Añoþnın

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Añoþnın

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Aims and intro
Čəsač or (Bechsukchwan Čəsač, Bechsukchwan Chusach) is the name I've given a modern-day descendant of the completely revamped Nomadic language family. I've decided to completely restructure the Nomadic languages again, keeping only the phonemic inventory /t d k g i u e a/ of Proto-Nomadic (now renamed Old Chusach or proto-Bechsukchwan). My goal for this specific language is for it to have smoll but distinctive consonant and vowel inventories, a lot of complex morphophonology and an overall vaguelly North American aesthetic. I also plan to make some sister languages with various degrees of divergence to show off the sound changes. Currently I only have sound changes worked out for one branch of said family but I envisage the language tree looking something like this:

Code: Select all

               Proto-Bechsukchwan
                        |
              –-––––––––––––––––––––
             |                      |
         Chusachan              Other one
             |                      |
       Archaic Chusach         Proto-Other
             |                      |
         ––––––––––          ––––––––––––––––
        |          |        |        |       |
    Middle C. Təčču-Šfšši  Type 1  Type 2  Type 3
        |          |        |        |       |
      Čəsač      Təčču     Lang A   Lang D  Lang H
                 Šfšši     Lang B   Lang E  Lang I
                           Lang C   Lang F
                                    Lang G
The Other family would have a more Papuan aesthetic with tone and things.

A timeline of the various historical forms of Čəsač would be something like the following, reserving the native spelling Čəsač for the modern language and the anglicised Chusach for ancestors.

Proto-Bechsukchwan (PB): 3000BC
Archaic Chusach (AC): 1BC
Early Middle Chusach (EMC): 1000AD
Middle Chusach (MC): 1300AD
Modern Čəsač: 1900AD


Čəsač phonology

To start with, I'll do a (mostly) synchronic analysis of Čəsač phonology. The modern language uses eight consonants and six vowels:

/b t tʃ k ʔ/ <b t č k ʔ>
/n ɲ/ <n ñ>
/s/ <s>

/i ɨ u/ <i ə u>
/ɪ ɔ/ <e o>
/ɐ/ <a>

/b/ occurs only root-initally; words beginning with a vowel are considered as beginning with /ʔ/ and are written as such.

Defence of this being naturalistic
  • Having /b/ as the only voiced plosive with no /p/ is relatively common
  • The only nasals are /n ɲ/ because they derive from older *ɾ *g *dʲ
  • Approximants other than *ɾ never existed; *ɾ became /n/ or /ʔ/
  • The vowel system is disgusting. It can also be analysed as having two sets of vowels; tense [i u ɐ ɨ] and lax [ɨ ɔ ɪ ɪ], which originally derive from long vs. short vowels
  • Also Omagua has /i ɨ ɪ u a/ so there

Allophony
The vowels /ɨ ɪ ɔ ɐ/ are realised as [ɘ~ɨ~ɵ e~e̝ o a~ɑ] when word-final before a pause and [ɨ ɪ ɔ ɐ] otherwise. I call them /ɨ ɪ ɔ ɐ/ instead of /ɘ e o a/ because most words end in a consonant so the [ɘ e o a] realisations are much rarer. /i/ and /u/ have strict realisations as [​i​] and [​u​].
  • /ɲisɪktɪ/ → [ɲi.sɪh.te] ñi-sekte (ñi-sehte)
/ɨ/ is often realised as [ʉ]; generally it is unspecified for rounding but for some speakers it is always rounded.
  • /ʔɨs/ → [ʔʉs], [ʉs] ʔəs
In non-initial syllables after a vowel, /t k/ become [θ h]. I'm considering adding this to the orthography as þ h [θ h].
  • /satkɪt/ → [sɐt.kɪθ] satket or satkeþ
  • /tɪtʃɐk/ → [tɪ.tʃɐh] tečak or tečah
Sequences of /ʔb ʔk ʔt ʔtʃ/ are often realised as [ɓ k’ t’ tʃ’]. /ʔb/ is exceedingly rare.
  • /bɪʔkɪ/ → [bɪk’e] biʔke
  • /tuʔtʃɨ/ → [tutʃ’ɘ] tuʔčə

Morphophonological alterations
There are four main phonological processes in Čəsač morphology; syncope, ablaut, more ablaut and consonant alterations. These are mostly regular but require stricter definitions of roots, e.g. the root of čəsač has to be defined as ČəSəKaČu(sk→s) for the syncope and consonant alteration to be predictable.

Syncope
In Early Middle Chusach, a major stress shift occured, which was followed by complete syncope. Stress was changed to be always on the first syllable (by this time, Archaic Chusach lexical stress had been changed into vowel length), then the vowel in every every even syllable from the left was syncopated. In some cases, these lost vowels caused ablaut to the previous vowel, which will be discussed below. Syncope happened regardless of any prefixes, of which there were several, meaning that roots switch their form completely when combined with prefixes:

NəNe(nn→n,n→ʔ) "water"
PB *gi̯ádu̯e → AC *ɾa:ɾa → EMC /ɾaːɾ/→ Čəsač /nɨʔ/ nəʔ
PB *di-gi̯ádu̯e → AC *ñiɾa:ɾa → EMC /ɲiɾɾa/ → Čəsač /ɲɨnɪ/ ñə-ne (older *ñə-nne)

KəÑəNo(ñn→n,n→ʔ) "plantain"
PB *ku̯ádedu → AC *kaːɲaɾu → EMC /kaːɲɾu/ → Čəsač /kɨɲɔ/ kəño (older *kəñno)
PB *di-ku̯ádedu → AC *ɲikaːɲaɾu → EMC /ɲikɲiɾ/ → Čəsač /ɲɨkɲɨʔ/ ñə-kñəʔ

SaTeKeTe(sk→s) "whiteness"
PB *ti̯eu̯tákata → AC seːtaːkata → EMC /seːtkat/ → Čəsač /sɐtkɪt/ satket
PB *dí-ti̯eu̯takata → AC ɲiːseːtakata → EMC /ɲiːstakta/ → Čəsač /ɲisɪktɪ/ ñi-sekte


Ablaut
Also in Middle Chusach, the vowels /eː aː a/ were raised to [iː eː i] in a syllable before a high vowel. In Modern Čəsač, this is seen as a surface change of /ɐ ɨ ɪ/ to /i ɐ ɨ/. It occurs with some suffixes containing /ɨ/ and all suffixes containing /i u ɔ/.

ØəKeSa “reeds”
PB *u̯ái̯katai → AC aːkateː → EMC /aːkteː/ → Čəsač /ʔɨktɐ/ ʔəkta
PB *u̯ái̯katai-ti → AC aːkateːsi → EMC /aːktiːs/ → Čəsač /ʔɨktis/ ʔəkti-s

ØəNeKə(n→ʔ) "smooth pebble"
PB *u̯édakai → AC aːɾakaː → EMC /aːɾkaː/ → Čəsač /ʔɨʔkɨ/ ʔəʔkə
PB *u̯édakai-ti → AC aːɾakaːsi → EMC /aːɾkeːs/ → Čəsač /ʔɨʔkɐs/ ʔəʔka-s

SeKəTe "spearhead"
PB *ti̯akáta → AC sakaːta → EMC /sakta/ → Čəsač /sɪktɪ/ sekte
PB *ti̯akáta-kauki → AC sakaːtakuːtsi → EMC /saktiktsi/ → Čəsač /sɪktɨktʃɨ/ sektə-kčə


More Ablaut
A second form of ablaut also occurs as a result of regular stress shifting in Proto-Bechsukchwan; where a prefix caused lexical stress to fall on a syllable after the first two syllables, the first syllable of the prefix was stressed instead. These then became long vowels in Archaic Chusach through to Middle Chusach, after which they became separate vowels. This results in an alteration between "short" /ɨ ɨ ɔ ɪ ɪ/ and "long" /i ɐ u ɐ ɨ/.

