Tsayyākan - Scratchpad

[Davush]

Intro
This language is inspired by (Classical) Japanese, the non-concatenativity of Semitic, and a touch of Ancient Greek — mostly just trying out things I like. The name is tentative for now.

Phonology
I won't focus too much on this right now. Predictably, it has quite a simple phonology:

/p t k ts/ <p t k ts>
/m n/ <m n>
/s h/ <s h>
/r l/ <r l>
/w j/ <w y>

/p t k ts/ voice after a nasal and are written <mb nd ng nz>.

All consonants can appear geminate, which mostly occur as part of the morphophonology.

(I might add an aspirated series, possibly also only appearing due to morfofo).

/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>
/a: e: i: o: u:/ <ā ē ī ō ū>

Vowel length is generally also mostly morphophonological. Short /e o/ are uncommon, if not absent, in roots.

Undecided on dipthongs at the minute.

Syllable structure is C(C)VN. Only the following onset clusters are allowed: /pr tr kr ps ks/. /ts/ is always treated as a single consonant, even though historically it may be been a merger of 'original' /ts/ and /t+s/. I may allow some other codas (/s r/ for example), but let's see how we do without them for now.

Stress occurs within a three-syllable window from the right. Heavy syllables attract stress, but final long vowels are not stressed. Super-heavy CV:N only occurs word finally, and is stressed.

The orthography always marks stress on short vowels with an acute (even though stress is always predictable - I just like the way it looks).

Nouns
Nouns belong to either the a-class or i-class, corresponding to the respective final vowel in the nominative.
(Not sure if these will actually be 'classes/gender' proper, rather than just inflectional types, let's assume there is no gender for now).

The stem type is also of importance. At the minute, there are C-stems and N-stems. N-stems include nouns whose final consnant is /n m/, C-stems are all others. There may also be H-stems, and maybe some other quirks. CC-stems also exist, but I haven't fully decided what I want to do with these, so I'll leave them for another post.

Here's an overview of some typical nouns before we begin:

C-Stem, a-class:
Case. Sg. – Pl.
Nom. tsáka – tsakāka
Gen. tsákan – tsakākan
Acc. tsāke – tsákeri
Dat. tsákki – tsakákki
Instr. tsókō – tsakākō

N-Stem, i-class:
Case. Sg. – Pl.
Nom. ílani – ilanāni
Gen. ílanin – ilanānin
Acc. ilēne – iléneri
Dat. íléndi – ilanándi
Instr. ílanū – ilanānū

Nominative
The unmarked form is the nominative singular:

tsáka /ˈtsaka/ tree
hítsara /ˈhitsara/ garden
níma /ˈnima/ woman
ílani /ˈilani/ flower
kútsi /ˈkutsi/ stick
áksa /ˈaksa/ gate, door

The nominative plural is formed by reduplication of the final syllable of the stem with a lengthened vowel:

tsák-a > tsak-āk-a
hítsar-a > hitsar-ār-a
ním-a > nim-īm-a
ílan-i > ilan-ān-i

Notably, i-nouns with final-syllable /u/ show the vowel /i:/ in the reduplicated syllable (in fact, we will see that i~u swap around quite a bit):

kumi > kum-īm-i (not ?kumūmi)

Where the final syllables contains /mb nd ng ndz/, the reduplicated syllable contains its plain equivalent (except /mb/, where the reduplicated consonant is /w/, due to /p/ always leniting to /w/ after long vowels):

yund-a > yund-ūt-a (not ?yundūnda)
kamb-i > kamb-āw-i (not ?kambāpi)

Where the final syllable contains /ps ks pr tr kr/, the pattern is (tentative - but I quite like this):

íkra > ikkīra (not ?ikrīra)
tapsa > tappāsa (not ?tapsāsa)

Genitive
The genitive is straightforward: -n is appended to the singular and plural forms:

tsakan, tsakākan
hítsaran, hitsarāran
níma, nimīman
etc.

Accusative
The accusative is a bit more complicated, and depends on both the final vowel of the stem as well as a/i-class. The final stem vowel always appears lengthened in the accusative singular, but may change quality. The suffix is always -e. The following changes occur:

iC-a > ēC-e
uC-a > ōC-e
aC-i > ēC-e
uC-i > īC-e

níma > nēme
súna > sōne
ílani > ilēne
kutsi > kītse

This means only aCa and iCi show no change in vowel quality.

