ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ Scratchpad Reprise

[yangfiretiger121]

After the some would say dismal performance and formatting of this topic, which I pared back wanting to—originally—revive it, I have decided to use more recent scratchpads as an example and highlight certain aspects of the language.

Romanization
ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ is romanized in small caps because the local script is single-case. However—contrary to the current display, the glottal stop (/ʔ/) is Romanized as a small capital q because /c/ had once been used for the Romanized sequence <ᴋᴊ> and—currently—appears in the /c͡ç/ phoneme (see "palatalization" below), whereas the uvular /q/ never existed. Currently, the Latin letter small capital q lacks proper encoding by Unicode and shows up as a question mark inside a square.

Speech patterns
While object-subject-verb (OSV) syntax is more common, subject-object-verb (SOV) syntax is far from unheard of.

Nouns and adjectives are declined by adding suffixes to the nominative singular form. Conversely, verbs are conjugated using the thematic vowel system, with <ʏ>, <ᴏ>, and <ᴀ> as the vowels for the first, second, and third conjugations respectively. Verbs appear under their infinitive forms and have aspect-setting particles suffixed to the resulting tense forms.

Example noun (ara [ɑˈʙ̪ɑ]: Emperor/Empress) (II declension -a formation) (-o is seen for this declension as well)
Nom: (s.) ara/(p.) arayn [ɑˈʙ̪ɑ.yn] (-yn)
Acc: (s.) arav ([ɑˈʙ̪ɑv]) (-v)/(p.) Unknown
Gen: (s.) arae ([ɑˈʙ̪ɑ.e]) (-e)/(p.) Unknown
Dat: (s.) arazh ([ɑˈʙ̪ɑʑ]) (-zh)/(p.) Unknown
Ins: (s.) arai ([ɑˈʙ̪ɑ.i]) (-i)/(p.) Unknown

Example verb (anxyna [ᵛɑ'ᵑxy.na]: To enlist in the military) (I conjugation) (all tenses left out are unknown)
Present tense: anxye [ᵛɑ'ᵑxy.e] (-e)/Present continuous: anxyecty [ᵛɑ'ᵑxy.e.ˀty] (-e, -ʔty)
Past/past participle: anxyin [ᵛɑ'ᵑxy.in̩] (-in)/Past continuous: anxyincty [ᵛɑ'ᵑxy.i.ⁿty] (-in, -ʔty)

Palatalization
Initially, most changes caused by <ᴊ> following a consonant are attested ([kj>c], for example). The only changes that I couldn't find were the immediate /tj>t͡s/ and /dj>d͡z/. The later /j>ʝ/ frictivization(sp?) caused affrications, such as the above /c>c͡ç/.

The first palatalization assimilated /mj/ and /nj/ to /ɲ/. I'd like to have the frictivization create contrasting palatal nasals /ɲ˔/, for /mj/ sequences, and /ʝ̃/, for /nj/ sequences.

Dentalization of /s/ and /z/
After glottalization of the pharyngeals /ʡ/, /ħ/, and /ʕ/ created true fricatives from former sequences—such as /tħ>θ/, /θ/ and /ð/ fortited into /s̪/ and /z̪/, respectively. /s/ and /z/ merged into /s̪/ and /z̪/ shortly thereafter.

For the record, comments are welcome.

[yangfiretiger121]

I'm posting this here even though it's from another topic because it's essential to the language. Changes are in bold

Edit: First two posts related to this for context.

A'atuns nouns and adjectives and declined by adding suffixes to the full nominative form rather than just the root. For example, amani ['ɑ.mɑ.ni], meaning club, has amanish ['ɑ.mɑ.niɕ] for its nominative plural. In this example, aman- is the root formation. Currently, verbs are conjugated using Latin's thematic vowel system to tell them apart from nouns and adjectives. Considering the past participle will end up doubling as an adjective, does this dichotomy make sense at all?

Why wouldn't your dichotomy make sense? What exactly is the A'atun past participle other than an adjective? Participles, in fact, are so-called precisely because they "partake" of some properties of adjectives.