SaNu(n→ʔ) "to nurture, grow sth."
PB *ti̯ádau̯ → AC saːɾuː → EMC /seːɾ/ → Čəsač /sɐʔ/ saʔ
PB *gúti-ti̯adau̯ → AC buːsisaɾuː → EMC /buːssiɾ/ → /busɨʔ/ bu-səʔ


Consonant alterations
A few consonant alterations happen as a result of sound changes in Middle Chusach following syncope. The alterations seen are:
a) Expected /n/ becomes /ʔ/ when not preceding a vowel
TuNeČə(n→ʔ) "fuzzy"
PB *taudáti → AC tuːɾasi → EMC /tuːɾsi/ → Čəsač /tuʔtʃɨ/ tuʔčə (expected */tuntʃɨ/)

b) Expected sequences of */sk st stʃ nɲ ɲn ts/ become /s s s ɲ ɲ tʃ/
ÑiSəČe(sč→s) "underneath"
PB *dítike → AC ɲiːsitsa → EMC /ɲiːstsa/ → Čəsač /ɲisɪ/ ñise (expected */ɲistʃɪ/)

ØəÑiNu(ñn→n,n→ʔ) "seven"
PB *adídu → AC aɲiːɾu → EMC /iɲɾu/ → Čəsač /ʔɨɲɔ/ ʔəño (expected */ʔɨɲnɔ/)

KəTuSe(ts→č) "shin bone"
PB *katúti̯a → AC katuːsa → EMC /kitsa/ → Čəsač /kɨtʃɪ/ kəče (expected */kɨtsɪ/)

c) Expected doubled consonants become single consonants
ØeNəNe(nn→n,n→ʔ) "garnet"
PB *agágu̯a → AC anaːna → EMC /anna/ → Čəsač /ʔɪnɪ/ ʔene (expected */ʔɪnnɪ/)

d) Expected root-initial /ʔ/ disappears before a consonant (considered Ø for root formation)
ØaNo(ʔ→Ø,n→ʔ) "firefly"
PB *ádu → AC aːɾu → EMC /eːɾ/ → Čəsač /ʔɐʔ/ ʔaʔ
AC /ɲi- + aːɾu/ → /ɲiaːru/ → EMC /ɲiɾu/ → Čəsač /ɲɨnɔ/ ñə-no (expected */ɲɨʔnɔ/)

e) Unpredictable irregularities
ʔuʔ(irr.) "gnat"
PB *údu̯a → AC uːɾa → EMC /uːɾ/ → Čəsač /ʔuʔ/ ʔuʔ
PB *di-údu̯a → AC ɲuːɾa → EMC /ɲuːɾ/ → Čəsač /ɲuʔ/ ñuʔ (expected ?*/ɲunɐ/)



And that's about enough for the first post [xD]
Last edited by VaptuantaDoi on 10 Jul 2021 07:41, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4257
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by DesEsseintes »

Loving the look of this!
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 3013
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by Khemehekis »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 27 Mar 2021 04:19 The vowel system is disgusting. It can also be analysed as having two sets of vowels; tense [i u ɐ ɨ] and lax [ɨ ɔ ɪ ɪ], which originally derive from long vs. short vowels
Why did you say the vowel system was disgusting? Were you thinking of another English word?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 78,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Khemehekis wrote: 27 Mar 2021 04:36
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 27 Mar 2021 04:19 The vowel system is disgusting. It can also be analysed as having two sets of vowels; tense [i u ɐ ɨ] and lax [ɨ ɔ ɪ ɪ], which originally derive from long vs. short vowels
Why did you say the vowel system was disgusting? Were you thinking of another English word?
I think it qualifies as disgusting; it distinguishes /i ɨ ɪ/ in a 6-vowel system. [:P] I was thinking of that sentence as more of "the vowel system is disgusting..." as a pre-response to any eyebrows raised by it.

DesEsseintes wrote: 27 Mar 2021 04:30 Loving the look of this!
Thanks! Hííenununóóoþa et al. definitely had some influence on this [:D]
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 3013
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by Khemehekis »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 27 Mar 2021 05:34
Khemehekis wrote: 27 Mar 2021 04:36
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 27 Mar 2021 04:19 The vowel system is disgusting. It can also be analysed as having two sets of vowels; tense [i u ɐ ɨ] and lax [ɨ ɔ ɪ ɪ], which originally derive from long vs. short vowels
Why did you say the vowel system was disgusting? Were you thinking of another English word?
I think it qualifies as disgusting; it distinguishes /i ɨ ɪ/ in a 6-vowel system. [:P] I was thinking of that sentence as more of "the vowel system is disgusting..." as a pre-response to any eyebrows raised by it.
Ah, I see! More of a "Yes, I know it's disgusting, too" thing.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 78,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

More detailed sound changes
Now I'll go through some of the sound changes which gave rise to all this morphophonology in a bit more detail. These are still subject to change, but any change will likely be addition rather than subtraction of changes.

Proto-Bechsukchwan
Proto-Bechsukchwan is reconstructed with a very restricted phonemic inventory of only four consonants and four vowels. I refer to it as a proto-language, but in-world it was attested in the form of runic inscriptions using a semi-syllabic script. The phonemic inventory was as such:

Consonants
/t k/
/d ɡ/

Vowels
/i u/
/e a/

This is heavily inspired by proto-Lakes Plains as reconstructed by Clouse and Clouse, except without so many consonants and vowels cluttering everything up. This is clearly stretching the boundaries of realism to their limits, but my excuse is that in all the descendants there are more phonemes anyway. If you wanted to, you could consider both vowels and consonants as being a 2×2 square:

Code: Select all

Consonants:
       +apical –apical
+voice   /t/    /k/
–voice   /d/    /g/

Vowels:
      +front –front
+high   /i/   /u/
–high   /e/   /a/
There were also three closing diphthongs /ai̯ au̯ eu̯/, four opening diphthongs /i̯a i̯e u̯a u̯e/ and three triphthongs /u̯ai̯ i̯au̯ i̯eu̯/. Syllables were maximally CV, consisting only of an onset and a nucleus; the onset was optional. This means there were only 70 possible syllables. In the romanisation used here, everything is written as IPA except stress is marked with an accute accent.

Writing system
Proto-Bechsukchwan was written with a runic semi-syllabary similar to Celtiberian runes. The system had 25 symbols:
  • Four symbols for lone /t k d g/
  • Sixteen symbols for CV syllables /ti tu te ta ki ku ke ka di du de da gi gu ge ga/
  • Three symbols for closing diphthongs /ai̯ au̯ eu̯/
  • Two symbols for lone /a e/
Initial vowels were written with a dummy /ɡ/. Pre-vocalic /i̯ u̯/ were representing with the corresponding CU or CI symbol. Word-initial /i̯ u̯/ were written as /ɡi ɡu/.

Allophony
There was a limited degree of allophonic variation that took place:
  • Intervocalic /d ɡ/ became [ɾ ɣ]
  • The non-high vowels /e/ and /a/ varied freely between [ɪ~e~ɛ] and [a~ɑ~ʌ]; the diphthongs /ai̯ au̯ eu̯/ tended to spread to [ɑi̯ au̯ ɛu̯]
  • /t/ became [​s] before /i/
Stress
Lexical stress was minimally contrastive; stress always occurred on one of the first two syllables of a word. Single-syllable words were generally stressed when meaning-bearing (i.e. nouns and verbs) and unstressed when grammatical (i.e. pronouns, particles). Only a few words were distinguished by stress alone, generally as a result of prefixes.
*dídadu "vine" (Č. ñino "rope", ñə-ñəʔ)
*di-dádu "father acc." (Č. ñə-no "father prep." from naʔ "father")

