh- "work" forms marjhṛna "I am working", despite the labial nasal. In the meanwhile, jṛg- "to feel" forms jirgṛfe "you are feeling", and sṇd- "to wander" forms ṣundṇtha "he/she/it is wandering". However, the root śkṇs- "to lighten" forms śkansṇna "I am lightening", NOT *śkinsṇna.

When deriving nouns or adjectives from roots, these rules apply randomly and lexically. In general, each root applies the rule or not over all derivations, and this must simply be learned. However, palatals and retroflexes always apply these rules. Read this as "I can do it whenever I thing it looks good. Thus mŗjh- above forms the noun marjhan "work", but the adjectival root mṛd- "clear" forms the word murdan "logic". Likewise the root vṛś- "to darken" forms the word vārśam- "black", while vṛdh- "to put down" forms vurdhō "placement, the act of putting something down, ritual action of placing one's possessions on the floor to show respect". In the meanwhile śṛd- "to pulsate" forms śīrdam- "exciting" and jhṇḥ- "jagged (adj.)" forms the word jhunḥan "rough-hewn wall". In rare, isolated cases the syllabic is affected by the sound directly behind it, often when there is no onset, such as ṛb- "hard (of form), tough" forming urban "stone, rock" and urbō "strength". On the other hand compare jṇb- "young (adj.)" and jinbō "youth, childhood", where it is the palatal in front which influences.

I am currently debating adding a third declension, formed by affixes which alternate between a syllabic and its expanded forms. Should these come to pass, these rules always apply, thus vip "to try" would form vipur, vṛś- would form varśir and vṛdh- would form vurdhar; note that despite the similarity, these are very different from the -ar stems. That last one vurdhar seems almost the same as vurdhō (underlyingly vurdh-ar, but they act completely differently; in the first, the -ar is a long ṛ while in the second the -ar simply a short grade morpheme. For instance, the locative singular definite of vurdhar would be vurdharam while for vurdhō it would be vurdhrāva (u.lyingly vurdharāva, while the instrumental singular definite for the two words would be vurdhṛbas and vurdhrāmi (u.lyingly vurdharāmi).
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Relative Clauses)

Post by Chagen »

The Imperative

Yet another post of minor tweaks! I didn't like the Deontic as it stands currently (as a pseudo-imperative), so I've decided to give Pazmat a dedicated imperative. But it's not that simple. The imperative in Pazmat is not a verbal category, but actually the old locative (for an imperative) and ablocative (for an injunctive) of a verbal noun. It should be easy to see how the semantics of, say, "(be) at working!" and "(be) away from working!" changing to "work!" and "don't work!" Being a noun the person is not marked but the number is.

"The third-declension?", you say? Yes, I have made one recently. I'm not gonna teach you the whole thing because only two endings matter now: the locative is -am and the ablocative is -esa.

The imperative works by attaching these endings to the short grade root. Oddly enough, it acts like a noun with moveable stress, which laid on the second-to-last syllable of the noun. The plural was marked with the familiar -vo; this dropped later but its effects were left behind by shifting the stress around. Thus, from the root naj- "be responsible, protect" (from which we also get najir "adult, guardian (of a child)", which happens to be a third-declension noun by the way), we get:

Nējam! (*ndándjamb) "protect! (sg)"
Najēm! (*ndandjámbho) "don't protect! (sg)"
Najīsa! (*ndandjésa) "protect! (sg)"
Najesē! (ndandjesábho) "don't protect!"

This applies for all verbs.

Note that since the imperative diachronically isn't actually an inflection on a verb, adjectives can take it as well. Here's where things get a little tricky, however. Adjectives have to be split up into two distinct groups here. The first are root adjectives like nidh- "big", mṛd- "clear, sane", źwus- "tasty", sens- "happy", and others. The second are derived adjectives such as śiṣnī- "blessed", vajram- "wooden", sensuv- "satisfied".

The root adjectives act exactly like the verbal roots; thus naudham! "be big!", sensēm! "don't be happy!", źwusīsa! "be tasty!(?)", and so on. Note that this counts as deriving a new word for both kinds of roots, thus syllabic-roots must be memorized; mṛd- gives us murdam! "be sane!" but mṛjh- "to work" gives us marjham! "work!"

Now, for derived adjectives, they are put in a corrupted form of their 3rd-declension forms. All you need to know is that an -r- shows up; thus śiṣnīṣram! "be blessed!". Normally, this adjective in the 3rd-declension indefinite locative singular would be śiṣnīyiram. The other forms are śiṣnīṣrēm śiṣnīṣrīsa śiṣnīṣresē.

However--and here's where it gets tricky. Many root adjectives nonetheless have the adjective suffix -ī on them despite being roots; examples are vṛkī- "bold, audacious", jṇbī- "young", tṇjī- "lazy", murī- "stupid", and so on. Now, since these are root adjectives, they could act like them; vurkam! "be audacious!", muresē! "don't be stupid! (pl.)" (the -ī is not required on derivations from these roots: muran "idiot", jinbō "youth", etc.). On the other hand, they could act like derived adjectives: vṛkīṣram! murīṣresē!. Which one do they act like? depends on what dialect you're speaking. Some treat these as root adjectives. Other treat them as derived adjectives. The prestige dialect is ambivalent on the matter. It's not terribly important but it is something to remember.


As for the Deontic, its form remains the same (at least for now) but it is now for what ought to be. Thus, it can be used to mean "should": imperfect sīpena "I am fighting", but deontic sepīmī "I should fight/be fighting". Note that this can also be expressed with an infinitive plus either vre- "to be correct" or cna- "to be incorrect" (for statements of "shouldn't"). The infinitive is the subject and the person who should/shouldn't be doing the action can be expressed in the Dative. For other tenses than the perfective and imperfect this is mandatory: saypvau Kārrāyīm vrīvyū "Karara should have been fighting", literally "Fighting was correct in regards to Karara". Oftentimes context allows you to drop either the infinitive (Kārrāyīm vrīvyū) or the person (saypvau vrīvyū). Yet another option is a subordinate clause: vrīvyū na Kārrāyīm sīpevyū = "it was correct that Karara fought".

With this some more subtle distinctions can be made than the Deontic alone allows. For instance:

gnayvau cnītha
gnayvau cneyū

Both of these roughly translate to "grieving is wrong (for you)", that is, "don't be sad". However, the first is in the imperfect. This gives the feeling that right now you shouldn't be sad, probably because of some other thing going on. Thus it's what you would say to someone who is currently sad; it's basicaly "aw, cheer up man!". The second is in the perfective, which gives the feeling "don't EVER be sad", and thus is more of a command some inspiring leader would give, but not something you would say to cheer someone else up.
Last edited by Chagen on 05 Oct 2014 21:36, edited 1 time in total.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: The Third Declension and The Imperativ

Post by Chagen »

The Third Declension

I couldn't leave the third declension an enigma forever, now could I?

The third declension is a surprisingly minor declension. Despite having its own special set of case endings completely unrelated to the other two declensions, by sheer numbers it's not as common as the first one. Of course, a few common words are in it, such as najir "adult", naram "body", subuśir "education", vipī "attempt"...

There are two kinds of third declension nouns. They take the same endings and have the same basic concept, but they differ slightly in the specifics of inflecting. I'll start with the more simple syllabic-types. First of all, the endings:

ACC: -ṣu
DAT: -at
LOC: -am
GEN: -bas
ABLOC: -(e)sa
PRIV: -(u)si

The first kind of third declension noun is the syllabic-type. These all end in either -r, -m, or -n (the three syllabics), with the r-type being the most common, to the point where adjectives agree with all third declension nouns in the r-type (najir knatar "a small adult", naram knatar "a small body", vipī knatar "a small attempt", and so on...). For instance, from the root naj- "be responsible (for), care for", we get najir "adult", and from nar- "to live", we get naram "body". Note that these suffixes (-ir and -am) are underlyingly long syllabics. Thus, they have different vowels depending on the final consonant of the root; the -r suffix applied to nar- would not give you *narir a la najir, but narar (note that this is not actually a possible word--stems ending in one of the three liquids never take the suffix with the same liquid). Remember this.

This leads to the most interesting part of the third declension; the suffix changes grade based on the suffix used after it. To put it simply: the suffix is long before vowels, short before consonants, and before the suffixes for the ablocative and privative (-esa and -usi), it forms a consonant cluster. Examples speak louder than words here; this is najir declined in the indefinite singular:


And the same for naram:


You can see how it works. To make a noun definite, you infix -Vs before the suffix. The V changes depending on the root's final consonant is, just like the suffix did in the indefinite, and the suffix, now next to an <s>, becomes -ar; thus, najisar "the adult", and narasam "the body". The definite plural does the same thing except the article is -Vdd-. The indefinite plural suffixes -vo like always to the indefinite singular; bizarrely it mostly shows up metathesized as -ov. najir in the remaining inflections, in a chart this time because why not:


As of now, the only inflection which is third declension (besides simply affixing the affix to the root) is -(u)śir, which indicates an instrument (with adjective roots, something that makes a thing be that quality):

śra- "to do" > śraśir "tool, implement, device"
nṛt- "to play" > nṛtuśir "the things needed to play a game, etc."
ṛb- "hard (of form)"> ṛbuśir "reinforcement, strengthening"
ḥluj- "to urinate" > ḥlujuśir "urethra"

As the last example shows, a lot of anatomical or otherwise scientific terms are formed with this: kośir "brain" (ko- "to think"), buntuśir "digestive system" (bunt- "to eat"), xṛḥuśir "canine (tooth)" (xṛḥ- "to slice away, butcher")

One final note: in their third declension forms, adjectives still follow the same rules: thus knat- "small" gives us knatar knatarvo knatasar knataddar but nērī- "alive" gives us nērīyir nērīyirvo nērīyisar nērīyiddar. Likewise ayam-
"impatient" gives ayamur ayamurvo ayamusar ayamuddar.