Maybe it would help to see an example of what you're talking about. Let's say I make a verb from the stem aman-; I need a thematic vowel, right? Then the verb stem could be aman-e-. From there, let's say the nominative singular of the past participle is aman-e-f-i, and the nominative plural is aman-e-f-i-sh. That way, you build the plural directly from the singular, and there's still a thematic vowel to indicate that the participle is derived from the verb.

I thought to have all parts of speech built the same would be more natural for some reason. Thanks for giving others an example built from a noun. Perhaps, I should have provided the verb for military enlistment, canxyna [ᵛʔɑ'ᵑxy.na], as the example for conjugation in my post. The verb's past participle is canxyin [ᵛʔɑ'ᵑxy.in̩] (-in), which has canxyinghu [ᵛʔɑ'ᵑxy.i.ᵑɣu] (-ghu) as its adjectival nominative plural.

Can you explain: 1) the morphology of the verb anxyna, 2) the morphology of anxyin, and most importantly 3) what you mean by "past participle" and "[the past participle's] adjectival nominative plural"? Ideally, you could also explain how participles function in A'atun since the term "participle" often refers to slightly different things in different languages.

Since you took inspiration from Latin, here's an example of what sort of information I'd find helpful using a Latin verb. The Latin verb amo, amare has the root am- and takes the thematic vowel -a- when applicable. (1) The first person singular present active indicative is amo, with root am- and ending -o. (2) Its perfect passive participle, in the masculine nominative singular, is amatus; the masculine nominative plural is amati. The word amatus contains the root am-, the thematic vowel -a- (here, the vowel is long), the regular marker of a past perfect participle -t-, and finally the masculine nominative singular ending -us. Mutatis mutandis, amati is the same but with the masculine nominative singular ending -i. Note that both amatus and amati have second-declension adjectival endings indicating case, number, and gender; neither is "just" a participle.

Before I get into the morphology of anxyna, I must mention that ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ is neither declined nor conjugated for gender to be inclusive of all genders and gender identities. Thus, ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ's third person singular pronoun is equivalent to the singular they and is translated as "they," whereas they'd prefer it be translated as "ji" [ʝi] to preserve the singular-plural distinction.

My vision for ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ's participles is a mix of those in English, German, Latin, and Spanish, leaning more towards English, German, and Spanish—though. However, I’m unsure if ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ’s verbs will have split voice, while leaning towards “yes” there.

Morphology of canxyna/canxyin
The root is the Sphinx word anx meaning life because joining the military is seen as taking one's life into one's own hands. The labiodental fricative onglide /ᵛ/ glottal stop (<c>; /ʔ/) originated from /uɑ̯/ and illegality of double fricative glides because /uɑ̯/ merged into /yɑ̯/, the latter of which simplified to /ᵛɑ/ because /iɑ̯/ simplified to /ʲɑ>ᶨɑ/. They never transitioned nouns directly into verb stemsthem stopping out null-onset nouns while transitioning them into verbs. Then, anx received the first conjugation’s thematic -y and the infinitive-forming -na.

A verb’s preterite, or simple past, is formed by replacing -na with the unrounded vowel sharing the thematic vowel’s height and n, -in for the first conjugation, in hiatus with the thematic vowel.

[Clio]

Wait, so is anxyin the preterite of anxyna? I thought your question was about participles, which are not finite forms of verbs, but the phrase "preterite, or simple past of [a verb]" seems to imply a finite form.

Incidentally and out of curiosity, what is the A'atun word for 'life'? anxi? (Guessing based on analogy with amani from the stem aman-.)

[yangfiretiger121]

As of now, the preterite and participle are the same, as in English. Although, that may change. Anx is the ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ word life as well. I used aman- as the stem formation of amani to differentiate ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ's declension of nouns and adjectives (no true root) from Latin's root-based declension of nouns and adjectives. Although the pronunciation has changed from [ɑnx] to [ɑᵑx] due to much later prenasalization. I haven't posted anything on verbs yet because the current past-present-future tense system is likely to change to one similar to that of Greek (Ancient or Modern) or Latin.