Proto-Bechsukchwan to Archaic Chusach
Diphthongs and triphthongs beginning with /u̯/ were simplified to /a/ (u̯a u̯e u̯ai̯ → a /_)
Stressed vowels were lengthened (i u e o a → iː uː eː aː /_[+stress])
The vowels /e eː eu/ were turned into diphthongs /i̯a i̯eː i̯eu̯/ (e eː eu̯ → i̯a i̯eː i̯eu̯ /_)
Before /i/ or in combintion with /i̯/, all consonants were palatalised (ti̯ di̯ ki̯ ɡi̯ → s ɲ ts ɾ/_, t d k ɡ → s ɲ ts ɾ /_i)
Word-initial /i̯/ became /ɲ/ (i → ɲ /#_V)
/ɡ d/ became /n ɾ/ when non-intial (ɡ d → n ɾ /[C,V]_)
Otherwise /ɡ/ became /b/ (ɡ → b /_)
Closing diphthongs monophthongised into long vowels (eu̯ au̯ ai̯ → eː uː aː)

This left Archaic Chusach with the following phonemic inventory:

Consonants
/b t ts k/ <b t c k>
/n ɲ/ <n ñ
/ɾ/ <r>
/s/ <s>

Vowels
/iː i uː u/ <ī i ū u>
/eː aː a/ <ē ā a>

For some reason this reminds me a lot of Sanskrit [o.O]

Archaic Chusach to Middle Chusach
Non-high vowels were raised if the following syllable contained a high vowel (eː aː a → iː eː i /_(C)[i,iː,u,uː])
Stress was regularised to the first syllable of every word (Ø → ˈ /#_)
Every even syllable from the left was lost (V → Ø /#(C)V(C)_, V → Ø /#(C)V(C)(C)V(C)_, V → Ø /#(C)V(C)(C)V(C)(C)V(C)_)
Short vowels were made smoller (i u a → ɨ ɔ ɪ /_)
Long vowels were shortened and some changed in quality (iː uː eː aː → i u ɐ ɨ)

Consonants
/b t ts k/
/n ɲ/
/ɾ/
/s/

Vowels
/i ɨ u/
/ɪ ɔ/
/ɐ/

Middle Chusach to Čəsač
The affricate was alveolopalatalised (ts → tʃ /_)
/t/ plus /s/ became /tʃ/ (ts → tʃ)
Sequences of /s/ and a plosive were simplified (sk st stʃ → s /_)
Sequences of two distinct nasals became /ɲ/ (ɲn nɲ → ɲ /_)
The tap became one of /ʔ n/ (ɾ → ʔ /_[#,C] , ɾ → n /_)
A glottal stop was inserted word-initially before a vowel (Ø → ʔ /#_V)
Doubled consonants were degeminated (C1C1 → C1 /_)



I'm relatively happy with this as it stands; I might add some more changes if I feel like not enough is happening. I'll also have to make a second descendant of Archaic Chusach and two more descendants of that; then another descendant of Proto-Bechsukchwan and numerous descendants of that. But first, I'll make the numbers one to ten for Proto-Bechsukchwan, Archaic Chusach, Middle Chusach and Čəsač:

Proto-Bechsukchwan
*gági̯eu̯, ku̯é, tukéu, ku̯ái̯te, géu̯ tídaku̯e, gu̯ái̯, adídu, au̯ku̯ái̯, di̯éke

Archaic Chusach
bārē, , tucē, kāsa, , sīraka, , añīru, ūka, ñēca

To avoid confusion with bārē, became kākāsa from + kāsa.
also had the reduced form ka

Middle Chusach
/bɨɾ kɨ tɔts kɨs ɾɐ sirkɪ kɨksɪ ɨɲnɔ uk ɲɐk/
Reduced ka became /kɪ/ and eventually replaced /kɨ/ <

Čəsač
/bɨʔ kɪ tɔtʃ kɨs nɐ siʔkɪ kɨksɪ ʔɨɲɔ ʔuk ɲɐk/
[bʉʔ kɪ tɔtʃ kʉs nɐ sik’e kʉkse ʉɲo uk ɲɐk]
bəʔ, ke, toč, kəs, na siʔke, kəkse, ʔəño, ʔuk, ñak

I will also wreak havoc with higher numbers because syncope [}:D]

Edit: Learnt how to count to ten
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1610
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by gestaltist »

I love this language and the way you present it. :)
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 3013
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by Khemehekis »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 27 Mar 2021 07:22
Edit: Learnt how to count to ten
Were you just Jankoed?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 78,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Khemehekis wrote: 27 Mar 2021 13:24
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 27 Mar 2021 07:22
Edit: Learnt how to count to ten
Were you just Jankoed?
Not yet! But you never know when it might happen, you need to be prepared [O.O]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

More numbers

As promised, I've been working on higher numbers; in this post, I'll just go over all the numbers I have so far (1-999).

In Čəsač, numbers act morphophonologically pretty much as nouns when used in compounds, although the full forms do not decline like nouns do. This means that numbers have roots which can be expressed in the same style as nominal roots; the same syncope and other processes take place. Numbers are formed mostly regularly but in a very complex way which makes the surface forms often appear very confusing (just as I had planned *evil laugh*). Also I've decided to add h þ to the orthography to represent the [h θ] allophones of /k t/.


Numbers 1 to 10
As mentioned in the previous post, numbers one to ten are simply unanalysable roots inherited from proto-Bechsukchwan:

/bɨʔ kɪ tɔtʃ kɨs nɐ siʔkɪ kɨksɪ ʔɨɲɔ ʔuk ɲɐtʃ/
bəʔ, ke, toč, kəs, na, siʔke, kəkse, ʔəño, ʔuk, ñač

The numbers ke "two" and kəkse "seven" don't have the expected developments of proto-Bechsukchwan; expected results would be ** and **. For obvious reasons, seven and one became too easily confusable some time during the development of Archaic Chusach. In early forms of Archaic Chusach, "one" was bārē and "seven" was . was gradually replaced by the compound kākāsa which may variously be analysed as either "two" + kāsa "four" or as a reduction of reduplicated kāsa kāsa. The reduplicated origin is more consistent with the ways other numbers are formed, as "two-four" would be expected to mean "2 + 4" rather than "2 × 4". The use of ke rather than ** may have been to reduce confusion with kəkse; this change was first seen in late Archaic Chusach but both forms were attested even through late Middle Chusach. These numbers undergo syncope in some compounds (discussed later), and can thus be expressed with the following roots:

BəNa(bn→n,n→ʔ) "one"
Ke "two", or in compounds generally Kə
ToČe(tč→č) "three"
KəSe "four"
Na(n→ʔ) "five"
SiNeKe(n→ʔ) "six"
KəKəSe "seven"
ØəÑiNo(ñn→ñ,n→ʔ) "eight"
ØuKe "nine"
ÑaČe "ten"


Numbers 11 to 15
Numbers 11 to 15 were formed in proto-Bechsukchwan from the numbers 1 to 5 with the prefix *di̯e, a reduced form of *di̯éke. As would be expected with nominal prefixes (and probably also verbs which I haven't worked out yet), the *di̯e was stressed when attached to roots which were stressed on the second syllable, in this case only *tukéu̯. The proto-Bechsukchwan forms were:

*di̯egági̯eu̯, *di̯eku̯é, *di̯étukeu̯, *di̯eku̯ái̯te, *di̯egéu̯

These regularly developed into modern Čəsač forms:

/ɲɪnɪ ɲɪk ɲɐtʃɪ ɲɪksɪ ɲɪʔ/
ñe-ne ñe-k ña-če ñe-kse ñe-ʔ

Orthographically these are written with the prefix separated, as they can be analysed both diachronically (as distinct words with a fossilised prefix) or synchronically (as numeral roots with a now-unproductive but regular prefix). An irregular variation between /n/ and /b/ in the root for "one" is a result of the different outcomes of proto-Bechsukchwan *ɡ; diachronically this would be expected in other words beginning with /n/ < *ɡ but it was generally analogised out elsewhere; this is shown in the root as (bn→n). Otherwise, the syncopated forms of number roots are as expected. Note that the prefix becomes ña for 13 due to the ablauting influence of the first vowel in ToČe(tč→č).