The second kind of third declension noun is even rarer, and is formed with vowel suffixes to the root/suffix. They also change their grade depending on the inflection, but they do it a little differently. They are long in the nominative, but overlong before vowels (since most overlong vowels are diphthongs that can break before vowels, this is oddly convenient), and short before consonants. The ablocative and privative are -sa and -si in these types. The definite singular and plural and indefinite plural are formed much the same way as before (though the indefinite plural isn't exactly the same).Examples of such words are vipī "attempt" from vip- "to try", and murā "dumbass (sl.)". Declined, we get:



These nouns are not very common, that much can be said.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Syllabic Resonant Expansion)

Post by Chagen »

Syllabic Expanding

Yes, I worked on the syllabics AGAIN. This time I've decided to add a little wrinkle to them that adds some irregularity to this lang.

Unlike the other vowels, syllabics do not gain a linking -y- when next to vowels. Rather, they simply expand. This expansion also applies, however, when the syllabic is next to its corresponding consonant (so something like -rṛ-). I'm just gonna give you a list of the possible situations, starting with the most common. I'm using ṛ as my example, and remember that syllabics sometimes expand to iR or Ur!

r + ṛ > rra
ṛ + r > ār
ṛ + i > ari
i + ṛ > ira
ṛ + ṛ > *arṛ > arra

The following are extremely rare/basically nonexistent, but if they were to happen:

rṛr > rār
ṛrr > ārr
rrṛ > rrā

The only one of these to ever appear really is the first, with something like dhanāna "I am stumbling", which is dhan + ṇ + na

To provide an example, take a look at the root jṛ- "to shiver", which is irregular. Irregular roots form the perfective by simply suffixing the 2nd-conjugation endings to the root. Normally this results in a linking -y-: śra > śrayū "he/she/it does", but jṛ-, with that syllabic on the end, simply expands it to jirī. Note that this expansion occurs after anything lengthening does as part of derivation or inflection.

To provide another example, the perfect active participle ending is L, -ṛt-:

wers- > wūsṛt- "having defended"
mat- > mētṛt- "having spoken"
gṛḥ- > garḥṛt- "having killed"
thi- > thawṛt- "having seen"
ṣṇd- > ṣundṛt- "having wandered"
dhṇ- > dhanṛt- "having stumbled"

But with roots ending in either a syllabic or consonantal /r/, something different happens; the final /r/ collides with the <ṛ> of the ending and the resulting <rṛ> combination expands to <rra> (or just <ra> for ar-stems and er-stems):

tor- > *tārṛt > tārrat- "having hit"
nar- > *nōṛt > nōrat- "having lived"
ver- > *vūṛt > vūrat- "having cheated"
dhir- > *dhaurṛt > dhaurrat- "having released"
jṛ- > *jirṛt > jirrat- "having shivered"
nṛ- > *narṛt > narrat- "having guarded"

A similar thing can be seen with the present passive participle, marked by B, -rīt-; for most roots, this is simple enough (and roots with final consonantal /r/ act normally this time):

wers- > wersrīt- "being defended"
mat- > matrīt- "being spoken"
gṛḥ- > gṛḥrīt- "being killed"
thi- > thirīt- "being seen"
tor- > torrīt- "being hit"
dhir- > dhirrīt- "being released"

But, with roots ending in syllabics, the <ṛr> combination results in <ār> (or <īr ūr>)

nṛ- > *nṛrīt > nārīt- "being guarded"
jṛ- > *jṛrīt > jīrīt- "being made to shiver" (passive participles of intransitives almost always have a causative meaning)
smṛ- > *smṛrīt > smūrīt- "being pointed at"

This of course applies to derivation too: irub- "soft", from ṛb- "hard (of form)" prefixed with i- "un-" (so "not hard"), jīman "woman" from jṃ- "bring to life" and -man, a rare suffix related to the common -an, narō "guard", an -ar stem noun from nṛ- "to guard", jhurratan "military", root unknown, but given the existence of words such as jhṛmū "order, command" and jhurō "commander" it's clearly a present passive participle of some verb jhṛ-, presumably "to command", making it "that which is commanded".

Verbal inflection is where this can get particularly tricky; to show off the differences, here's jr- compared to the "regular" irregular root śra- "to do":


To provide another example, this other chart compares the two roots nar- "to live" and nṛ- "to guard", which are both regular. Despite looking so similar in their root form, they end up looking completely different when inflected:


Also, comparing their participles (or at least the three I actually have endings for):

narar- "living"
narar- "guarding"

narrīt- "being made to live"
nārīt- "being guarded"

nōrat- "having lived"
narrat- "having guarded"
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Syllabic Resonant Expansion)

Post by Chagen »

More Minor Tweaks

Yup, even more. I'm changing nearly every aspect of this language in some way as I move on. I'm thinking of making a new thread eventually so this one doesn't seem so incoherent. Anyway, moving on:

First of all, -er stem nouns have been changed. Their indefinites remain the same. However their definites now use completely new case markers: -ir- for the singular, and -rau for the plural. Interestingly enough, -ir- is infixed but -rau is not: the definite singular and plural for narū "life" are narirū narūrau. Remember that the -rau of the plural breaks to -aw- before the dative: narūrawīm "for the lives".

Some -er stem nouns DO retain the old system however, where the markers are -o- and -yeṣṣ. These are, for whatever reason, almost exclusively masculine names (most -er stem names are feminine) like Zūjhramūyo or Braqūyo (compare the feminine names Śṛdirū Śreyamirū Narirū Vanirū)

Second, the desiderdative has been changed again. Now it's B, -ara-. Good grief I cannot stop changing this thing.

Next, I never clarified every form of the negative verb -i so here you go, conjugated in the first person singular because everything else can be gotten from that:

Imperfect: yina
Perfect: auvyī
Future: iyyī
Pluperfect: iṣruna
Desiderdative: irī
Perf.Desider.: iranī
Pluperf.Desi.: ivyayī
Potential: awiyī
Stative: ūbbī
Deontic: yaumī

Infinitive: i-

There is only one infinitive, which is used with all three other voices:

bādhvūya itṛ "lest (I) attack
bodhibāsya itṛ "lest (I) be attacked"
bādhaṣvāsya itŗ "lest (I) make ( attack"

That last voice is the'll learn about that later.

Next, now adjectives formed with -(r)am can have nouns created from them! The noun is always an ablauting suffix in -an, which lengthens the -(r)am to -(r)ēm much like it does for verbal roots:

nidh- "big, large" > nūdhram- "satisfied" > nūdrēman "satisfaction"
jṛ- "to shiver" > jīram- "terrified" > jīrēman "absolute fear, horror"
bu- "be happy" > būram "overjoyed, incredibly happy" > būrēman "bliss, ecstasy, amazement"
vajō "tree" > vajram- "wooden, resilient" > vajrēman "woodworking"

Moving on, at least for now, the genitive now can act as an ablative, and by extension can mean "because, due to":

ṣundnātṛ danśtnāyīm eyū
city-DEF.SG-GEN countryside-DEF.SG-DAT go.AOR-3S
He goes from the city to the countryside

ḥrāsitavaṣrīṣṣtṛ zrawarīṣṣ narẓēyavyaṣṣi
Our names have become worthless because of those who will let themselves be terrorized
(Lit. "Out names have been made bad, because of the ones who will be terrorized")

Also in regards to the genitive is that it is the genitive of a pronoun which is used when directly possessing a noun, not the possessive adjective of it. The possessive adjective is only used as a pronoun (i.e "mine, yours, etc.") agreeing with the noun in question. For instance, both of these sentences are correct and mean "I played with my friend (zrēyan)":

zrēṣnāva jhīṣrāva nartṛvyī
jhat zrēṣnāva nartṛvyī
1S.GEN friend-DEF.SG-LOC play.PERF-1S

...But the second is by far the more common of the two. Actually, it's rather common to not use a genitive here at all and just say "I played with the friend" (the definite article here restricting the reference to one specific friend, with context filling it in that the friend is yours). However, if you wanted to say "I read yours" (let's assume it's a book; vegū), only the first sentence is correct:
krīyirūya vagī
*kṛnāt vagī
2S.GEN read.AOR-1S

Of course, since the possessive pronoun inflects to agree with the noun it's referencing, this can be used to disambiguate in a way English cannot. Imagine that you're with a friend, looking for an instrument (xesar) and she asks you "did you find it?". You didn't, but you did find a knife (vauran) or a book (vegū) that you know is hers. You could say:

au, woḥīm krīṣrāya
Nah, only that knife you have
au, woḥīm krīyirūya
Nah, only that book you have

These literally translate to "No, only that thing of yours which is an ablauting suffix noun" or "No, only that thing of yours which is an -er stem noun". It takes context for her to know that you're talking about the knife or the book, but she at least knows that you didn't find the instrument because xesar is a syllabic-type third declension noun.