The accusative plural appends -ri to the singular form, and the lengthened vowel is (peculiarly) shortened:

tsāke - tsákeri
nēme - némeri
ilēne - iléneri
kītse - kítseri
etc.

These might co-exist with a reduplicated type: tsákeki, némemi, iléneni, kítsetsi, etc.

Dative
The dative singular is formed from the accusative (minus vowel length) by geminating the stem-final consonant and adding -i. Nasal stem nouns have -ndi, rather than gemination.

tsáka - tsákki
ílani - iléndi (acc: ilēne)
níma - néndi (acc: nēme)
kutsi - kíttsi (acc. kītse)

The dative plural is also somewhat strange. It shows a kind of reduplication, but this time with gemination rather than lengthening of the vowel. Nasal-stem nouns show -andi. Interestingly, the vowel of the reduplicated syllable is always /a/:

tsáka - tsákki - tsakákki
ílani - iéndi - ilanándi
níma - néndi - nimándi
kútsi - kíttsi - kutsáttsi
súna - sóndi - sunándi

Instrumental

The instrumental is relaitvely staightforward: it adds -ō to the nominative base for a-nouns, and -ū for i-nouns. Any short /a/ directly preceding /o:/ becomes /o/:

tsaka, tsakāka > tsókō, tsakākō
nima, nimīma > nímō, nimīmō
ílani, ilanāni > ílanū, ilanānū

Some noun phrases:

níman ílani /ˈniman ˈilani/
woman-GEN flower-NOM
the woman's flower

hitsarāran tsakákki /hitsaˈɾa:ɾan tsaˈkakki/
garden-PL-GEN tree-PL-DAT
to the trees of the gardens

ilanānin hitsáreri /ilaˈna:nin hiˈtsaɾeɾi/
flower-PL-GEN garden-PL-ACC
the gardens of flowers (acc).

tsakākan hítsaran áksi /tsaˈka:kan ˈhitsaɾan ˈaksi/
garden-GEN gate-DAT
to the gate of the garden of trees

tsakan kutsītsū /ˈtsakan kuˈtsi:tsu:/
tree-GEN stick-PL-INST
with the sticks of the tree

Diachronic Note
The noun system so far is quite a diachronic puzzle! There are hints are diachronic process, and I do have some basic ideas on how some of these things could have arisen (working backwards since I'm starting with what I like), but nothing concrete. Other parts of the morphology will probably be helpful.

Any comments welcome as always!

[Omzinesý]

Quenya comes to my mind.

I like the case paradigm. It's agglutinative and still has some processes that make it interesting.
The plural reduplication is also a nice idea.

What if an over-heavy CV:N syllable appears stem-finally and you want to add a suffix? Then the syllable is not word-final anymore.

[Davush]

Quenya comes to my mind.

Interesting! Quenya definitely wasn't an influence here – maybe that's a product of the specific examples. I think it will be less 'mellifluous' and more stop-heavy. I imagine it will look less Quenya once we get to verbs.

I like the case paradigm. It's agglutinative and still has some processes that make it interesting.
The plural reduplication is also a nice idea.

What if an over-heavy CV:N syllable appears stem-finally and you want to add a suffix? Then the syllable is not word-final anymore.

If a superheavy syllable gains an affix, the vowel would probably shorten (or the coda would drop), e.g., hamān+ta > hamanda (not hamānda). Although I don't know if this situation will actually exist in practice.

I should also note that part of the initial idea was also that only the following consonants are used in grammatical affixes:
/t n r h j/
(possibly also /s w/, and maybe a historical *?).

A morphophonological note:

*akt-, ikt-, ukt- > ayt-, īt-, īt-
*apt-, ipt-, upt- > awt-, ūt-, ūt-
*att-, itt-, utt- > att-, itt-, utt-

This occurs in both nouns and verbs.

*tsakti > tsayti
*supti > sūti
*nikti > nīti

I've decided that i-nouns historically had some sort of -iC suffix (maybe just *iʔ), and the morpheme order is:

stem-number-(iC)-case

a-nouns are probably 'unmarked', so they don't need to fill the 'iC' slot.

This will probably change the forms a bit, and maybe give more coherence.

I've also decided that the dative historically comes from something like *ti, so:

*tsak-ti > tsayti
*tsak-āk-ti > tsakayti

Looking at the case affixes (ignoring reduplication), we have:

Nom. -a/-i (tsak-a)
Acc. -e, -eri (tsāk-e, tsák-eri)
Gen. -(a)n (tsak-an)
Dat. -ti (tsay-ti)
Instr. -ō (tsak-ō)

I don't really like the instrumental, so I might change it at some point.