Numbers 16 to 19
Numbers 16 to 19 are more complex. They were formed in proto-Bechsukchwan as compounds of "number-away.from-tens", using the the preposition *ku̯áda "away from" seen separately in modern Čəsač as kəʔ. The compounds were:

*ku̯ái̯te-ku̯ada-di-di̯eke-gi, *túkeu̯-ku̯ada-di-di̯eke-gi, *ku̯é-ku̯ada-di-di̯eke-gi, *gági̯eu̯-ku̯ada-di-di̯eke-gi

Which developed into

/kɨsɪɲɨɲtʃɪʔ tɔtʃkɪɲɨɲtʃɪʔ kɨknɪɲɪtʃnɨ bɨʔkɪɲɨɲtʃɪʔ/
kəs-e-ñə-ñče-ʔ toč-ke-ñə-ñče-ʔ kə-kne--ñeč-nə bəʔ-ke-ñə-ñče-ʔ

These are harder to analyse synchronically, but it is still possible. The numerical forms are transparent other than replacing ke, but the rest of the compounds are more complex. Diachronically, four suffixes occur: firstly, the suffix -KeNe, which undergoes the processes of sk→s (in 16) and nñ→ñ (16, 17, 19). Secondly, the suffix ə; note that ññ→ñ happens in 18, which combines with syncope of the vowel to make a null realistion. Thirdly, eČe, and finally the plural suffix -Nə(n→ʔ). More synchronically, these can be considered a single suffix -KeNeÑəÑeČeNə(nñ→ñ,ññ→ñ,n→ʔ). Alternatively still, they can be analysed as distinct roots which coincidentally share some consonants; kəseñəñčeʔ, točkeñəñčeʔ, kəkneñečnə, bəʔkeñəñčeʔ.


Numbers 20 to 25
The number twenty had two forms in proto-Bechsukchwan; in the compounds above, *di̯eke-gi appeared, simply meaning "ten-PL.", while separately, a less ambiguous form *ku̯é-di̯eke-gi "two tens" was used. This became Čəsač /kɨɲtʃɪʔ/ kəñčeʔ, which is technically analysable as kə-ñče-ʔ (from Kə + ÑaČe + -Nə(n→ʔ)). Numbers 21 to 25 were formed similarly to 11 through 15, using the form compound form of twenty:

Proto-Bechsukchwan:
*di̯éke-gi-gagi̯eu̯, di̯éke-gi-ku̯é, di̯éke-gi-tukeu̯, di̯éke-gi-ku̯ai̯te, di̯éke-gi-geu̯

Čəsač:
/ɲɐtʃnɨnɐ ɲɐtʃnɨk ɲɐtʃnɨtʃɪ ɲɐtʃnɨksɪ ɲɐtʃnɨʔ/
ñačnə-na ñačnə-h ñačnə-če ñačnə-kse ñačnə-ʔ

These are transparently analysable as the numbers 1 through 5 with the prefix ñačnə-.


Numbers 26 to 29
These were formed similarly to 16 through 19, with compounds "number-away.from-ACC-three-ten-PL".

*ku̯ái̯te-ku̯ada-di-tukeu̯-di̯eke-gi, *túkeu̯-ku̯ada-di-tukeu̯-di̯eke-gi, *ku̯é-ku̯ada-di-tukeu̯-di̯eke-gi, *gági̯eu̯-ku̯ada-di-tukeu̯-di̯eke-gi

Modern Čəsač
/kɨsɪɲɪtʃɐɲtʃɨʔ tɔtʃkɪɲɪtʃɐɲtʃɨʔ kɨknɪɲtutʃɲɪtʃnɨ bɨʔkɪɲɪtʃɐɲtʃɨʔ/
kəs-eñečañčəʔ toč-keñečañčəʔ kə-kneñtučñečnə bəʔ-keñečañčəʔ

This time they are analysable as numbers with the suffix -KeNeÑeČaÑeČəNə(nñ→ñ,n→ʔ).


Multiples of 10 from 30 to 90
Similarly to 20 and 30, multiples of 10 were formed with compounds "number-ten-PL"; other than 20, these had only one form in proto-Bechsukchwan even in compounds:

*tukéu-di̯eke-gi, ku̯ái̯te-di̯eke-gi, géu̯-di̯eke-gi, tídaku̯e-di̯eke-gi, gu̯ái̯-di̯eke-gi, adídu-di̯eke-gi, au̯ku̯ái̯-di̯eke-gi

Modern Čəsač
/tɔtʃɲɪtʃnɨ kɨsɲɪtʃnɨ nɨɲtʃɪʔ siʔkɪɲtʃɪʔ bɨɲtʃɪʔ ʔɨɲɔɲtʃɪʔ ukɲɪtʃnɨ/
toč-ñečnə, kəs-ñečnə, nə-ñčeʔ, siʔke-ñčeʔ, bə-ñčeʔ, ʔəño-ñčeʔ, uk-ñečnə

These are analysable as having the suffix eČeNə(n→ʔ).


Numbers 31 to 39 etc.
The numbers 31 to 39 (as well as 41-49, 51-59 etc.) were formed in the same way as 21-15. Over 30, there was only addition in compounds and none of the subtraction seen from 16-19 and 26-29. All the forms can be regularised by simply suffixing the numbers 1 to 9 and taking into account the syncope of the "-ty" number. When added to 50, 60 and 70, they use the "major" syncopation (that is, the form of syncope that is realised when the numbers are pronounced separately), while 30, 40 and 90 use the "minor" syncopation:

Modern Čəsač 31, 32, 33:
/tɔtʃɲɪtʃnɨnɐ tɔtʃɲɪtʃnɨk tɔtʃɲɪtʃnɨtʃɪ/
točñečnə-na, točñečnə-k, točñečnə-če

Modern Čəsač 51, 52, 53, 69
/nɨɲtʃɪʔbɨʔ nɨɲtʃɪʔkɨ nɨɲtʃɪʔtɔtʃ siʔkɪɲtʃɪʔkɪ/
nəñčeʔ-bəʔ, nəñčeʔ-kə, nəñčeʔ-toč, siʔkeñčeʔ-ke


Higher numbers
There is also a root for 100; PB *adáu̯dagu̯a, giving Č. /ʔɪnɪn/ ʔenen. This is better expressed in the form ØeNuNe(nn→n), as multiples of 100 are formed in the same way as multiples of ten, with the multiple placed before it and the plural suffix -Nə(n→ʔ) added:

200, 300
/kɨnunɪʔ tɔtʃɪnɪnɨ/
kə-nune-ʔ, toč-enen-ə

(Note the predictable nn→n in točenenə) Numbers between 100 and 200 etc. are expressed by simple concatenation; the hundreds are considered a separate word and thus do not influence the syncope of the tens.

420, 999
/kɨsɪnɪnɨ.kɨɲtʃɪʔ ʔukɪnɪnɨ.ukɲɪɲtʃɨ-kɪ/
kəsenenə kəñčeʔ, ʔukenenə ukñeñčəke

Higher than 1000 I have no idea how numbers are gonna be formed. They'll probably be a bit simpler and borrowed from another language at some stage in Chusachian history.


Summary

Just to show off the synchronic forms, the numbers 1 to 30 are:
bəʔ, ke, toč, kəs, na, siʔke, kəkse, ʔəño, ʔuk, ñač, ñene, ñek, ñače, ñekse, ñeʔ, kəseñəñčeʔ, točkeñəñčeʔ, kəkneñečnə, bəʔkeñəñčeʔ, kəñčeʔ, ñačnəna, ñačnəh, ñačnəče, ñačnəhse, ñačnəʔ, kəseñečañčəʔ, točkeñečañčəʔ, kəkneñtučñečnə, bəʔkeñečañčəʔ, točñečnə.




gestaltist wrote: 27 Mar 2021 12:28 I love this language and the way you present it. :)
Thank you very much! I'll do my best to keep working on it this time...
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Nouns

Čəsač nouns decline for number (singular vs. plural), case (adpositional vs. the other one) and proximity (proximal vs. medial vs. distal). Case and proximity suffixes are merged phonologically, but can be analysed as separate suffixes undergoing regular morphophonological alteration. They are pretty much completely regular but also extremely confusing and with very counterintuitive surface forms because of the complex morphophonology.