Moving on from the genitive, I'm christened the perfective with the alternate name of "aorist" which is why I've been glossing it in this post as <AOR>.

I have also changed exactly one verbal ending. The first-person plural exclusive in the first conjugation is no longer -zzir but -ẓẓa:

We want to see it!

sīprīṣṣtṛ yaśiruẓẓa, jhurarā, dṛk karaśēmnāsit, sīpnāya adrāya zgīnevyantu.
Thanks to our soldiers we had succeeded, commander, but without reinforcements we lost the following battle.
(Wow that is one compact sentence...)

I can't think of anything else I can put here so I'm capping this off. I'm pretty sure there's some stuff I'm forgetting but eh, I'll just make another post of tweaks later.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Syllabic Resonant Expansion)

Post by Chagen »

Even More Minor Tweaks

I have a post on the participles coming up, but during them I realized I needed to clarify EVEN MORE. Ugh. Anyway bear with me.

Athematics have gotten a minor change. Going back to the super-early post on them, they underwent these ablaut patterns:

INDEF.SG: long root, inflections directly on
DEF.SG: short root, article -ā-
INDEF.PL: short root, inflection, then -vo plural ending
DEF.PL: overlong root, inflection

This has been changed to:

INDEF.SG: Monolong root, inflections directly on
DEF.SG: short root, article -ā-
INDEF.PL: Monolong root, inflection, then -vo plural ending
DEF.PL: short root, article -ī-

So there's that. The lengthening of the indefinite singular has been extended by analogy to the plural, and the definite plural no long has an overlong root, but simply the article -e- applied to it (since the historical stress always falls on the the article, it always reflexes as -ī-).

But what is this monolong root I mention? It's a very particular form of ablaut that is very rare, and functions not really with but apart from the standard short-long-overlong ablaut. As of now, only two things use it: athematics, and the causative voice inflection.

The monolong acts like this: the root is put in its overlong form unless this would create a diphthong. If it would, it gets put in simply the long form. <a>, <e>, <o>, <ar>, and <er> are the particular offenders, as they are diphthongs in their overlong forms. Thus, for instance, the root dhir- "to release, drop" forms the causative dhūray- "to make release, drop", using <i>'s overlong form, but mat- "to speak" forms the causative mētay- "to make speak", using just the long form.

However, it is acceptable if an overlong diphthong immediately breaks. For instance, geg- "to believe" forms the causative gīgay- "to make believe, instill thoughts". However, se- "to have" forms the causative sayay- "to make have, gift" because the <ay> diphthong can break. Likewise, the casuative of śtars- "to move around" is śtōsay- but the causative for nar- "to live" is naway-. This is called monolong ablaut because it happens to always result in a monophthong.

I am not even going to try to hide that this is because I think most of the diphthongs in this language look ugly in writing. <au> is cool and <eu> is too though that one is crazy rare anyway, but <ay ey oy> when bunched up against consonants like soybuna "I am learning" or gaygubbaṣṣi "they begin to believe" are just...ugh. I didn't mind it in Heocg but here it bugs me to the point of making few u-roots because I just cannot stand how they look when long, which sucks because I like <u>. Regardless, they stay because cool things can be done with them like getting ayam- from e-.

To demonstrate, what was once:

kārmi "with a blade"
korāmi "with the blade"
kormivo "with some blades"
koyrmi "with the blades"

is now:


And, say, for yed "sword" you'd get yīdmi yedāmi yīdmivo yedīmi. That -e- article in the plural is connected to the ablauting suffix class -īṣṣ/īyy- (historically *-eppj), by the way.

This is important for two reasons:

1: It allows adjectives to actually agree with athematic nouns fully. Before they couldn't:

pīzva sensva "near a happy person"
pezāva sensāva "near the happy person"
pezvavo sensvavo "near some happy people"
payzva sensva "near the happy people"

Now they can:

pīzva sensva
pezāva sensāva
pīzvavo sensvavo
pezīva sensīva

This is really important for things like participles: when two or more nouns that are in different classes agree with participle, that participle defaults to an athematic plural:

Zūjhramarā Macavayirū urbnāya mantraḥarrāya śtōsayaśamīva...
After Zujhramara and Macavayiru have moved the stone blocking them...

But if the participle agrees with nouns that are all the same class, it simply agrees with their class:

Zūjhramarā Zriyuvarā urbnāya mantraḥarrāya śtōsayaśamrīṣṣva...
After Zujhramara and Zriyuvara have moved the stone blocking them...

Vatrītirū Macavayirū urbnāya mantraḥarrāya śtōsayaśamūrauva...
After Vatritiru and Macavayiru have moved the stone blocking them...

2: I have an idea in my head for a class of athematics formed with suffixes that undergo the same ablaut. This allows me to make them and still have them inflect in all four number+definiteness categories. One such example could be tanis, which would be tanūs tanisā tanūsvo tanisī or sṛthel: sṛthīl sṛthelā sṛthīlvo sṛthelī.


In the third-declension post, I never actually gave an intstrumental for those nouns. Indeed I forgot to make one entirely. Anyway, I've fixed that. It's -na, with the added oddity that it makes vowel stems have a long suffix: najṛna "with an adult", vipīna "with a try", on n-syllabics this has the anomalous ending -(ā/ī/ū)na: yājhītāna "with an examination (yajhītan, actually a fossilized nominalization of the passive participle of yoj- "to measure, test"!) ", yaśīna "with an act of heroism (yaśin, from yaś- "do heroic things, succeed, pass a test")", thapūna "with a smack (thapun, from thap- "to lightly smack")

There is not much else to say, though I have a few ideas still bouncing around in my head.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Participles)

Post by Chagen »


Yes, people, it's finally here: the participles post! These have been completely changed in like the last week when I tore them down and remade them completely.

Participles are verbal adjectives, which may simultaneously modify nouns and verbs while also taking objects. Each verb has six: participles can have one of three tenses (present, perfect, and future), and one of two voices (active and passive). All verbs form their participles with the same ablaut and morphemes, though the specifics of some roots will result in different surface appearances, as the syllabic resonant expansion post above already showed. The endings are:

PRES.ACT: B, -ar-
PRES.PASS: B, -rīt-

PERF.ACT: L, -ṛt-
PERF.PASS: L, -iv-

FUT.ACT: B, -aśam-
FUT.PASS: B, -avay-

At first glance, the endings here have nothing to do with the endings used for verbal conjugation, but the -iv- of the perfect passive and the -v- of the future passive are actually connected albeit distantly to the -ib passive formant.

Before we get into the specifics, we might want to review what they look like. The following massive chart shows off several different verbs covering all of the possibilities. They are:

-mat- "to speak", which is 100% regular

-tor- "to hit", which demonstrates what happens when the root ends in -r but IS NOT an -ar root or -er root (they're almost exactly the same as above except in the perfect active)

-nar- "to live" and ver- "to cheat" , which demonstrate what happens when the root is both an -ar root or -er root and ends in -r (if it ends in something else like wers- "to defend" it has completely regular participles). Ignore the causative shades of nar-'s participles for now.

-kṛ- "to fill" which demonstrate what happens when a root ends in a syllabic ṛ

-śṇ- "to carry", which exemplifies roots that end in a syllabic that is not the rhotic

-thi- "to see", which shows off vowel-final i-roots, which mostly act like normal vowel-final roots (a lot of linking -y-'s) except in the perfect, where their long -au can break into -aw- (vowel-final u-roots like bu- "be happy" are similar but with -oy- instead of -au-; this so long already that I'm gonna ignore them)

(Chart spoilered because of how frickin' huge it is)
The participles inflect like normal adjectives, but the present active in the 3rd declension indefinite accusative, genitive, and instrumental (I forgot to make one for this class but it's -na, by the way, with vowel stems long before it) has the anomalous form - arra- because normally these forms create the unacceptable *-arṛ(ṣu/bas/na).

With their formation out of the way, onto using them. All participles are thematic adjectives. They agree in class, number, definiteness, and case with their referents and may be used as simple qualifiers; though Pazmat participles can take entire clauses to translate:

jinbēn verarō "a cheating child"
vēgirū otavayirū "the book which is to be given"
qiḥāva thawivāva "next to the man who was seen"

najiddarat ḥīsṛtaddarat woḥīm kāna
adult-DEF.PL-DAT only know.IMPERF-1S
I only know of the adults who lived (here).

mi jirgnīṣṣmi sīpṛtrīṣṣmi gdataubivyū?
Who has been killed by those who were fighting?

The future participles often have a sense of allowing. This often has a negative meaning:

najir zṇvaśamur
An adult who lets themselves be doubted
(lit. "An adult who will be doubted")

Participles may also be used on their own as nouns. Usually the adjective is in the -ar stem form:

ṣṇdararīṣṣ allā ūgya wṛthāya thawivyaṣṣi
travel-PTCPL-PRES.ACT-AR-DEF.PL.NOM many thing.DEF.PL-ACC beautiful-ATHEM-DEF-ACC see.PERF-3P
Those who travel have seen many amazing things

(All adjectives may be used this way, I could have dropped the noun for "thing" and just said ṣṇdararīṣṣ allā wṛthrīyya thawivyaṣṣi)

ḥuyavayarīṣṣ ḥīsnayyōya nidhōya seyyaṣṣi
The ones who are to be chosen shall hold a civic duty

ḥīsnayyō is a rather uniquely Pazmat noun that literally means "the state of being a citizen" but refers to the civic duty to their country and city the Paz believe that all citizens should fulfill. Shirking it is considered abominable, to the point where the Paz have very large reservations to things like moving to a new town and the like (traditionally, a moving Paz would perform a religious ceremony called bentarat the purpose of which was release them from their current civic duty and bind them to their new one). The word is derived thusly: ḥes- "to live at (+LOC)" > ḥīsan "citizen" > ḥīsnī "civic" > ḥīsnayyō

Pronouns may take participles (they are considered definite athematics) as well. They're often used with plural pronouns to give off a restrictive sense ("those of us who X"..., etc.):

udhusī sepaśamā, olva gwenīsa; udhusī kṇsaśamā, kodhrītīm fejīsa.
Those of you who will fight, stand up; those of you who will die, remain seated

With the very basics out of the way, I'm going to take a short stop to explain some of the intricacies behind participial semantics for special roots.