I also want something in -oron (maybe -ēron for i-nouns). Not sure what case/function it will have yet, but it looks nice:

tsákoron, ilanēron, áksoron, kutsēron, etc.

To be continued...

[Davush]

Pronouns and Pronominal Enclitics

A series of (pronominal) clitics often precedes the verb. Clitics are always attached to a 'conjunctive' particle, most often a-, which has no meaning, and serves only as a 'joiner' morpheme. Other conjunctive particles will have semantic content.

The order of pronominal clitics is:

CONJUNCTIVE PARTICLE - SUBJECT - LOCATIVE (?) - INDIRECT OBJECT - OBJECT

In some cases, the conjunctive particle may be replaced by an independent subject pronoun - perhaps this usage is somewhat archaic.

Let's have a look at some examples:

anakásse /anaˈkasse/
a-na-kasi-e
CONJ-1sg.NOM-2sg.DAT-3sg.ACC

Third-person accusatives in the clitic chain signal a definite object.

anakásse ilēne [verb] /anaˈkasse iˈle:ne/
CONJ=1sg.NOM=2sg.DAT=3sg.ACC flower-ACC
I [gave] the flower to you

menatsákahi iléneri [verb] /menaˈtsakahi iˈleneɾi/
then=1sg.NOM=LOC=2sg.DAT flower-PL-ACC
Then, I [gave] (some) flowers to you [there, in the house]

Phonologically/prosodically, clitic chains function as a single word – this is clear from the stress patterns. There are also various morphophonological changes. Most notably, clitics ending in -Ci become -C: in some cases (Ci > C: will have been a productive process throughout the language).

I'm not totally sure what all the pronouns will look like, but I have something like this for now:

1sg na (nom), ne (acc), ni (gen), nahi~nass- (dat)
2sg ku (nom), ki (acc), tsi (gen), kahi~kass (dat)
3sg a (nom), e (acc) (there may be two forms, if noun class/gender is a thing)
1pl ?
2pl ?
3pl ?

Note that the 3sg.ACC <e> is the same as the accusative suffix -e, hinting at a similar origin.

Nominative pronouns will probably also have a long/independent form.

I think that if I make subject clitics obligatory, person-marking on the verb might be less expected, so perhaps verbs will only mark number (if even).

[Davush]

Ok, since this is a scratchpad, scratch all of the above on pronouns. I have come up with a system that I like much better.

Preverbal Enclitic Chains

Let's only focus on 1st and 2nd persons for now, as 3rd person will somehow be 'peripheral'.

We have the following subject enclitics:

1sg. =wa
2sg. =ku
1pl. =yu
2pl. =kra

There might be an inclusive/exclusive distinction in the 1pl.

Object and indirect object marking in clitics shows an interesting distinction in that they only encode number for 1st/2nd persons.

=ni = 1sg or 2sg object
=nne = 1pl or 2pl object

=si = 1sg or 2sg indirect object
=sse = 1pl or 2pl indirect object

This means there is a kind of polarity: if the subject is 1, the object must be 2 (and vice versa).

a=wa=ni 1sg>2sg
a=ku=ni 2sg>1sg
a=yu=ni 1pl>2sg
a=kra=ni 2pl>1sg

a=wa=nne 1sg>2pl
a=ku=nne 2sg>1pl
a=yu=nne 1pl>2pl
a=kra=nne 2pl>1pl

So we might have something like:

áwani [see]
CONJ=1sg.NOM=?? [see]
I [saw] you

akrásse [give]
CONJ=2pl.NOM-?? [give]
You (pl.) give to us

(I have no idea how to gloss the object clitics - would it just be 1/2? Or would you mark it according to the actual role it plays, since this is always obvious from the preceding pronoun?)

Now, 1st and 2nd person are 'privileged', they must appear before a 3rd person clitic, even when they are objects. So, -ra encodes 3rd person singular subject but comes after the object:

áwara, ákura, áyura, ákrara, etc.

Perhaps echoing the gemination of the plural SAP clitics -nne -sse, a 3pl subject is -rra:
awárra, akúrra, ayúrra, akrárra, etc.

The locative clitic =tsa (probably referencing a locative phrase: 'there, in it, to it, etc.' intervenes between all of the above:

awátsani [see]
I [saw] you (there, in the house, etc.)

akratsárra [see]
They [saw] you (pl.) (there, in the house, etc.)