(Sorry this post is so long and full of spoilers containing inane examples)

Number

I'm lazy so Čəsač only has two numbers, singular and plural. Maybe proto-Bechsukchwan had more, who knows. The singular is unmarked, while the plural takes the prefix ñə-, which causes the noun root to change into the minor syncope (maintaining every even-syllable vowel).
Spoiler:
təknu
TəKəNu(n→ʔ)
fist
"fist"

ñətkəʔ
ñə–TəKəNu(n→ʔ)
PL-fist
"fists"
Words which were stressed on the second syllable in proto-Bechsukchwan take ñi- in the plural, as stress was reassigned to the prefix rather than being placed on the third syllable. This also means that the old Bechsukchwan second syllable underwent the ablaut 2 in the opposite direction, i.e. i u a əə o e e; however, this occurred across all cases of minor syncope and thus is considered a change to the nominal root rather than a morphophonological process (i.e. there are no cases where original *i u a ə would surface).
Spoiler:
tokne ñitkeʔ
ToKeNe(n→ʔ) ñi(A2)–ToKeNe(n→ʔ)
melon PL-melon
"melon, melons" (PB *tukáda, pl. *dí-tukada)
Case

The 4-case system of proto-Bechsukchwan has been reduced to only two cases in Čəsač. These are the adpositional case and the other case*. The adpositional case derives from the accusative in proto-Bechsukchwan and Archaic Chusach, while the other case derives from the nominative. The proto-Bechsukchwan dative was lost in Archaic Chusach and the genitive later down the line in Early Middle Chusach. The other case is unmarked, while the adpositional case is shown with a suffix.

*Any suggestions on what to call this case would be appreciated. "Adpositional" isn't a very good term either because it has several non-adpositional uses as well.

Formation

As I mentioned before, the other case is unmarked. Nouns are thus in the major syncope (odd-syllable vowels are maintained) and undergo no ablaut.
Spoiler:
sasñe
SaSəÑe–Ø
rock-CASE
"a rock"

ʔič
ØiČo(Ø→ʔ)–Ø
skin-CASE
"skin"

kasas
KaSəKaSə(sk→s)–Ø
narrowing-CASE
"a narrowing"
The adpositional case is formed with the suffix -Nə(n→ʔ,A1). This has two surface realisations, -nə and , and causes ablaut of the first type to any the preceding vowel. The ablaut only occurs with the surface form , as this is the form used when the ablauted vowel in the root is not lost through syncope.
Spoiler:
ʔič
ØiČo(Ø→ʔ)–Nə(n→ʔ,A1)
skin-ADP
"to the skin" etc.

sasñəʔ
SaSəÑe–Nə(n→ʔ,A1)
rock-ADP
"to the rock"

bačnoʔ
BaČəNo–Nə(n→ʔ,A1)
mouth-ADP
"to the mouth"
Note that where the suffix -nə would produce a sequence of /ɲn/ it becomes /ɲ/ and /nn/ becomes /n/.
Spoiler:
ñə
KəÑe–Nə(n→ʔ,A1)
loom-ADP
"to the loom"

ʔənə
ʔəNu(ʔ→n)–Nə(n→ʔ,A1)
comb-ADP
"to the comb"

Usage

The cases no longer signify morphological alignment. The subject, object, agent etc. are mostly not distinguished except through word order. The adpositional case is used:
Spoiler:
  • With all adpositions
  • When modified by numerals
  • For the subject of a passive clause
  • For the indirect object
  • For a the subject of clauses with a small number of motion verbs
Meanwhile, the other case is used for everything else:
Spoiler:
  • The subject of all non-passive clauses, both transitive and intransitive, apart from those with some motion verbs
  • The direct object of all clauses
  • Nouns when produced in isolation
This does cause some problems, namely:
  • Subjects of clauses modified by numerals; passive vs. non-passive distinction is lost
  • Direct objects modified by numerals; direct vs. indirect distinction is lost
  • Passive subjects of those motion verbs; passive vs. non-passive distinction is lost
Unfortunately I haven't developed verbs or syntax enough to deal with these (this is also the reason my example sentences are so riveting). I think the first one I'll just ignore (i.e. both forms exist, it can cause confusion, there are other ways of expressing the same thing unambiguously), the second one is just an expression of how numerals are basically adpositions, and the last one I'll do something *special* with.

Some examples of the genitive case are still fossilised within compounds. The genitive was formed in proto-Bechsukchwan with the suffix *-tu̯a which surfaces in these forms as a *-Te, with the surface forms *-t and *-te (in non-initial syllables after a vowel written * and *-þe.
Spoiler:
ʔañeþkeñ
ØaNoÑeTeKeÑe(Ø→ʔ,nñ→n) [PB *égude-tu̯a ku̯ai̯de]
pubic.hair
"pubes"

Proximity

Nouns also decline through a series of three proximity suffixes, approximately semantically corresponding to first (proximal), second (medial) and third person (distal), but they are in no way connected to the personal pronouns; rather, they derive from three of the four proto-Bechsukchwan demonstratives. These may also be used to refer to ideas or things previously referrenced in conversation, similar to "the former", "?the middle thing of the three that I mentioned" and "the latter". Proximity suffixes are placed after the adpositional case suffix. Nouns may also be unmarked for proximity, although this is relatively unusual.

Proximal:a (PB *, surface forms and -ča)
Medial: -NəČe(nč→ñč) (PB *duakí, forms -nəč and -ñče)
Distal: i(A1) (PB *, forms with ablaut and -ñi)

Note that these cause the adpositional suffix realisation as to change to -n; this resolves to -ñ-ča for proximal, --nəč for medial and --ñi for distal (i.e. it has a zero-realisation for medial and distal, however the impact on the syncope maintains the adpositional/other case distinction).

Examples:
Spoiler:
bačnoñča
BaČəNo–Nə(n→ʔ,A1)–Ča
mouth-ADP-PROX
"to this mouth"

ʔičnəč
ØiČo(Ø→ʔ)–NəČe(nč→ñč)
skin-MED
"yon skin"

kəhəñ
KəKeKe(kk→k)–Ñi(A1)
oval.leaf-DIST
"that leaf"

kəhəñi
KəKeKe(kk→k)–Nə(n→ʔ,A1)–Ñi(A1)
oval.leaf-ADP-DIST
"to that leaf"
Summary of suffixes
Just for ready reference for myself, the combinations of the suffixes are as follows:

Code: Select all

Major syncope
       Prox.  Med.   Dist.
Other. -ča    -nəč   -ñi
Adpos. -nəč   -nəñče -nəñ

Minor syncope
       Prox.  Med.   Dist.
Other. -č     -ñče   -ñ*
Adpos. -ñča*  -nəč*  -ñi*

*Ablaut of previous vowel a ə e > i a ə
I especially like the way that -nəč can be medial, proximal, adpositional or the other case. I'm actually very happy with something for once [xD] Here's an example of a particularly messy noun in singular and plural (nəʔ NəNi(n→ʔ,nn→n) “rope”):

Code: Select all

SINGULAR                             PLURAL
       Zero  Prox.  Med.    Dist.    Zero  Prox.   Med.    Dist.
Other. nəʔ   nəñča  nənəč   nəñi     ñəne  ñəneč   ñəneñče ñənəñ
Adpos. nənə  nənəč  nənəñče nənəñ    ñənəʔ ñənəñča ñənənəč ñənəñi
User avatar
GoshDiggityDangit
sinic
sinic
Posts: 246
Joined: 18 Dec 2018 21:27
Location: Misawa AFB, Aomori, Japan
Contact:

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by GoshDiggityDangit »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 03 Apr 2021 05:30 *Any suggestions on what to call this case would be appreciated. "Adpositional" isn't a very good term either because it has several non-adpositional uses as well.
I think the other case could be called the Ergative or Direct because it is used for all clauses' direct objects. It could also be called the Bare case because it has no marking.
"Coffee is an azimuthal polar map that you to map back to a sphere and then you can map it to any projection you desire."
http://catran.cailab.net/wordpress/
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4257
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by DesEsseintes »

I love that you’re using þ.
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

GoshDiggityDangit wrote: 03 Apr 2021 06:13
VaptuantaDoi wrote: 03 Apr 2021 05:30 *Any suggestions on what to call this case would be appreciated. "Adpositional" isn't a very good term either because it has several non-adpositional uses as well.
I think the other case could be called the Ergative or Direct because it is used for all clauses' direct objects. It could also be called the Bare case because it has no marking.
Thanks for the suggestions! I feel like "ergative" is kinda misleading (given that it's not an alignment case) and "direct" doesn't cover a large part of its usage. "Bare" is a good option though.