All roots take all six participles. This has two major implications:

1: Verbs with have intransitive meanings like "moan", "cry", "die", "rain", and the like can still form passive participles, even though something like "*having been died" doesn't make much sense. Well, their passive participles, as you saw a little earlier with nar-, have causative meanings: sarjiv- "having been made to cry", voystivrīṣṣva "alongside those who have been forced to walk":

īyam qa sunnōpṛtrīṣṣva woḥīm nōvūtṛ ḥīsam
go-IMP.SG and prostitute.oneself-PTCPL.PERF.PASS-AR-DEF.PL-LOC only live-INFIN-GEN
Then go and live amongst those who have been forced to prostitute themselves just to live

If the action in question is simply an unsentient thing that "just happens", like "rain" or "fall", then the passive participle can often have an applicative meaning or even a locative meaning: vajarā oycivarā can mean either "the tree which was made to fall" or "the tree (under/near/by/etc.) which (s.thing) fell.

One could also turn the verb causative and use the new causative verb's passive participle as well, which can serve to disambiguate the above situation: vajarā ūcēyivarā is unambiguously "the tree which was made to fall" or the "the felled tree"

2: Root adjectives may also form participles by dint of being roots. Their active participles can be used to show when something was that quality; the past and future are obvious, but the the present active, though it may seem superfluous, can give off a poetic flavor and can be used to give a gnomic sense:

narū nidhū "a great life" (normal adjective)
narū nidharū "a life which is great" (present active participle)
narū naudhṛtū "a life which was great"
narū nidhaśamū "a life which will be great"

The passive participles of root adjectives have a sense of becoming, not a causative one; "getting/becoming X'er" is often a good way to translate: wurfō jagrītō "a boy who is becoming strong" > "a boy who is getting stronger", bīntū naudhivū woḥīm "a problem which has only (woḥīm) gotten bigger", etc. To get a causative sense, you must form that root adjective's causative verb and then use its passive participles: wurfō jēgaṣrītō "a boy who is made to get stronger".

Derived adjectives of course can not benefit from this at all.


The negative verb i-'s participles* are used with participles to negate them much like its infinitive negates other infinitives. However, its participles always agree in every way possible with the negated participle.

*yar- irit- awṛt- awiv- yaś- yav-

Going back to using participles, they may be used alone to add information to a sentence, many times taking different case forms depending on their usage. When like this they are usually inflected as athematic singulars, sometimes definite, sometimes indefinite. If they are agreeing with something though they are whatever class that thing is.

First of all, the dative can be used to adverbially modify actions like any regular adjective; this is most common with certain verbs like bent- "to stop", and the participle is indefinite:

kajarīm bīntevyī qa ḥesrāsam eyī
I stopped drinking and went out of the house

vīritnāva ḥesarīm vatēyyī sīmma sadhva mūtṛ marjhnāya śṛśnarḥī
I will continue to live in this apartment until I can find a better job
(lit. "I will look towards living in this apartment until I can find a job which is at being good")

With an instrumental participle, you can make an absolutive clause. This can be used to express an action before/after the main verb; the participle agrees in class and number with whatever the subject is (pronouns are athematic definites) BUT NOT case:

kādhṛtāmi Urbnāyīm fījevyū
Having sat down, she waited for Urbana
After sitting down, she waited for Urbana

Kūraseṣu mūlēyavyī karayaśamāmi Madharirūya jrūqīxīṣṣmi
I made Kurasi lie down and then had Madharirū replenish the water jars
I made Kurasi lie down before having Madharirū replenish the water jars

This sentence has two tricky things about it: since the speaker is still the subject of the second clause (which happens to be a causative sentence), the participle karayaśamāmi is athematic to agree with them (since "I" is considered an athematic definite in Pazmat). In addition, the word jrūqīxīṣṣmi "water jars" is instrumental, but it is not agreeing with the participle and is indeed the object of the second clause: causative sentences put their displaced object in the instrumental.

With just a few changes, this sentence could mean something entirely different: Kūraseṣu mūlēyavyī karayaśamirūmi Madharirū jrūqīxīṣṣmi: "I made Kurasi lie down and then Madharirū made me replenish the water jars"

Zūjhramarā bādhivrāmi, urva śrayarīm vētvūya awiyaśva
With Zujhramara injured, there's no way we can continue to do this

uḥḥīm murasāna klurēḥivāmi, nidhīm seuram yēna...
before dumbass-DEF.SG-INSTR dispose-PTCPL-PERF.PASS-DEF-INSTR large-DAT suspicious be.IMPER-1S
Having been abandoned before by that jackass, I'm pretty suspicious...

qrāsraḥarīmi jhāṣ wersirūyīm źāthovyaṣṣi 1S.ACC protection-DEF.SG-DAT pay.PERF-3P
Fearing for their lives, they paid me for protection

The privative provides a short way of negating this:

glīsrāya drēḥṛtrāsit jimanā bobodh
warning-DEF.SG-ACC hear-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-AR-DEF.SG-PRIV woman-DEF.SG.NOM vulnerable
Having not heard the warning that woman is vulnerable

śnṛḥavayāsit mētnīyyīm Nūdhrēmnāya sīyēyam
Go and deliver these words to Nudhremana without being caught
(Lit. "Without being caught (in the future) cause Nudhremana to have these words")


A future participle can be used in a copular sentence to give off a vague sense of obligation (cf. Latin's gerundive) e.g narō adwar nruḥavayō "A guard is to be sent (lit. thrown) tomorrow" i.e "A guard must be sent tomorrow", but this is can also be expressed with the construction ḥṛsū na [clause] e.g ḥṛsū na narō adwar nruḥibauyyū, literally "It is needed that a guard is sent tomorrow".


The locative has one of the most important uses: it denotes, depending on the tense, either before an action, after an action, or during an action. The locative present participle usually means "while/when X'ing":

ḥuyirū jīmnīṣṣmi arsrītirūva, mūrdēmnāmi allirūmi mṛjhaṣṣi, kāraddmusi dūramuddmusi allu
While the statue is being crafted by the women, they work with absolute precision, without any unnecessary cuts

Gṛddhrōmāva ḥesarāva vajrēmnāya slūyevyī
While living in Grdhhroma I studied woodworking
I studied woodworking while I was living in Grddhroma

The past participle in the locative often means "before":

Kansṛtāva selqtāva ṣṇdarana
Before I die, I want to travel the world

Būramusī Māksrīṣrāmi vūyivusaram aṣīṣ awur zanvṇvyū
Before Buramusi was cheated by Maksriyara she had never doubted us

The future participle has the sense of "after":

Kwitrāva breqaśamāva jṛgōya nṛẓōya sayubbī
After I had entered the room I got a bad feeling

Ātrīḥarā kādhayavaṣrāva nucīm garḥam
After Atrihara has been seated kill (her) quickly

The ablocative can be used to negate these in a short way, but note that it often has a negative feeling e.g garḥṛtāsam is "before (he/she) doesn't kill..." literally, but has a sense more of "before (he/she) fails to kill..."


One very important use is for relative clauses. Yeah, remember that genitive-infinitive construction a few posts up? That is less common than this method, and is indeed on the way out except in super-formal speech.

Forming a participial relative clause is easy: you just...use the participle like a normal adjective with any arguments of the relative clause inbetween the noun and the participle. If there are no other arguments then it looks exactly like a normal attributive participle. In other words, where English says "The man who sees the boy" and "The girl who ran to the store", Pazmat says "The man, seeing the boy" and "The girl, having run to the store" (in this last case, the literal English translation sounds like an absolutive but we already have seen that that would require an instrumental participle in Pazmat):

Royī na wurfōya, ūṣrāya kthreyarōya,otot
I want you to bring me a boy who fears nothing
(lit. "I want that you give a boy, fearing nothing")

However, remember this: Pazmat does not like to have a nominative in the relative clause. For instance, let's say you have the sentence "The woman sold the bag" and you wanted to relativize "the bag". In English you can just say "The car sold by the woman" or "The car which the woman sold" but Pazmat hates this. To explain this hatred, let's try copying English:

*(?)Kṛtirū, jimanā soynṛtirū

Seems simple enough...but who or what should the participle agree with? At first you would assume that it should agree with "bag", like it does above, since "bag" is the thing being relativized...but "woman" is the actual subject of the participial clause! Then maybe it should agree with it (...soynṛtarā)?