This leaves forms where both arguments are 3rd person, and 3rd person (indirect) objects....perhaps intransitive verbs will also have their own special pronouns, but then this hints at ergativity so one must tread carefully...!

[Davush]

So, I'm not happy with the pronominal system at all. I'll just leave that alone for now. Let's move on to verbs.

I feel like doing something that revolves around a participle-like system, starting with something like this:

tam- eat
tā-tam- eating (active)
tam-ām- eaten (passive)

With CVCVC roots, this general pattern of CV:CVC vs. CVCV:C is spread analogically and/or by haplology:

makas- sweep
mākas- sweeping (not *māmakas)
makās- swept (not *makasās)

That is to say, the active participle is formed by reduplication (+ lengthening) of the initial syllable, and the passive by reduplciation (+ lengthening) of the final syllable (or just lengthening on CVCVC roots).

Roots with a high vowel show this pattern:

sun- see
sūnan- seeing (not *sūnun)
sanūn- seen (not *sunūn)

Note: This pattern could be explained by historic short-vowel reduction next to a stressed long vowel, with later *ə > a (*suˈnu:n- > *səˈnu:n- > sanūn-). Actually, I like this a lot: it also applies to the nominal paradigms. So now <kutsi> 'stick' has a nom. pl. <katsūtsi> (not <?kutsūtsi)

Now, this system could easily turn into a split-ergativity system if the participles become dominant, Not sure if I want ergativity yet, though.

Being participles, perhaps they were also marked for number. If they took the usual nominal style of number marking, there would be a *lot* of reduplication...

?tātamām-
?tamāmām-

I don't actually hate it, but I probably don't want it to be used for something so pervasive as number.

(Medio)passives are marked by -Vr- which becomes part of the stem, which in turn can be 'participlised':

tamar- to be eaten
tātamar- to be being eaten
tamarār- OR tamāmar- to have been eaten

(The latter depends if reduplication takes tam- or tamar- as its target.)

I probably want a non-participle form to also survive, and/or some vowel shortening so not every verb has to have a long vowel. The imperative is a likely candidate where the non-participle root would survive. Maybe the imperative suffix is -ē:

támē! eat!
*makásē! sweep!
súnē! look!
hákē! speak!

*I might have stress be mora- rather than syllable-dependent, so it occurs three morae before the end, rather than three syllables - undecided for now.

Still a lot to work out, but at least it's going somewhere!

[Omzinesý]

With CVCVC roots, this general pattern of CV:CVC vs. CVCV:C is spread analogically and/or by haplology:

makas- sweep
mākas- sweeping (not *māmakas)
makās- swept (not *makasās

I like that. Reminds me of Arabic, but not too much.

Being participles, perhaps they were also marked for number. If they took the usual nominal style of number marking, there would be a *lot* of reduplication...

?tātamām-
?tamāmām-

I don't actually hate it, but I probably don't want it to be used for something so pervasive as number.

Maybe just a plural suffix for participles / adjectives?

[Davush]

I like that. Reminds me of Arabic, but not too much.

It was indeed (partially) inspired by Semitic-like forms! The verbal system will probably have some more non-concatenativity, but not exactly in the Semitic style.

More on the participles

The tā-tam/active form is (or was) primarily used to comment on the agent of an action, or the general state of the subject. This includes predicate adjectives and unergative verbs.

The tam-ām/passive form is (or was) primairly used to comment on the patient of an action. This includes unaccusative verbs such as "to fall over" or "to die". Unaccusative verbs have no corresponding active form. Conversely, predicate adjs and unergative verbs do not have a 'passive' form.

Perhaps at an earlier stage these were more clearly adjectival, and could not take further arguments. Over time, they come to (largely) supplant other finite forms, probably by the addition of a copula/auxiliary that has become fused.

Compare these:

túra tātama The man is eating/has eaten
ílani lūsami The flower is beautiful

túra wakāka The man is dead
králi tamāma The egg is eaten (by him) > He ate/has eaten the egg

Now, perhaps the reduplicated forms were initially only used predicatively, and attributive verbs/adjectives had a separate form. This raises a few interesting questions. Compare:

lómon tsáka the big tree
tsáka lōloma the tree is big

táman túra the man who eats
túra tātama the man is eating

A possible (partial) diachronic explanation is prosodic weight: the predicate/finite forms were emphasised, and this was realised by reduplication and/or vowel lengthening, since ADJ+NOUN forms may have been (prosodically) more like a single compound. The final -n in the attributive forms also reminds of the genitive.

So, there is apparently a robust distinction between a predicate form and a relativised/attributive form.

