People here seem to generally dislike "necro-ing" on long-abandoned threads, but I found this topic yesterday, and I really liked the direction it was going in. I did, however, add my own embellishments to both, as I will show down below. I don't know how acceptable this kind of thing is, adding onto someone else's constuff the way I did, but I saw an opportunity to evolve the conscript, and fleshed out the language with the available material by proxy.
Starting off, I will show the bits of conlang material that were given back in 2016:
gɛm (fox)
kɛ-kran–a
(PRES.)+(jump)+(SIMPLE)
gɛm kɛˈkrana
"The fox jumps."
kɛ-kran-ɛ
(PRES)+(jump)+(PROG.)
gɛm kɛkranɛ
"The fox is jumping"
θu-kran-a
(PAST)+("jump")+(SIMPLE)
gɛm θuˈkrana
"The fox jumped"
pɑ-kran-i
(FUT.)+("jump")+(PERFECT)
gɛm pɑˈkrani
"The fox will have jumped"
kranso (infinitive)
"to jump"
Now I will show my additions to the conlang:
In this Verb Affix Table, I separated these forms into singular and plural:
Tense:
(PRES)
kɛ- (sg.) ,
kɛn- (pl.)
(PAST)
θu- (sg.) ,
θun- (pl.)
(FUT)
pɑ- (sg.) ,
pɑn- (pl.)
Aspect is kept the same:
(SIMPLE)
-a,
-na
(PROG.)
-ɛ,
-nɛ
(PERF.)
-i,
-ni
So, taking this paradigm into consideration, I wanted to maintain the verb cosntruction of
kɛˈkrana without making it even longer, so I decided that the verbs won't inflect for person, just number, tense, and aspect (and possibly modality with auxiliaries; not there yet though). This led me to look at the constructions even closer, and to allow for the circumfixtures to be able to attach to each other without a root verb between them, so constructions like the ones below are possible:
θua (θu-a)
(PAST)+∅+(SIMPLE)
"(someone/s.thing) did (s.thing)"
kɛa (kɛ-a)
(PRES)+∅+(SIMPLE)
"X is doing Y"
**
pɑa > **
pɑ-a >
pɑha
(FUT)+∅+(SIMPLE)
"X will do Y"
pɑi (pɑ-i)
(FUT)+∅+(PERF)
"X will have done Y"
What I conjecture here is that an actual verb meaning "do" may have been eroded over time, leaving the circumfixes to be able to freely attach to each other.
Example of this phenomenon with an adverb:
nop (adv.)
"up, over, out, away, beyond"
pɑi nop
"X will have done/gone up/over/out"
ˈpɑha, dukeˈswakaso ˈkaraːʃa dua aˈnjesima
"It's not my problem, someone else will do something (about it)."
Literally:
Someone (else) will do, it's not my pimple to pop.
I've made six cases, your standard Nominative, Accusative, and Gentive, plus with Allative (to/towards X), Ablative (away/from X), and Comitative (together/with X). Might tweak this later, or Taurenzine, if you're up for it.
Adjectives agree with and follow the noun they qualify:
kwaɛð(a) "dirty, filthy, soiled"
gɛm kwaɛð "The dirty fox"
ˈgɛmɛl ˈkwaɛðɛl "The filthy foxes"
Declension for "dog, hound":
ˈgrunoː ˈkwaɛðoː "The dirty dog"
ˈgrunoːn ˈkwaɛðoːn "The dirty dogs"
ˈgɛmɛl ˈkwaɛðɛl ˈgrunoːs ˈkwaɛðoːs nop kɛŋˈkranɛ
"The filthy foxes are jumping over the dirty dogs."
"You" (2nd Person Pronoun Declension):
"I" (1st person pronoun singular; incomplete)
gɛm gruŋˈgiːna θuˈkrana
"The fox jumped with the dog."
bin- "to go, leave, depart"
aˈnjɛr̥ɛ kɛˈbina kɛ.a
"I leave."
(literally: "I leave (I) do;" this construction may be for intransitive verbs, I'm not quite sold on it yet)
grunoː aˈnjɛsoː kɛˈbina
("dog" NOM.) (1st ps. sg. prn)+(ABL.) (PRES.)+("go, leave")+(SIMPLE)
"The dog leaves/goes away from me."
-joʃ (causative verbal affix)
ˈgrunoː ˈswasam ˈanjɛː θuˈkranjoʃa
"The dog made me jump to/at you."
aˈnjɛr̥ɛ ˈswasam ˈgrunoːs θuˈkranjoʃa
"I made the dog jump at/for/to you."
ˈgrunoː ˈswasam ˈanjɛː θuˈbinjoʃa
"The dog made me go to you", "The dog led me to you."
ˈgɛmɛl ˈkwaɛðɛl ˈgrunoːs kɛˈkranjoʃa
"The filthy foxes make the dog jump", "The filthy foxes scare the dog."
swaːˈgiːna ˈanjɛː θuˈkranjoʃa
"(Someone/Something) made me jump with you."
or
θuˈkranjoʃa swaːˈgiːna ˈanjɛː
to put emphasis on the "something"
ˈgɛmɛl ˈkwaɛðɛl ˈpjolɛ ˈhuːθeŋˌgiːna ˈgrunoːs ʃuˈzila nop kɛnˈkranɛ.
"The two filthy foxes are jumping with speed over the lazy dog."
The word order in this sentence:
NOM ADJ NUMBER COM ACC ADJ ADVERB VERB
I might tweak with that last sentence because something about it doesn't sit too well with me, specifically with the placement of the adverb. Maybe also the construction of the foxes being quick.
If I have some free time tomorrow, I'll post the conscript evolution next. Regardless, expect that soon! I'm thinking that the language is fusional, but historically was agglutinative less than 1,000 years ago, so I'd have to tackle how that may look and work. Taurenzine, I'm pretty sure this is all nothing you had in mind for this conlang, so if you're still there, tell me what you think. Thoughts and comments down in the dooblydoo.