Known declension of anx (pronunciation above; an- stem) (III declension)
Nom. sg.: anx
Gen. sg.: anxeghi [ɑ'ᵑxe.ɣi] (-(e)ghi)
Dat. sg.: anxy [ɑ'ᵑxy] (-y)
Ins. sg.: ansho [ɑ'ᶮɕo] (-jo) (after /ç/ and /ɕ/ merged)

[yangfiretiger121]

I've decided that nouns, adjectives, and verbs will be divided singular, dual, and plural numbers, with the plural from adding either a prefix or suffix to the dual. Additionally, verbs are separated into active and passive voice. Possibly, contrary to that voice separation is my wanting to use a single-infinitive structure for verbs. Would such a structure be stable or break down into a double-infinitive structure?

[Clio]

As of now, the preterite and participle are the same, as in English. Although, that may change. Anx is the ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ word life as well. I used aman- as the stem formation of amani to differentiate ᴀᴄᴀᴛʏɴ's declension of nouns and adjectives (no true root) from Latin's root-based declension of nouns and adjectives. Although the pronunciation has changed from [ɑnx] to [ɑᵑx] due to much later prenasalization. I haven't posted anything on verbs yet because the current past-present-future tense system is likely to change to one similar to that of Greek (Ancient or Modern) or Latin.

Known declension of anx (pronunciation above; an- stem) (III declension)
Nom. sg.: anx
Gen. sg.: anxeghi [ɑ'ᵑxe.ɣi] (-(e)ghi)
Dat. sg.: anxy [ɑ'ᵑxy] (-y)
Ins. sg.: ansho [ɑ'ᶮɕo] (-jo) (after /ç/ and /ɕ/ merged)

So, I have a few more questions now based on what you said.

First of all, I think I understand better how nouns work. Correct me if this is wrong: some nouns and adjectives are built on the template [root] + /i/ + [endings1], like amani; others are built on the template [root] + [endings2], like anx (where [endings1] and [endings2] may not be the same--I don't think that makes a difference to me right now).

The thrust of your question was whether it was okay that none of A'atyn's participles decline like adjectives with stems ending in /i/. Do they decline like adjectives of the second class mentioned above? So for instance, if there is ever a noun or adjective that might look in its nominative singular like the participle anxyin, would the participle and noun or adjective decline the same? If that's the case, I'd say you have something very much like the system in Greek and Latin. If not, I'd be interested in seeing side-by-side the declension used for participles and the declension used for nouns and adjectives.

Finally, you said that you don't quite yet know the functions that A'atyn's participles fulfill. I'm just wondering whether you're any further along in that regard. In particular, if you know, what functions do participles fulfill that adjectives don't?

[yangfiretiger121]

I don't have the time to get into detail right now because I work in the morning, but wWhat you have said was mostly correct regarding the language as it's shown within this topic. However, I've overhauled the language and renamed it Doan [ˈðo.ɑn] Creole in the intervening time. Thus, I'll either rename this topic and "dump" the first post or create another topic when I feel ready to debut the retooled language, which should have an alphabet by then. I plan to edit an answer into this post when I have the time because it'll still be pertinent to the new version of the language.

Edit:
Sadly, I'm no further along with the exact function of Doan's participles right now. Although, the aforementioned overhaul included [i→y] and [j→ʎ→l] changes, with [ʎ] surviving in situations like li [li] (ten) and li [ʎi] (they (sg.)). The new noun-to-verb transition for null-onset nouns is <ʟ->[noun]<-(V)ɴᴀ>, where (V) is the appropriate conjugation's thematic vowel based on the noun's declension. Yet, I have no clue if there'll be an onset for nouns that start with a consonant. This results in anx (life) becoming lanxana (to enlist in the military). The changes to the numbering system pertaining to parts of speech have set verb development back to square one. However, I know that declension and conjugation will look more similar to Greek than Latin. All of that said, the question was meant to be more along the lines of the Doan's participles, whatever their function is, using the appropriate declension's adjectival endings from the full word, like other adjectives, or the adjectival root and thematic vowel, like verbs.