Well, rather than deal with that mess, Pazmat just forces the original object to be the subject of the relative clause through passivization. In other words, Pazmat almost always prefers to say "The bag which was sold by the woman":

Kṛtirū, jimnāmi soynivirū

Unfortunately we run into a problem here. This method can only relativize nominatives and accusatives. Anything above requires the genitive-infinitive construction...if it weren't for a new construction which blends the two. Said construction has only existed for about 100 years (barely any time linguistics-wise). It involves simply using the relative pronoun uźa and then making an entirely new relative clause after it (using the participial method). So we can take this clause:

cṛsū frēthōva gwīnevyū
girl-INDEF.SG.NOM river-INDEF.SG-LOC stand.PERF-3S
A girl was standing by a river

And relativize "river" like so:

frēthō, uźav cṛsū gwīnṛtū
A river by which a girl was standing
(lit. "A river, a girl having stood by which")

Another example, this time in a full-on sentence:

narōyīm uźat mūrdēmnāya draḥaśamā matarana
I wish to speak with a guard from whom (I) will hear the truth


Oh my god I've finally finished this. INCREDIBLE.

Like always I have no real idea where I'll go from here.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 5698
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Participles)

Post by Micamo »

How do you handle purposive sentences, like "I gave him medicine to bring his fever down"?

How do you handle a sentence like "I helped you make the chair"?
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Participles)

Post by Chagen »

Micamo wrote:How do you handle purposive sentences, like "I gave him medicine to bring his fever down"?

How do you handle a sentence like "I helped you make the chair"?
As of now purpose clauses use an infinitive clause in the genitive:

gēnzrāya knētēṣvūtṛ sṛppirūya ātovyī
sickness-DEF.SG-ACC small.CAUS-INFIN-GEN medicine-DEF.SG-ACC give.PERF-1S

The second sentence uses a subordinate clause: "I helped that you make the chair"

cirsṛvyī na kodhāya arsot
help.PERF-1S=SUB chair-DEF-ACC make.AOR-2S

The second verb is in the aorist because its tense is unnecessary; the first sentence already provides it.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 5698
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Participles)

Post by Micamo »

Chagen wrote:cirsṛvyī na kodhāya arsot
help.PERF-1S=SUB chair-DEF-ACC make.AOR-2S

The second verb is in the aorist because its tense is unnecessary; the first sentence already provides it.
Is this a general rule for subordinate clauses, or can a subordinate clause have its own tense in certain cases?
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Participles)

Post by Chagen »

Certainly, though I can't see a sentence where that's NEEDED right now. But:

cirsṛvyī na kodhāya ōsavyot
help.PERF-1S=SUB chair-DEF-ACC make.PERF-2S

is certainly possible though somewhat stifling and redundant-sounding.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 5698
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Participles)

Post by Micamo »

As of now purpose clauses use an infinitive clause in the genitive:

gēnzrāya knētēṣvūtṛ sṛppirūya ātovyī
sickness-DEF.SG-ACC small.CAUS-INFIN-GEN medicine-DEF.SG-ACC give.PERF-1S
It's interesting that this sentence also has an interpretation of "I gave him medicine that brought his fever down" (lit. made his sickness small). Is this intentional? Does this work the same way when the higher verb is intransitive, like "I jogged to blow off some steam"?
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Participles)

Post by Chagen »

Woah...I did not think of that second interpretation at all; the genitive-infinitive for purpose clauses was created before you suggested the genitive-infinitive relative clause. This may be disappointing, but the answer to your second question is yes:

dhirrōpvūtṛ ḥrautivyī
release.oneself-INFIN-GEN run.PERF-1S
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Participles)

Post by Chagen »

The Causative

Alongside the passive formant -ib, the causative formant in -ay holds special place in the realm of Pazmat formants, as it can show up on any verb, even those which have already taken a formant. In reality, it shares its semantic space with another formant, -it, already mentioned a long while ago. However, the difference between the two lies in their semantics. -it (which may randomly lengthen the root) generally makes a verb with a special meaning slightly removed from the basic sense of "cause to [verb]". For instance, the root cṛs- "to help" may form the verb cirsit- "to employ", wherein the causative sense "cause to help" is clear, but the meaning is specialized; compare to the "true" causative cīrsay- which means nothing but "cause to help" or "make help" (and yet, sometimes the "true" causative still has a special meaning! Absolutes are never true when it comes to languages). In addition, -it has no special infinitive, simply taking the regular O, -vau (cirsūtvau, cirsautvūya, etc.), whereas cirsay- takes the special causitive infinitive -vos (cīrsēṣvos, cīrsaṣvāsya, etc.).

As for the causative, forming it requires putting the root in the monolong grade (mentioned a few posts above) and then suffixing the formant -ay, which like any other formant now inflects like a normal a-root verb itself, the root remaining invariable. It also forms participles according to the same normal rules as other verbs. The infinitive is in a short grade with -vos, which acts like the other infinitives as an indefinite athematic (resulting in a nominative in -ēṣvos, then the other cases built to a stem in -aṣvās). The causitive is relatively simple to form. To demonstrate it, inside the following spoiler is the verb kodh- "to sit (down)" in both its active and causative form (kādhay- "make sit, place down"), in the third-person singular:
kādhotha "She is sitting down"
kādhēyatha "She is making ( sit down"

kādhovyū "She sat down"
kādhēyavyū "She made ( sit down"

kodhū "She sits down"
kādhayū "She made ( sit down"

kodhāyyū "She will sit down"
kādhayēyyū "She will make ( sit down"

kodhirutha "She had sat down"
kādhayirutha "She had made ( sit down"

kodharatha "She wants to sit down"
kādhayaratha "She wants to make ( sit down"

kodharanītha "She wanted to sit down"
kādhayaranītha "She wanted to make ( sit down"

kodhavyarayū "She had wanted to sit down"
kādhayavyarayū "She had wanted to make ( sit down"

kākodhū "She can sit down"
kādhēyayū "She can make ( sit down"

koydhubbū "She begins to sit down"
kādheyyubbū "She begins to make ( sit down"

kodhāmū "She should sit down"
kādhayēmū "She should make ( sit down"

And wrapping off with the imperative, participles and infinitives:

kādham! kodhēm! kodhīsa! kodhesē!
kādhēyam! kādhayēm! kādhayīsa! kādhayesē!

koydhvau kādhvūya kādhvūyīm kādhvūva kādhvūtṛ kādhvūsam kādhvūsit
kādhēṣvos kādhaṣvāsya kādhaṣvāsīm kādhaṣvāsva kādhaṣvāstṛ kādhaṣvāssam kādhaṣvāssit

kodhar- kodhrīt- kādhṛt- kādhiv- kodhaśam- kodhavay-
kādhayar- kādhaṣrīt- kādhēyṛt kādhēyiv- kādhayaśam- kādhayavay-
Almost no Pazmat verbs are ambitransitive. Whereas in English one may say "The window breaks" and "Mary breaks the window with a hammer", using the same verb, Pazmat does not. It must use the simple transitive verb kapp- for "shatter" in the first", and then the causative kēppay- for the second. Likewise, "A tree grows" uses the root vṛkṣ- while "Mary grows the tree" uses its causative vūrkṣay-.

The causative may be made passive, either through its participles or using the passive formant after it. A causative's passive participles have the meaning "being made to X, having been made to X, etc.". Pazmat can form a "causative passive" verb in one of two ways: going passive, then causative (kodh- > kodhib- > kodhūbay-) or vice versa (kodh- > kādhay- > kādhayib). Sensu stricto, these have two distinct meanings, the first being "made to be X'ed" and the second "made to X", but in practice the distinction is blurry; matūbayaṣṣi means "they are made to speak" as much as it does "they are made to be spoken(?)".

However, there is one specific use of the second kind, where it gives off a sense of necessity but only in past sentences; the semantics of, say, "I was made to work (by s.thing)" (marjhayaubivyī) going to "I had to work (because some unstated thing made me work") should be obvious; this is a rather literary/poetic construction, not something you'd find in casual speech.

The causative's meaning, of course, is to increase a verb's valency and introduce a causer to the sentence, and thus can often be translated in English as "make X/cause to X":
mat- "to speak" > mētay- "make speak"
tor- "to hit" > tāray- "to make hit" (Pazmat prefers saying "X made Y hit Z" for "X hit Z with a Y; tor- is reserved for hitting with things that aren't exclusively weapons like body parts, table legs, cars, etc. or when a weapon hits without an actual agent, such as a sword falling and hitting someone)
dhir- "to release, drop" > dhūray- "make drop" (compare the idiom kāṣrāya dhūray- "make drop their mind" > "drive someone crazy/insane").

Root adjectives may also form causatives (they are roots after all), also with the sense "make [quality]":
nidh- "big" > nūdhay- "make big, increase, amplify"
vṛk(ī)- "bold" > vūrkay- "make bold, exaggerate"
sens- "happy" > sīnsay- "make happy, cheer up"

Causative verbs may form, much more frequently than the passive verbs (nouns formed from a verb's passive meaning usually nominalize a participle). A common method is forming a vowel-stem 3rd-declension noun with L, -rī,; this usually has an agentive sense: kādhēṣrī "authority (< "that which makes people sit down")", nūdhēṣrī "amplifier (< "that which increases")", kējēṣrī "dehydration" (< "that which makes people drink; kaj- to drink"). Adjectives may be formed from these with bumping the suffix up to overlong: kādhēṣray- "authoritative", kējēṣray- "dehydrated".