Since reduplication is unavailable on the attributive/relative forms, this leads to a possible ambiguity:

táman králi the egg that was eaten / the egg that is eating

The second reading is obviously not pragmatically very likely, but in certain cases it could be ambiguous. I am undecided whether this situation will continue, or if verbs used attributively will gain more distinctions.

And finally, a (tentative) sentence!

hitsarāran lúsamin iláneri áppan túra nēme sapāwa.
/hitsaˈɾa:ɾan ˈlusamin iˈlaneɾi ˈap:an ˈtuɾa ˈne:me saˈpa:wa/
garden-PL-GEN beautiful-ATR flower-PL-ACC take-ATR man-NOM woman-ACC see-PAST-3
The man who took the beautiful flowers of the gardens saw a woman

[Davush]

A fun idea for plural marking on the participle forms occurred to me, so I'm going to write it down before I forget.

Starting with a proto-plural suffix, something like *(i)j. Maybe this is related to the -i in the accusative plural -eri.

Initially, this is applied as a regular agglutinative suffix:

*tama:m-(i)j- eat-PASS_PTCP-PL
*ta:tam-(i)j- ACT_PTCP-eat-PL

However, it becomes metathesised after the long vowel:

*tama:m-(i)j- > tama:-j-m- > tamaim-
*sunu:n-(i)j- > sunu:-j-n- > sunuin-

Further, *ui > /i:/. This now leads to a high-vowel alternation in /u/-verbs:
sunu:n- (sg.) suni:n- (pl.) (< sunu:jn-)

With vowels that have /i/ in the root, no change takes place as /i:j/ = /i:/
*hiki:k-i(j) > hiki:j-k > hiki:k-

There are now two options for i-verbs here:
1. Collapse the sg./pl. distinction. Not a bad choice.
2. Analogise.

Since I want some more non-concatenativity in verbs, analogy is probably the more fitting option. There are also now two options:

1. Analogise the /a/-stem diphthong: hiki:k- > hikáik-
2. Analogise the high-vowel reversal: hiki:k- > hiku:k-

I like the high-vowel reversal idea. This would mean speakers have analogised a process, rather than a specific sound: since /u/ > /i/ in the plural forms, then /i/ must > /u/! But, to be honest, here I prefer the plural forms in -ai- for i-verbs. (I'll keep the vowel reversal in mind though - it could be fun for other stuff.)

So, it's katīt (sg.) ~ katáit (pl.).

But what about the active participle?

If metathesis applies, we get things like: ?tātaim-, ?sūsīn-, ?kīkīt-

This is OK for CVC verbs, since the reduplication is of a different syllable, so they are still quite distinct. But for CVCVC verbs, the difference from the passive form would be very minor: mākáis- vs. makáis-.

Not unreasonable, especially if vowel length is independent of stress, but I don't like it that much. (Of course, there is nothing to say CVCVC have to undergo metathesis or act in exactly the same way, but let's assume they do for now, by 'borrowing' the template of CVC verbs).

Instead, since the long vowel of the passive form changes, then by analogy/reanalysis, the long vowel of the active form will also change.

This gives 3 classes of verbs (or maybe 2.5), with a fun non-concatenative-ish sing/pl distinction:

a/i-stem
tātam ~ táitam // tamām ~ tamáim
kītit ~ káitit // katīt ~ katáit

u-stem
sūnun ~ sīnun // sanūn ~ sanīn

And with a CVCVC verb: mākas ~ máikas // makās ~ makáis

(There are probably many directions this could have gone - maybe sister languages/dialects will do things slightly differently.)

[Porphyrogenitos]

Nice work so far. I like the attention given to the declensional classes; I think having variety in inflection is often something overlooked in a priori conlangs.

[Omzinesý]

Is the semantic distinction between the two basicly that of tense in modern Tsayyākan?
Or aspect?
Or is there something to do with orientation/alignment still?

[Davush]

Nice work so far. I like the attention given to the declensional classes; I think having variety in inflection is often something overlooked in a priori conlangs.

Thanks! To be honest, I probably tend towards having too many declension classes precisely because of the variety! On a similar note, I am quite happy with the morphology so far, but the amount of long vowels and geminates are giving the language a very 'heavy' feel that I don't particularly want. I might change it to dynamic stress instead. I quite like the idea of a relatively simple phonology but interesting morphophonology - the balance is very difficult to get right!

Is the semantic distinction between the two basicly that of tense in modern Tsayyākan?
Or aspect?
Or is there something to do with orientation/alignment still?