DesEsseintes wrote: 03 Apr 2021 08:05 I love that you’re using þ.
I couldn't help myself [xD]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Verbal morphology

Finally I have some more stuff to post! Čəsač verbs are relatively simple apart from the very complicated parts; all verbs have only 30 different single-word forms and are (pretty much) completely regular, but almost every form can undergo some morphophonological process to make them appear wildly irregular. They conjugate with suffixes for person and number and prefixes for tense and aspect; I won't be getting into mood or other stuff (especially passivisation and alignment) which I will hopefully talk about when I get to syntax.

Person and number
Čəsač has pretty boring person and number suffixes. Verbs conjugate for three persons and two numbers; the surface forms appear fusional but they can be broken down into two person suffixes and a plural suffix. The surface realisations have two forms, based on the syncope of the verb. One form occurs in non-past perfective and imperfective, the other form in all past forms and unmarked non-past. If the verb root has an even number of consonants (counting word-initial Ø, realised as /ʔ/), then the first syncope forms are used in non-past and unmarked forms and the second syncope in the npast.pfv and npast.impfv., and vice versa for odd-consonant roots. The surface forms are as follows:

Spoiler:
First syncope:
1sg. -ko
2sg. -ñə
3sg. -Ø
1pl. -koþ
2pl. -ñəþ
3pl. -te

Second syncope:
1sg. -h
2sg. -ñ
3sg. -Ø
1pl. -hte
2pl. -nte
3pl. -þ
These have several notable variations, which can be better explained using the underlying forms, which also accounts for syncope.

Underlying forms:
1sg. -Ko(A1)
2sg. –Ñə
3sg. -Ø
1pl. -Ko(A1)-Te
2pl. –Ñə–Te(ñt>nt)
3pl. –Te

The 1sg. and 1pl. forms cause the first ablaut in the second syncope, which changes root vowels /ɐ ɨ ɪ/ to /i ɐ ɨ/, although note that this does not affect all instances of /ɨ/; those deriving from Archaic Chusach ā are affected while most of those deriving from i are (where they evolved regularly) unaffected. (However, several instances of /ɨ/ from i were analogised to have the ablaut variation, while very few instances of ā lost the ablaut).

Spoiler:
ʔəñəčkəhte
[ˈʔʉ.ɲʉtʃˌkʉh.te]
ʔəñə-ČəKe-Ko(A1)–Te
nonpast.pfv.-hunt-1-pl
“We will hunt”

Compare the non-ablauted
ʔəñəčkente
[ˈʔʉ.ɲʉtʃˌkɪn.de]
ʔəñə-ČəKeə–Te(ñt>nt)
nonpast.pfv.-hunt-2-pl
“You will hunt”
With the first syncope forms, the suffixes can undergo the expected concatenations with final consonants of the verb root; the relevant changes are kk>k (realised as h), nk>ʔk, sk>s, nñ>ñ, ññ>ñ, nñ>ʔñ, tt>t>þ, st>s, ñt>nt, nt>ʔt. Note that whether a root-final n gives n or ʔ is random at a synchronic level.

Spoiler:
kuho
[ˈku.hɔ]
KuKo-Ko(A1)
plant-1sg.
“I plant” (cf. kuk “he plants”)

ʔənsəses
[ˈʔʉn.sʉˌsɪ.sɔθ]
ʔənsə–ØoSeSe–Ko(A1)-Te
past.pfv.-shorten-1-pl
“I have cut (it)” (cf. ʔossoh “I cut (it)”)
The allophonic frication of /k t/ to [h θ], written as h þ, occurs in all forms where /k t/ occur in a non-initial syllable.

Spoiler:
kəʔkoþ
[ˈkʉ.k’ɔθ]
KəNu(n>ʔ)–Ko(A1)-Te
shout-1-pl
“We shout”
Note that this only takes place when the suffixes are outside of the first syllable.

Spoiler:
ʔət
[ˈʔʉt]
Øə(Ø>ʔ)–Te
sit–pl.
“They sit”

ʔəñəþ
[ˈʔʉɲ.ʉθ]
ʔəñ-Øə(Ø>ʔ)–Te
past.pfv.-sit-pl.
“They have sat”

Tense and aspect
Tense and aspect are much simpler than person and number. Actually, I jus realised they're equally as complicated. I will be generally treating these prefixes as unanlysable fusional units which combine both tense (non-past vs. past) and aspect (perfective vs. imperfective). This is mainly because tense and aspect prefixes never occur separately; verbs are either completely unmarked or marked for both categories. The four prefixes are:

past perfective: ʔən-
past imperfective: ʔəs-
non-past perfective: ʔəñə-
non-past imperfective: ʔənsə-

Which also contrast with an unmarked form.
Yes, these are all weirdly similar; however, it’s worth noting that the ʔ is basically allophonic. This occurs as they derive from Proto-Bechsukchwan distant past and near past, which were two of the four PB tenses, and didn't have to contrast very much with each other because they also contrasted with other tenses.

The past prefixes cause the rest of the verb to undergo the first syncope, while the non-past prefixes cause the second syncope.

Spoiler:
ʔəsbeʔtəh
[ˈʔʉs.peˌt’ʉh]
ʔəs-BeNiTə(n→ʔ)-Ko
past.impfv.-be.scared-1
“I’ve been scared”

ʔənsəbniþko
[ˈʔʉn.zʉbˌniθ.kɔ]
ʔənsə-BeNiTə(n→ʔ)-Ko
nonpast.impfv.-be.scared-1
“I’m scared”
Both the past prefixes can merge with root-initial consonants, with the processes of nn>n, nñ>ñ, nč>ñč, ss>s, st>s, sč>s, sk>s.

Spoiler:
ʔəñčəhñə
[ˈʔʉɲ.tʃʉhˌɲɘ]
ʔən-ČəKeə
past.pfv.-hunt-2
“You have hunted”

ʔəs
[ˈʔʉ.sɐθ]
ʔəs–KaTə
past.impfv.-jerk
“He has been tugging”
These can also kinda be broken up into separate tense and aspect prefixes but I won’t do that because I don’t want to.

Verbs which were stressed on the initial syllable in Proto-Bechsukchwan undergo the second ablaut, with the "long" forms in the unmarked and the "short" forms in the perfective and imperfective forms, with the alteration between "long" /i ɐ u ɐ ɨ/ and "short" /ɨ ɨ ɔ ɪ ɪ/ (I still need to get clear in my head the full set of correspondences for the second ablaut, but those are the most important ones).