Incidentally, this is how to form adjectives from any vowel-stem 3rd-declension noun: murā "dumbass (but once merely "stupid person") > muroy- "idiotic, incredibly dumb, nonsensical"

The trickiest part of causatives is not forming them but dealing with their arguments. Most simply, the causer is in the nominative, with the causee (the subject of the underlying sentence) in the accusative:

braqtirū kappū
door-DEF.SG.NOM shatter.AOR-3S
The door shatters

Vṛkīṣrā braqtirūya gēśrāmi kēppayū
Vrkiyara shatters the door with (his) arm
(lit. "Vrkiyara makes the door shatter with his arm")

These sentences could also mean "The king shatters" and "Vrkiyara shatters the king with (his) arm". The words for "king" and "door" happen to both be braqtū as they both are formed from two homophonous roots, braq- "to lead, rule" and braq- "to enter". Due to this the Paz often used door metaphors for their kings; such as the ancient sayings Braqtū ēchnīyya fevrīyya mantraḥū; Braqtū vrēzāstnāya gṛḥreḥnāya mantraḥū "A door obstructs thieves and animals; A king obstructs slavery and genocide" and Ḥesō braqtūsit zṛzgā; madhrī braqtūsit īcca zṛzgā "A house without a door is nonsense; a kingdom with no king is nonsense as well"

If the underlying sentence contained an object, it shows up as a dative. If it contained a dative indirect object as well, that shows up as a dative too, context being the only way to solve ambiguity:

Nūdhayarā vēgirūya Kūrasayat ātivyū
Nudhayara gave the book to Kurasi

Wṛthasē Nūdhaṣrāya vēgirūyīm Kūrasayat ātēyavyū
Wrthase made Nudhayara give the book to Kurasi

However, there is one wrinkle to this. If the subject of the underlying sentence is in the locative, then it has the shade of being forced to do the action due to some unintended consequence. In others words, if your friend did something and that made you do something, then you would use this to show annoyance:

Kurasi: Jma ḥrituv allu?
why tired=INTENS
Why are you so tired?

Vrkiyara: Aḥ, Nūdhaṣrā ganzarrāmi, jhāv isāye marjhēyavyū!
Ugh, thanks to Nudhayara being sick, he made me work in his place!

Here, the use of the first-person pronoun in the locative shows that Nudhayara didn't intentionally make Vrkiyara work; it's just that being sick forced Vrkiyara to work in his place. If Vrkiyara had put the pronoun in the accusative like usual for a causative sentence, it would have sounded like Nudhayara directly went to him and forced him intentionally to work in his place, which doesn't really make sense: he's sick!

In other respects, causatives work like simple verbs. They are negated with an infinitive plus i-:

cṛsirūya jrūqīxāyīm dhūraṣvasya auvyī
I didn't make that girl drop the water jars

urmas dhuṣaddayat, antusīt mṛjhuddau źāthōsit marjhayibāsya iṣruguḥ
Regardless of those lies, our workers had not been forced to work without pay

Their participles act like regular participles:

Kūraseṣu kwitrāsam ayēyṛtāmi, sīyēṣreṣu ōbiye mūceyyubbī
Having made Kurasi go out of the room, I began to prepare a present for her

vṛkaddā, kṛnām vūrkṣaṣrītaddā, ajiwar ukrītva allu purguḥ
plant-DEF.PL-NOM 2S.INSTR grow-CAUS-PTCPL.PRES.PASS-3RD-DEF.PL-NOM these.days popular-DAT=INTENS become.IMPERF-3P.
Plants which you grow yourself are becoming very popular these days
(lit. "Trees which are made to grow by you are becoming very popular these days")
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP:Numbers 2.0)

Post by Chagen »

The (Revised) Pazmat Numeral System

Another day, another thing torn down and rebuilt. I've decided to rebuild the numbers up from scratch--they had been bugging me for a while. I managed to not only make them look nicer but also got past 10. Now, the numbers from 1-10 are their own roots; past that things get a little different, so I'm gonna split this up into two sections.


These ten numbers are root adjectives:

1: maś-
2: śru-
3: zdek-
4: vat-
5: nas-
6: nov-
7: sṇt-
8: pṛ-
9: raj-
10: kṛś

These form root adjectives. They behave like any other adjective. Expressing "[NUMBER] X's" uses the indefinite; expressing "the [NUMBER] X's" uses the definite:

Wurfō maśō. Cṛsūvo śruyūvo. Wurfrā maśrā. Cṛsūrau śruyūrau

When talking about quantities, or simply referring to numbers (i.e "Five is three plus two"), you use nouns from these roots. They are all formed with MonoL, -ra and take the pronomial endings mentioned in the pronouns post: mēśra śrūra zkīkra vētra nēsra nāvra sāntra pūrra rējra karśra. And while we're at it: "X plus Y" is "X Y-INSTR". "X minus Y" is "X Y-PRIV"

Nāvra vētra śrūram. Nēsra pūrra zdīkrasi.
six four two-INSTR five eight three-PRIV
Six is four plus two. Five is eight minus three.

"X divided by Y" is "X Y-ABLOC". "X times Y" may be expressed in two different ways. The first is simple "X Y-LOC". The other way is to add <-īm> to Y's root. This forms an adverb meaning "[Number] times": śruyīm "two times, twice", sṇtīm "seven times", etc.:

Nēsra karśa śrūrasa. Rējra zdīkra zdīkrav. Rējra zdīkra zdekīm.
five ten two-ABLOC nine three three-LOC nine three three.times
Five is ten divided by two. Nine is three times three. Nine is three times three.

When used with a definite genitive noun, these number nouns mean "[NUMBER] of the [NOUN]". In participial phrases they count as singular definite athematics:

korītṛ santra ōsivāmi tagīm bentīyyaśva
With seven of these blades finished we'll soon be finished

All of these numbers have ordinals. For one and two, these are suppletive; "first" is wāḥ (from a root woḥ- which only is attested as this adjective and the adverb woḥīm "only, just"), and "second" is ad- ,which literally means "next" or "the following"; due to this double meaning, "second" is often the regularly-formed śroyī- as well . For the other numbers, the ordinal is formed with the familiar L, -ī- adjective suffix: zdīkī- vētī- nēsī- nāvī- santī- purī- rējī- karśī-:

swēthanā navīyarā iśtōya gṛbōya allu źāthrāyīm otibauyyū!
The sixth caller will be given a brand-new car as a prize!

When using these ordinals as nouns, i.e "fifth (place)", "the fourth one", etc, then you simply use the -ar stem form of the adjective as a substantiative; and note that "first" and "second" for this are not suppletive: "You're in first!" is mēśīṣrāva! not *wāḥīṣrāva, and likewise "You're in second" is śroyīṣrāva not *adrāva. The Pazmat equivalent of "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc." is "1īy, 2īy, 3īy, 4īy, etc.".

Being roots, these numbers may form verbs. Their causatives mean "make [number": mēśay- "make one, put together, consolidate", śrūyay- "make two, divide", vētay- "make four, quarter". They also have a smattering of nouns like śroyō "couple, pair", śrujim "twin" ("two-birth"), vatvustī "four-legged creature, quadraped" ("four-walk"), novṛdī "insect" (lit. "six-footer!")

That last one was inspired by Sanskrit ṣaḍpada- "honeybee", also literally "six-footer"

Now while this is all fine and good, what if we want to use a number higher than 10? Well, that involves a whole new system. Let's proceed:


Once you go above ten, all numbers are now nouns. I'll start with multiples of ten for now.

The main factor for these numbers is the noun kṛśī (it's a 3rd-declension e-stem). It means "ten" as a noun. To form 20, 30, etc., directly prefix a numeral root to it, using a linking -i- if there's awkard consonant clusters. Here's the decads in all their glory:

20: śrukṛśī
30: zdekkṛśī
40: vatikṛśī
50: naskṛśī
60: novikṛśī
70: sṇtikṛśī
80: pṛkṛśī
90: rajikṛśī

To use a noun with these, place the noun in the genitive and inflect the number like whatever you need. These numbers are always indefinite, the definiteness of the original noun cluing you into the meaning:

narōtra vatikṛśīna. narrīṣṣtṛ vatikṛśīna.
guard-INDEF-GEN.PL forty-INSTR guard-DEF.PL-GEN forty-INSTR
With forty guards. With the forty guards.

You may have noticed that this is actually the exact same method shown above for 1-10, except that had a partitive meaning. Here it does not. A partitive meaning with these numbers is done by using the number alone and then putting the noun in the ablocative: "forty of the guards" in Pazmat is literally "forty from the guards": vatikṛśī narrīṣṣam

To express numerals within these decads (11, 24, 45, etc.), you use the decad first and then you add the number after it in the instrumental; "fifty three" for instance in Pazmat is "fifty with three".

Drēḥanā ḥīsantra novikṛśī nēsram mēdhavyaṣṣi na kṛnāv mataṣṣi
judge-DEF.SG.NOM citizen-INDEF.PL.NOM sixty.NOM five-INSTR ask.PERF-3P=SUB 2S.LOC speak.AOR-3S
Judge, sixty five citizens have asked to speak you with you

Ordinal forms of these numbers can be expressed by turning the decad into an adjective (śrukṛśī "twenty" > śrukṛśay- "twentieth"). Any numbers after it remain the same:

kṛtīrū sṇtikṛśayirū pūrram
bag-DEF.SG.NOM seventieth-ER-DEF.SG.NOM eight-INSTR
the seventy-eighth bag

Because the number after the decad is always going to be in the instrumental, it's very common to "clip" it; instead of sṇtikṛśayirū pūrram we find sṇtikṛśayirū'pū(r). Likewise for novikṛśī nēsram we often find novikṛśī'nē(s).