It will probably have become mostly a tense distinction, augmented by various copula-like verbs. Perhaps subordinate clauses still use some of the original finite forms. Some quirks might remain, though. I'm also thinking of a Basque-like situation where only few verbs have inflection that isn't participial/nominal.

The language was going to be quite strictly head-final, but I'm not enjoying what this has produced, so it will probably be SOV/head-final in simple sentences, but otherwise show SVO/head-initial tendencies.

[Davush]

A fun idea...

'Simple' (i.e., non-reduplicated) stems show the following :

*p, *t, *k, *s > ps, ts, ks, s ~ mb, nd, ng, nz
*h > s ~ n
*r, *l > y, y ~ r, l
*m *n > no change

Additionally, -t added to consonant stems causes some changes (as has been previously mentioned)

*pt *kt *tt > ut, it, Vt
*mt *nt > nd
*rt *lt > rVt, lVt (epenthetic vowel - maybe)

The vowel that appears in roots with an underlying high vowel is morphologically conditioned. I'm not sure exactly what I'll do with this yet. It might appear in conjunction with the above.

So we might get three (or four, if the reduplicated forms are counted separately) principle parts:

*sap-
saps-
saut-
sásap-, sapáp-

*hak-
hang-
hait-
háhak-, hakák-

*luk-
liks-
lit-
lúluk-, lalúk-

To make things more fun (or complicated...), there might not be a one-to-one correspondence between forms. For example, maybe *sap- shows the form saps- but not saut-. While *hak- shows both hang- and hait- but not haks-. Hmm...

[Omzinesý]

Is the semantic distinction between the two basicly that of tense in modern Tsayyākan?
Or aspect?
Or is there something to do with orientation/alignment still?

It will probably have become mostly a tense distinction, augmented by various copula-like verbs. Perhaps subordinate clauses still use some of the original finite forms. Some quirks might remain, though. I'm also thinking of a Basque-like situation where only few verbs have inflection that isn't participial/nominal.

Sounds like Hindi.

The language was going to be quite strictly head-final, but I'm not enjoying what this has produced, so it will probably be SOV/head-final in simple sentences, but otherwise show SVO/head-initial tendencies.

Yes, forcing long subordinate clauses to precede the main clause feels strange.

[Davush]

Sounds like Hindi.

Yes indeed, I will have to take a closer look. It seems like when verbal systems are remodelled, participles taking over finite-forms often play a very large role.

Gender

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I am thinking of having a gender system in this language. It will probably be common vs. neuter, where animates are all in the common group, but inanimates are split between the two. The common gender is marked by -a in the nominative, and the neuter gender by -i.

The NOM-ACC-GEN-DAT singular forms for 'well-behaved' nouns look like this:

Common: tsáka - tsáke - tsákan - tsáki
Neuter: ílani - ilanéte - ílanin - ilándi

Notably, the neuter is characterised by the presence of /t/ in the Accusative and Dative.

The plural forms look like this:

Common: tsakáka - tsákeri - tsakákan - tsakákei
Neuter: ilanáti - ilanéri - ilanátin - ilanátei

Again, the plural forms show /t/. It might be fun to do a kind of 'internal reconstruction' to see how the gender system arose. Many neuter nouns are countable nouns that would typically occur in more than one. Most body parts are neuter, for example. This hints at a possible origin in a singulative, perhaps *i(t).

Applying this, we get something like:
*ilan-i(t), *ilan-it-e, *ilan-it-n, *ilan-it-i

This kind of works for the nominative and dative, if we assume post-tonic /i/ is deleted: *ilániti > ilánti > ilándi. But it doesn't work for the accusative, as you'd expect *ilánite > ilánde. Instead there is a stress shift > ilanéte. Perhaps then, this is the result of an earlier heavy syllable: *ilan-ét-Ce.

The plural forms of the neuter also show /t/ in the 'reduplicated syllable', in place of the stem-final consonant: ilan-át-i (rather than ?ilan-an-i). We could reconstruct something like:

*ilan-Vt-i(t), *ilan-éri(t), *ilan-Vt-in, *ilan-Vt-ei

A possible explanation is that reduplication originally operated 'normally', but the gender-marking *t ended up taking over:

*ilan-an-it-n > ilan-at-it-n > ilanátin
*ilan-an-it-ei > ilan-at-it-ei > ilanátei

The accusative plural is the same as in the common gender, except the stress shifts onto the suffix. This remains to be explained...