Spoiler:
kuho
[ˈku.hɔ]
KuKe-Ko
plant-1
"I plant it"

ʔənkoho
[ˈʔʉŋ.ɡɔˌhɔ]
ʔən-KuKe-Ko
past.pfv.-plant-1
"I planted it"

Usage
This is already getting quite long, so I’ll just discuss the usage of these forms very quickly. The person/number usage is as expected; the six forms are always distinguished and thus Čəsač is pro-drop. The tense-aspect forms have a less clearly defined meaning. Perfective broadly refers to a complete event and imperfective to an incomplete event. Past perfective refers to any action completed in the past which is no longer occurring (e.g. ʔəñčəho “I hunted, I have hunted”). Past imperfective to events which started in the past and are still ongoing in the present, or which are ongoing at the time frame being discussed, i.e. in comparison to another event (ʔəsəho “I have been hunting, I had been hunting, I was hunting”); it may also have a habitual sense (“I used to hunt, I had been going hunting”). Non-past perfective almost always has a future meaning (ʔəñəčkəh “I will hunt, I am going to hunt”). Non-past imperfective generally refers to a present event which either does not extend into the past, or the past occurrence of which is not being emphasised (ʔənsəčkəh “I am hunting, I’ve begun to hunt”) or an event which will happen for a long time (“I will be going hunting”). There is also an unmarked tense-aspect form; this only has a non-past meaning and can broadly refer to any present or future event; it is generally used as a simple present (especially for recounting events) because it's short (čəho "I hunt").

A verb
So here is an example of a fully conjugated verb, showcasing as much of the morphonology as I can get into one verb. (This verb isn't even that bad, the worst one so far is ʔə "sit down", whose root has a zero realisation in 12 out of its 30 forms).
Spoiler:
kuk "plant something" (KuKe) [PB *kúka "give birth to sth", AC kūka "create sth", MC kuk)
Note the second ablaut of the root, the first ablaut of the root, the assimilation of kk and sk, and the allophonic variation of h and k due to syllabification in the unmarked forms

Unmarked:
1sg: kuho
2sg: kukñə
3sg: kuk
1pl: kuhoþ
2pl: kukñəþ
3pl: kukte

Past perfective:
1sg: ʔənkoho
2sg: ʔənkohñə
3sg: ʔənkoh
1pl: ʔənkohoþ
2pl: ʔənkohñəþ
3pl: ʔənkohte

Past imperfective:
1sg: ʔəsoho
2sg: ʔəsohñə
3sg: ʔəsoh
1pl: ʔəsohoþ
2pl: ʔəsohñəþ
3pl: ʔəsohte

Non-past perfective:
1sg: ʔəñəhəh
2sg: ʔəñəheñ
3sg: ʔəñəhe
1pl: ʔəñəhəhte
2pl: ʔəñəhente
3pl: ʔəñəheþ

Non-past imperfective:
1sg: ʔənsəhəh
2sg: ʔənsəheñ
3sg: ʔənsehe
1pl: ʔənsehəhte
2pl: ʔənsəhente
3pl: ʔənsəheþ
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4405
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by Creyeditor »

I just read through all of this and I like it. The terminology also became clearer with every post. I like the overall result and I think it all fits together really well. Plus, it reminds me of archaic Semitic languages like Akkadian.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Alignment and a bit of syntax

Čəsač alignment is kinda weird. I've decided to reanalyse the whole system, but none of you can tell cause I didn't even write the first one down. This new analysis means that both passive and active sentences (and even indirect object sentences) have the same syntax but weird semantics.

A couple of updates:

- I'm renaming the noun cases to proper names; dative (né adpositional) and direct (né the other case). It's called direct case but that doesn't mean Čəsač has a direct-inverse alignment; it's syntactically nominative accusative and morphologically active-passive with some quirks
- Their usage and formation is the same as I said in a previous post
- I've decided to stop putting the morphophonological cues in the words when glossing unless I'm specifically describing them cause they're too confusing. Actually, I'm even going to write the syncope much simpler; I'll just write every vowel in the glosses without subscripts/capitals.
- I will no longer write the effectively allophonic word-initial pre-vocalic glottal stop; now any word-initial vowel has an implied /ʔ/ before it. I may go back and edit this change into all the previous posts if I really feel like it.

Basic sentences
I'll start off looking at basic intransitive and transitive sentences. Ignoring a closed class of motion verbs, the subject, object and agent are all in the unmarked direct case. The word order is SV(O).
Spoiler:
kəhəñ əsə
kəkeke-ñi əs-Øə-Ø
oval.leaf-DIST PAST.IMPFV-sit-3sg.
"The leaf was sitting"

əñča ənsəhtə kekno
ənu-ča ənsə-katə-Ø kekano
comb-PROX NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg hair
"This comb is pulling (my) hair"
When the subject is incorporated into the verb, the order is V(O)
Spoiler:
əsə
əs-Øə-Ø
PAST.IMPFV-sit-3sg.
"(S)he was sitting"

ənsəhtə keknoč
ənsə-katə-Ø kekano-ča
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg hair-PROX
"(S)he is pulling my hair"

Indirect objects
Indirect objects are, unsurprisingly, in the dative case. These follow the direct object.
Spoiler:
ənsəhtə nəʔ bačnonəč
ənsə-katə-Ø nəni bačəno-nə-nəče
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg rope mouth-DAT-MED
"(S)he's pulling the rope to his/her mouth"
Other adpositional objects work likewise. The adposition is a postposition (ie follows the noun).
Spoiler:
ənsəhtə nəʔ bačnonəč su
ənsə-katə-Ø nəni bačəno-nə-nəče su
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg rope mouth-DAT-MED INSTR
"(S)he's pulling the rope with his/her mouth"

Passive sentences
The passive voice is indicated through syntax and case rather than on the verb. The subject of a passive clause is put in the dative, and is treated as an actual indirect object (it follows the verb and any direct object).
Spoiler:
ənsəhtə nəʔ bačnonəč
ənsə-katə-Ø nəni bačəno-nə-nəče
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg rope mouth-DAT-MED
"The rope is being pulled by his/her mouth"
This does mean that passive sentences can be confused with subject-dropped active sentences with an indirect object; the sentence about could equally be read as "(s)he's pulling the rope to his/her mouth". To deal with this ambiguity, sentences with an indirect object are generally not pro-drop; the second interpretation would be usually said as
Spoiler:
ənsəhtə ñə nəʔ bačnonəč
ənsə-katə-Ø ñə nəni bačəno-nə-nəče
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg 3 rope mouth-DAT-MED
"(S)he's pulling the rope to his/her mouth"
Alternatively, the indirectness could be emphasised with the postposition u "to".
Spoiler:
ənsəhtə nəʔ bačnonəč u
ənsə-katə-Ø nəni bačəno-nə-nəče u
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg rope mouth-DAT-MED DAT
"(S)he's pulling the rope to his/her mouth"
Passive sentences can have indirect objects too; the actual indirect object follows the dative subject.
Spoiler:
ənsəhtə nəʔ bačnonəč ñeč
ʔənsə-katə-Ø nəni bačəno-nə-nəče ñe-ča
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg rope mouth-DAT-MED 1DAT-PROX
"The rope is being pulled by his/her mouth to me"

Those motion verbs
Using a concept blatantly stolen from French, a select set of motion verbs act differently to all the other ones. Specifically, there's a closed set of motion verbs (yet to be determined how many and which ones) whose subjects are always in the dative. For these verbs, the syntax is also changed to V(O)S; basically the syntax is still SV(O)X, but the subject is being treated as passive. (The verb is grammatically a subjectless verb with no subject and a verb that agrees with the indirect object)
Spoiler:
ənañe čəsačnə
ən-Øanuñe-Ø čəsəkaču-nə
PAST.PFV-walk-3sg person-DAT
"The person walked"

əñčisəse ñəñañ ñəbneneʔ
əñə-čisəsəsə-Ø-te ñə-ñiñə-ñi ñə-bənenene-nə
NPAST.PFV-move.apart-3-PL PL-root-DIST PL-pig-DAT
"The pigs are going to disturb those roots"
When these motion verbs also have an indirect or prepositional object, the dative subject comes before the true indirect object.
Spoiler:
ənañe čəsačnə ñətkenə
ən-Øanuñe-Ø čəsəkaču-nə ñə-tokene-nə
PAST.PFV-walk-3sg person-DAT PL-melon-DAT
"The person walked to the melons"
How about passive forms of these motion verbs? There aren't any. Morphologically and syntactically, these verbs are already in the passive;