Once you know this, you can build higher and higher numbers. Yet more for you:

100: nūdhī (clearly a derivation from nidh- "big")

This is actually where the native system stops. The next three numbers are loanwords from a language called Ṣṇdmat by the Paz; its speakers are the Ṣṇdez mentioned a few posts up in the adjectives post. Nowadays most call them by their endonym, Shanari.

1,000: ūranī
10,000: asunī
100,000: mitrī
1,000,000: kitūrō (not actually a loanword but an archaic term that just meant "a lot" which was later given this meaning of one million when the Paz started to need numbers that big).

I haven't gone past this yet. In any case, you start with the largest number (for now that can be nine million, or rajikitūtō) and then just have everything else in the instrumental (it's common to just compound everything afterwards into one huge noun):

novūranī nasnūdhīna pṛkṛśīna mēśram
six-thousand five-hundred-INSTR eight-ten-INSTR one-INSTR
six thousand five hundred and eighty one
(Also found as novūranī nasnūdhī'pṛkṛ'mē

pṛkitūrō rajmitrīna sṇtasunīna śruyūranīna vatinūdhīna zdekkṛśīna nāvram
eight-million nine-hundred.thousand-INSTR seven-ten.thousand-INSTR two-thousand-INSTR four-hundred-INSTR three-ten-INSTR six-INSTR
eight million, nine hundred and seventy-two thousand, four hundred and thirty six

Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Syllabification and Stress)

Post by Chagen »

Pazmat Syllabification and Stress

Welcome to yet another thing I've been working on for a while and am now just giving a post. Truth to be told, Pazmat's phonotactics are not really something I consciously worked on. Instead, as I pronounced the language either for kicks or to get a feel for it, I found these rules slowly forming on their own. The stress accent as well ended up forming mostly on its own.

For all the complex clusters Pazmat can have, such as gdrēsana "I am wasting away", Pazmat syllabification, surprisingly, hates intra-word consonant clusters. The basic method behind it is that it tries to make as many syllables open as possible. Of course, it doesn't always succeed, but it tries quite hard. There is no phonemic component to this. In general, one can almost always follow these steps to split a word up correctly:

For the record:
C= Consonant
V= Vowel
N= Nasal
R= Non-nasal resonant (r, w, l, y)

1: Go from left to right through the word. After each vowel, insert a syllable break. Check each syllable to see if it is acceptable.

For many words this is all one needs: mētana "I am speaking", ḥrautitha "he/she/it is running", and cṛsirūsit "without the girl" syllabify to mē ḥrau.ti.tha cṛ.si.rū.sit.

2: If a consonant cluster at the beginning of a syllable is unacceptable, move its first consonant to the end of the syllable before it.

We can see this twice with vardhantra "with some laws": by rule 1 we get *va.rdha.ntra, the last two syllables being unacceptable. By rule two we move their final consonants to the previous syllables to get var.dhan.tra which is acceptable.

2a: Geminates are handled a little differently; if before a vowel, they stay (thus VC:V > V.C:V); if before a consonant, they move to the previous syllable

Both situations occur in the definite plural paradigms of any -ar stem noun; e.g matrīṣṣit "without languages" and matrīṣṣmi "with languages". In the first, by rule 1 we get ma.trī.ṣṣit and leave it thus. For the second, rule 1 gives us ma.trī.ṣṣmi, which then becomes ma.trīṣṣ.mi

These handle many situations, but sometimes they are not enough. The following rules are more complex:

3: All inter-vocal CC and CCC clusters where with a final obstruent are broken up (even if they are acceptable initially). For CC clusters, split them up (VCCV > VC.CV); for CCC clusters, the first consonant goes to the previous syllable, the second two remain (VCCCV > VC.CCV). This also occurs in CN clusters.

For the sake of example: swātva "on a criminal"; rule 1 gives us swā.tva. Then by rule 3 we get For the rare intra-word CCC cluster, we can turn to voystva "during a walk": voy.stva > voys.tva (in situations like these where /v/ is after a voiceless consonant it often takes on an approximant pronunciation)

Note that this applies as long as the final consonant is an obstruent; danśtanā "the countryside" is da.nśta.nā > dan.śta.nā.

The final part of this rule explains differences in syllabification between -ar stems and -an stems. To provide examples, from the same root even, the -ar stem matrāva "in the language" and the -an stem mētnāva "in a word. For the first word, we get ma.trā.va; since the middle syllable is a CCr, we're fine (this would also happen in CCw clusters, but those are rare). In the second however, we start with mē.tnā.va; the second syllable must have its cluster broken and we end up with mēt.nā.va.

3a: CCR clusters follow the normal rules as stated above in 3 (VCCRV > VC.CRC). But CCN clusters act differently; the first consonants of the cluster go to the previous syllable (VCCNV > VCC.NV)

The first part of this explains words like iśtrā "the car": i.śtrā > iś.trā.

The second is seen in a word such as tarsnāmi "with the feather"; ta.rsnā.mi > tars.nā.mi.

4: CCCC clusters where the first and last consonants are either nasals or resonants (basically the only kind of CCCC clusters to every appear split into CC.CC

This rather rare situation most commonly shows up in -ar or -an stems formed to CVCC roots with syllabics, such as danśtrā "the news, going-ons" (root dṇśt- "to spread around"): da.nśtrā > danś.trā or vurkṣnā "grower, planter, parent (poet.)" (root vṛkṣ- "grow, age (intrans.)": vu.rkṣnā > vurk.ṣnā


After those somewhat baroque rules, it may be a relief to know that Pazmat stress is simpler. The stress system seen in Proto-Pasuu where stress could be somewhat free depending on the word is long gone; Pazmat decided to simply bowl it over with a simple weight-based system, that takes into account the pentultimate and ultimate syllables (interestingly enough, it is somewhat akin to the length system seen in Proto-Pasuu). A syllable is light if it is open and has a short vowel. A syllable is heavy if it is closed and has a short vowel or if it is open but has a long vowel (diphthongs count as long vowels). If a syllable is closed and has a long vowel, or has a short vowel and is closed with a geminate (beginning with a geminate has no effect on weight), then it is superheavy. The amount of final consonants does not matter; <dṇśt> is the same weight as <ar> (both are heavy). With this in mind, stress in Pazmat works according to one rule: it always tries to land on the earliest syllable with the heaviest weight. Stress falls on the penultimate when it is heavier or equal to the ultimate. Stress falls on the ultimate only when it is heavier than the penultimate (if they are equal stress will always fall on the penultimate).

The imperfect provides a perfect example of stress changing throughout a paradigm:
mētána "I am speaking" (mē.ta(L).na(L))
mētáfe "you are speaking" (mē.ta(L).fe(L))
mētátha "he/she/it is speaking" (mē.ta(L).tha(L))

mētaqqū́ "we(inc.) are speaking" (mē.ta(L).qqū(H)
mētáẓẓa "we(excl) are speaking" (mē.ta(L).ẓẓa(L)
mētayúdh "you all are speaking" (mē.ta(L).yudh(H)
mētagúḥ "they are speaking" (mē.ta(L).guḥ(H)

To cap it off, I'll provide the full paradigm of the ar-stem word matō "speech, language", the -er stem word śṇtū "bag", and the two third declension nouns najir "adult" and vṛdhī "post, submission", all of them marked for stress. I'm not gonna provide translations or show how they split up and their syllable weights, it should be possible for you to figure out.

(if you cannot access the image the following spoiler has the contents albeit in a much messier formant)

Code: Select all

matō “speech”	śṇtū “bag”	najir “adult”	vṛdhī “post”
matṓ	śṇtū́	nájir	vŕdhī
matṓya	śṇtū́ya	najŕṣu	vṛdhéṣu
matōyī́m	śṇtūyī́m	najirát	vṛdhayát
matṓva	śṇtū́va	najirám	vṛdhayám
matṓtṛ	śṇtū́tṛ	najṛbás	vṛdhebás
matṓmi	śṇtū́mi	najŕna	vṛdhī́na
matṓsam	śṇtū́sam	najrésa	vṛdhésa
matṓsit	śṇtū́sit	najrúsi	vṛdhési
matṓvo	śṇtū́vo	najiróv	vṛdhī́vo
matáryē	śṇtūyávo	najṛṣúv	vṛdheṣúv
matarī́mē	śṇtūyī́vo	najiratóv	vṛdhayatóv
matárvē	śṇtūvávo	najiramóv	vṛdhayamóv
matártra	śṇtūtŕvo	najṛbasóv	vṛdhebásvo
matármau	śṇtūmívo	najṛnáv	vṛdhī́nav
matarsḗm	śṇtūsávo	najresáv	vṛdhesáv
matarsaút	śṇtūsítvo	najrusív	vṛdhesív
matarā́	śṇtirū́	najisár	vṛdhasī́
matrā́ya	śṇtirū́ya	najisŕṣu	vṛdhaséṣu
matrāyī́m	śṇtirūyī́m	najisarát	vṛdhasayát
matrā́va	śṇtirū́va	najisarám	vṛdhasayám
matrā́tṛ	śṇtirū́tṛ	najisṛbás	vṛdhasebás
matrā́mi	śṇtirū́mi	najisŕna	vṛdhasī́na
matrā́sam	śṇtirū́sam	najisrésa	vṛdhasésa
matrā́sit	śṇtirū́sit	najisrúsi	vṛdhasési
matarī́ṣṣ	śṇtū́rau	najiddár	vṛdhaddī́
matrī́yya	śṇtūraúya	najiddŕṣu	vṛdhaddéṣu
matrīyyī́m	śṇtūrawī́m	najiddarát	vṛdhaddayát
matrī́ṣṣva	śṇtūraúva	najiddarám	vṛdhaddayám
matrī́ṣṣtṛ	śṇtūraútṛ	najiddṛbás	vṛdhaddebás
matrī́ṣṣmi	śṇtūraúmi	najiddŕna	vṛdhaddī́na
matrī́ṣṣam	śṇtūraúsam	najiddrésa	vṛdhaddésa
matrī́ṣṣit	śṇtūraúsit	najiddrúsi	vṛdhaddési

Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Jun 2014 07:24

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Syllabification and Stress)

Post by tezcatlip0ca »

What are the demonstratives in Pazmat and how do they decline? Can they modify a nominal, or are they just essentially third person pronouns with a proximal/distal distinction? Can I simply use a definite noun, like vegirū, to express "this book"?