Numeral-modified arguments
As mentioned in a previous post, all nouns modified by numerals are put in the dative case. However, unlike other dative arguments, they are not treated as indirect objects. No matter which argument they are, the syntax is unchanged. Note that the numeral follows the noun.
Spoiler:
ənsəhtə ñəčsəhčun siʔke ñənin ñek ñəbčənəñče siʔke
ənsə-katə-Ø ñə-čəsəkaču-nə sineke ñə-nəni-nə ñek ñə-bačəno-nə-nəče sineke
NONP.IMPFV-tug-3sg PL-person-DAT six PL-rope-DAT twelve PL-mouth-DAT-MED six
"Six people are pulling the twelve ropes to their six mouths"
The only confusion this creates is when sentences have a direct object modified by a numeral, which is indistinguishable from an indirect object modified by a numeral when there is no direct object:
Spoiler:
əñəñañko ñətkenə kəs
əñə-ñenañe-ko ñə-tokene-nə kəs
NPAST.PFV-search-1 PL-melon-DAT four
"I'll go searching at the four melons" or "I'll go searching for the four melons"
Again, this ambiguity can be removed using u "to", specifying the indirect object interpretation. Note that this follows the numeral.
Spoiler:
əñəñañko ñətkenə kəs u
əñə-ñenañe-ko ñə-tokene-nə kəs u
NPAST.PFV-search-1 PL-melon-DAT four DAT
"I'll go searching at the four melons"

That's it, I hope. I'm pretty happy with this, especially cause I can now start actually translating at least very basic texts. Next post will be about pronouns, which I accidentally made while writing this post.



Creyeditor wrote: 09 May 2021 21:23 I just read through all of this and I like it. The terminology also became clearer with every post. I like the overall result and I think it all fits together really well. Plus, it reminds me of archaic Semitic languages like Akkadian.
Thanks for the kind words! It's interesting how you get that kinda vibe from this lang, cause I didn't look at Semitic langs for inspiration. Which features reminded you of Akkadian in particular?
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Pronouns
Čəsač has six sets of pronouns; of these, four are synchronically fusional and the other two are transparently derived. Proto-Bechsukchwan had only four pronominal roots; first person singular *a, plural *e, second person *u̯a and third person *i. Number was not distinguished for second and third person. In Late PB, compounds were used to clear up this ambiguity; *á-u̯a for first person inclusive plural, *u̯a-i for 2pl and *i-i for 3pl.
The basic set of Čəsač pronouns are the tonic (stressed) ones. These derive from the PB forms with stress added; i.e. *á é áu̯a u̯á u̯ái̯ í íi. The 1plin., 2sg. and 2pl. forms gained an /g/ to distinguish them better, giving *águ̯a gu̯á gu̯ái̯. After this they evolved regularly to give:

Code: Select all

                     SG  PL
*á   *é     >  1ex.  ə   ña
     *água  >  1in.  –   ən
*guá *guái  >  2     bə  be
*í   *íi    >  3     ñi  ñiñ
There were also atonic equivalents, which evolved slightly differently. Note that *au̯a (2pl.) was apparently simplified to *au̯.

Code: Select all

                     SG  PL
*a	*e     >  1ex.  e   ñe
        *au(a) >  1in.      u
*ua	*uai   >  2     e   e
*i	*i     >  3     ñə  ñə
Note that e can mean second person singular or plural, or first person singular; also number is lost in third person.

Using the now unproductive PB genitive prefix *gu̯ái̯–, a possessive series was formed, now basically unanalysable. Again, /g/ was inserted into 2sg. and 2pl.; also note that the vowel sequences were reduced in some cases

Code: Select all

                             SG  PL
*guá(ia) *guáie     >  1ex.  bə  bəʔ
         *guáia(ua) >  1in.      bəʔ
*guáigua *guaiguai  >  2     bən bən
*g(uái)i *g(uái)i   >  3     ni  ni
The exclusivity distinction has been lost, as well as number in the second and third person.

Pronouns also have dative forms, like nouns. These use the same prefix *dí-, which is now unanalysable. Note the stress shift of *dí-a, *dí-e and *dí-agu̯a to *di̯á di̯é di̯águ̯a.

Code: Select all

                         SG  PL
*diá   *dié     >  1ex.  ñe  ñe
       *diágua  >  1in.      ñe
*dígua *díguai  >  2     ñeʔ ñeʔ
*dí    *dí      >  3     ñi  ñi
In the dative, all number distinction is lost.

As well as all of these forms, there are “overmarked” forms; these are forms where both number and person and explicitly marked; number through the ñə- prefix, and person through the three proximity suffixes -ča, -nəče and -ñi. These correspond to first, second and third person; but 1pl.inc. uses medial -nəčə.

Code: Select all

       SG    PL
 1ex.  əč    ñəñča
 1in.        ñəneñče
 2     bəñče ñəbnəč
 3     ñiñ   ñəñiñ
There are also dative versions:

Code: Select all

       SG     PL
 1ex.  ñeč    ñəñča
 1in.         ñəñəč
 2     ñeʔnəč ñəñeñče
 3     ñiñ    ñəñi
This fixes the lack of number distinction.

Usage
So what are these six forms used for? Well I’ll tell you:

- The tonic forms are used in isolation (generally in answer to a question), for direct objects and when the subject of a sentence is being specifically emphasised
- The atonic forms are used to remove syntactical ambiguity surrounding some sentences with indirect objects, or at any other times where being pro-drop would be ambiguous but the subject isn’t being emphasised
- The possessive series are used as adjectives. Possesion may also be indicated using the proximity suffixes; a distal noun is generally interpreted as being owned by a third-person argument of the sentence. Possessive pronouns are still used a lot to remove ambiguity.
- The dative forms are used exactly the same as dative nouns; with all adpositions, when modified by numerals, for the subject of a passive clause, for the indirect object or for a the subject of clauses with a small number of motion verbs
- The overmarked direct forms are used to strongly emphasise an argument of a sentence or when addressing someone or pointing to someone/thing (e.g. “your country needs you” would be translated using bəñče)
- The overmarked dative forms are used to remove the bunch of ambiguity that comes with dative pronouns; any use of the plain dative pronoun can be replaced by an overmarked dative one
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4405
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Bechsukchwan Čəsač

Post by Creyeditor »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 26 Jun 2021 02:33
Creyeditor wrote: 09 May 2021 21:23 I just read through all of this and I like it. The terminology also became clearer with every post. I like the overall result and I think it all fits together really well. Plus, it reminds me of archaic Semitic languages like Akkadian.
Thanks for the kind words! It's interesting how you get that kinda vibe from this lang, cause I didn't look at Semitic langs for inspiration. Which features reminded you of Akkadian in particular?
I guess it's the general feel, but mainly the way syncope applies. I recently read about Akkadian, which might play a role, too.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
greek
greek
Posts: 487
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Añoþnın

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Update

I've decided to make two minor changes to the language:
  • The vowel I first called /ɨ/ is now considered /ʉ/, and is written <ı>, replacing <ə>. I've also played around with a couple of replacements for /tʃ ʔ/ (currently č ʔ); I'm considering using c ɂ.
  • The name is now Añoþnın [ˈʔɐɲɔθˌnʉn], which means nothing but looks a lot better than Čəsač.
Here's a sample in the new orthography:
Cıñı ısiɂse tuɂ ñiksuþnı. Isñıne ñı kıson. Cıñı cıse ñi to cısacan bıctın: “A ñane kıson usıñca su bı!” Cısaca cıse cıñın: “Iñısiheñ bıcteñi Benunos.” Añe cıñın Benunosnı u ko ñi bot ñi. Cıse ñi to Benunosnı: “A kosañ Benunosa ñec!” Añe Benunosnı sıknan kus o cıse ñi to ñi: “Ñıneñ kın?” Cıse ñi to: “Isñınıh kısoñca.” Benunosa bıɂ cıse ñi to: “Iñısnes kıson bın” Kokneþ use cıñın un ıñan kıso.

Aa Bb Cc Ee Hh İi Iı Kk Nn Ññ Oo Ss Tt Uu Þþ Ɂɂ
Post Reply