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Syllabification and Stress)

Post by Chagen »

tezcatlip0ca wrote:What are the demonstratives in Pazmat and how do they decline? Can they modify a nominal, or are they just essentially third person pronouns with a proximal/distal distinction? Can I simply use a definite noun, like vegirū, to express "this book"?
Funny that you ask this as I was working on it yesterday AND was thinking of making a post on it soon! But to quickly answer your questions:

Demonstratives are not as commonly used. The definite of a noun can easily mean "that/this X":

vēgirūya jhaye ātam.
book-DEF.SG-ACC 1S.DAT give.IMP.SG
Give the book to me OR Give that book to me

Ḥoy, kirtūrau wṛthī ḥura!
INTERJ dancer-DEF.PL beautiful most
Ah, these dancers are most beautiful!

However, when clarity is needed, there are two main demonstratives: dāvā "that" and kūvā "this". They inflect like pronouns, come before nouns, and do not agree with them except in case and number. They are always definite as well. One thing to note is that since they're not as commonly used, they often have a forceful meaning: dāvām korāmi is literally "with that blade", but it usually has a sense more of "with that blade" or "with that particular blade".

Also, in the locative, dāvāv means "there" and kūvāv means "here". Their datives, dāvāye kūvāye mean "to there" and "to here" (e.g kūvāye! "[come] here!"). Their genitives, dāvāt kūvāt mean "because of that/this".

There are four more demonstratives formed from these. dāravā and kūravā have an intensive meaning:

Cirsvūsam. Dāravīye wufrīyyīm mētam.
I can't help (you). Go talk to those boys way over there

Kūravāv, murasā!
It's right here, idiot!

The even MORE intensive forms dāthoravā and kūthoravā are used for stuff even further away or closer, but oftentimes you need an expletive to get the meaning across when translating:
Jhāṣ gīgvūya iyyot, dṛk Śṛdirū dāthoravāv Sunselāva.
You wont believe me, but Śrdiru is all the fucking way over in Sunzaku.

Kūthoravāv, murāsa!
It's right fucking here, idiot!

They often function as simple third-person pronouns too: kūvīṣ ukī "I like these (things)", Dāvā drēḥvūyīm jadh allu! "That's very good to hear!"

In the full post to be made later, I'll go over the locative demonstratives, which can have some incredible succinctness: śrāvīṣ iśtrāva draḥawa? "You guys hear those things in front of the car?" or sūbīt ḥesrāva,wṛbīm boystvūya yī... "I don't feel safe with these things underneath the house..."
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Pazmat mk.II (NP: Ablaut fixes)

Post by Chagen »

Minor Ablaut Tweaks

Yup, folks, it's time for another minor tweak of Pazmat! This concerns ablaut and actually doesn't change too much but bear with me.

-ar roots and -er roots represent one of the few instances of true irregularity in Pazmat. Their grades are ar/ō/au and er/ū/eu respectively. Before, this applied to ALL -ar roots and all -er roots.

However, this actually doesn't make much sense when you take into account the syllabification rules I made above. To demonstrate, we must go into Old Pazmat before the vowel changes. Let's take the O.Pazmat root wers- "to stand in front" ( > Pazmat wers- "to defend") in the 1st imperfect: we get *wērs.e.nda. Since the /e/ and /r/ are both in the same syllable, it makes sense that this would reflex as Pazmat wūsena.

However, taking the root *bher- "to hide, keep secret" (Pazmat ver- "to cheat"), we get *bhē.re.nda. Why would the /e/ be affected by the /r/, given that they're in two completely different syllables? Before, this reflexed into Pazmat as vūyena "I am cheating". However, I have changed it: -ar roots and -er roots lengthen like normal -a roots and -e roots if the /r/ is the final consonant; or, they lengthen like normal if they're open. Thus, "I am cheating" is now vīrena. Likewise, "I am living" from nar- used to be nōyana; now it is nērana. However, roots where the /r/ is not the final consonant are still irregular: śtars- > śtōsana "I am moving s.thing", erp- > ūpena "I am holding self-respect". However, suffixing the uncommon suffix -tū to ver- gets us vūtū "lid, trunk (of a car)" because the -er is now closed; historically the word was *bhēr.tér.

This doesn't to much to -ar and -er stem nouns. Most of the time, their reflexes remain the same. For -ar stems, this would change the reflexes of exactly ONE inflection: the indefinite dative singular: *matārēm "for a language" should give us *matērīm, but analogy took over and created matōyīm to bring it in line with the other forms.

Likewise, for -er stems, this would change the indefinite AND definite dative singular; cṛsērīm "for a girl" and cṛsirērīm "for the girl should give us *cṛsīrīm and cṛsirīrīm but analogy once again fixed things into cṛsūyīm cṛsirūyīm, especially since the inherited definite dative singular was just...come on, look at that thing. Ow.

The final results of this is the new -īr class of nouns. A distant, not-very-relevant cousin to the -ar stems and -er stems, the -īr stems are simply -er stems that used the definite markers of the athematics, which make them somewhat similar to the -ar stems. However, like the -er stems, the historical accent always lied on the -er marker; in the indefinite, this results in them being exactly the same as the -er stems except in the dative (the persistence of such a tiny distinction is remarkable). In the definite, however, they act differently.

For instance, the word tamīr "ice box, refrigerator", declines like so:

Indef.Sg: tamū tamūya tamīrīm tamūva... (almost identical to an -er stem)

Indef.Pl: tamūvo tamūyavo tamīrīmvo tamūvavo... (also almost identical to an -er stem)

Def.Sg: tamīro tamīroya tamīroyīm tamīrova...

Def.Pl: tamīrī tamīrīya tamīrīyīm tamīrīva...

Under influence from the -ar stems, sometimes the definite's -īr- contracts to -r: tamrova "in the ice box", tamrīmi "with the ice boxes". This results in a rather ironic situation: in the definite singular, the -īr stems and -ar stems are distinguished by the one morpheme they shared: the definite suffix *-o. Comparing the inflection of tamīr and tamō "cold" (the words come from the root tam- "cold") historically":

*tamaróbha > tamarāva > tamrāva
*tamērobha > tamīrova > tamrova

The -īr stems have been much attacked over the time of Pazmat. Several have been forced into pure -er stem nouns; kirtū "dancer" and śṇtū "bag" used to be kirtīr and śṇtīr. On the other hand, some speakers have taken the class and tried to make it more distinct; speakers from the west, near Sefir and Chyffelb are known to form the indefinite with the suffix as -īr and not -ū; the prestige dialect says "with a judgement (draḥīr) with draḥūmi, but westerners say ḍaḥīrmi (the <ḍ> is from the well-known westerner trait to turn all dental stops + /r/ into retroflexes; they say vēṭa "four" for standard vētra, for instance). These innovations haven't persisted into the prestige dialect though stereotypical westerners in fiction usually have them.

There are exactly one -īn stem word; idīn, which just happens to mean "thing". It inflects like an -an stem but with -en as the suffix, and the definite plural suffix is just -ī- : idīn "a thing", idīnmi "with a thing", idenā "the thing", idnāmi "with the thing", idenī "the things", idnīmi "with the things". Bizarrely enough, the Qulshni cognate to the -īn- suffix forms present participles: baghid "looking (at)", compare the Pazmat root vag- "read". Qulshni also has a root id- that means "be, exist"...thus idīn might simply be an extremely old present participle ("that which is") back when Proto-Pasuu had 8 thousand different ways of making one.

In reality Proto-Pasuu didn't really have participles at all, instead being able to form a variety of nomina actionis ad hoc from verbal roots and then using them with other nouns. The Pazmat participle system was simply Pazmat's particular way of wrangling this into a coherent and logical system.

Speaking of participles, to demonstrate the new reflexes from this tweak here they are for ver- and nar-:

verar- verrīt- vīrrat- vīriv- veraśam- veravay-

narar- narrīt- nērrat- nēriv- naraśam- naravay-

I've actually been thinking of changing some of the participle morphemes, some of them don't agree with me, but I'm undecided. That perfect passive one bugs me the most. I'm thinking of changing it to -ur- as that was it used to be before I rewrote the whole system. The future passive is kind of wonky too...
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

Post Reply