Xiwook

[Omzinesý]

I could leap to adjectives for a while when the verbs are ripening.

Adjectives agree the gender-number and case of their head.

The gender-numbers are Animate (or common), Inanimate (or neuter), and Plural (or collective).

The markers of gender-numbers are

Anim. -Ø or -k
Inanim -t
Plural -il

This is the first attempt for the inflection of an adjective.

Code: Select all

wot 'big'
case		Anim	Inanim	Pl
NOM INDEF 	wot	wott	woril	
NOM DEF 	wota	wotta 	wori'l

LOC INDEF 	wotn 	wottn	worilin
LOC DEF 	woran 	wottan	worilan	

ASS		woc	wotc	-	-
ASS INDEF 	woci	wotci	worilsi
ASS DEF 	wotta	wotta	worilta

VOC		wota	wotta	worila
 

- stem-final /t/ is not glottalized before the Inanimate -t but forms a geminate with it.
- /t/ is often wakened to // before some vowel-initial affixes, like the plural -il.
- The plural paragirm inflects like a noun ending in a resonant.

[Omzinesý]

First very tentative attempt for verb morphology

The obligatory (inflectional) suffixes are
1) politeness
2) mood
3) volitionality
4) person
They can still change. New members can also still join the paradigms. Now the three first ones, which I'm going to handle now, are bimary.

1) politeness
Politeness is the most irregular ot the three. Many verbs have suppletive polite forms. There are also several politeness suffixes, and it's irregular which one is bound to which verb. The non-polite form is considered unmarked.
One of the most common politeness suffixes is -p which is added to many vowel-final verb roots.

Edit: Another one is nasalising the last vowel. It is common if the vowel is long. Nasalization could actually derive from a coda nasal following a long vowel. (Nasal vowels don't have a length distinction.

sy 'to do NPOL'
sy-p 'to do POL'

2) irrealis
The irrealis suffix is -t. Realis is unmarked.

3) volitionality
The volitionality suffix is -ko. Non-volitional form is unmarked.

The three slots thus form eight possible combinations.

I'll correct the table when I have a laptop.

Code: Select all

     Realis   Irrealis
NVOL sy   sy-t      
NVOL sy-p   sy-p-t -> sytt*

VOL sy-ko   sy-t-ko -> sy'ko** 
VOL sy-p-ko -> sykko*   sy-p-t-ko -> syhko*** 

*The nearly phonetic rule is that/p/ becomes [h] before another stop, but here pk and pt become kk.
** /t/ usually changes to a glottal stop before another consonant, so this is a regular form.
*** Three adjacent consonants are forbidden by Xiwook phonotactics. The surface form can be analysed so that /p/ has its normal presentation before another stop [h], unlike in polite-irrealis-non-volitional form, and /t/ is elided.

The morpheme -ko, I termed Volitional, derives from a word that means (more or less) 'to want'. (I have to think how it affects person paradigms. Are the volitional paradigms more adjective-like?)
When it combines with Realis form, it expresses votionality. syko 'willingly does'.
When it combines with Irrealis form, it expresses future, just like English will. Xiwook tense system is future /nonfuture.

[Arayaz]

The morpheme -ko, I termed Volitional, derives from a word that means (more or less) 'to want'. (I have to think how it affects person paradigms. Are the volitional paradigms more adjective-like?)
When it combines with Realis form, it expresses votionality. syko 'willingly does'.
When it combines with Irrealis form, it expresses future, just like English will. Xiwook tense system is future /nonfuture.

I like this. I enjoy in general systems with two binary distinctions that combine to make four forms that aren't the sum of their parts. It feels satisfying and cozy, an efficient but not bleak-and-utilitarian usage of the space.

[Omzinesý]

The morpheme -ko, I termed Volitional, derives from a word that means (more or less) 'to want'. (I have to think how it affects person paradigms. Are the volitional paradigms more adjective-like?)
When it combines with Realis form, it expresses votionality. syko 'willingly does'.
When it combines with Irrealis form, it expresses future, just like English will. Xiwook tense system is future /nonfuture.

I like this. I enjoy in general systems with two binary distinctions that combine to make four forms that aren't the sum of their parts. It feels satisfying and cozy, an efficient but not bleak-and-utilitarian usage of the space.

Me too!

I tried to keep this simple enough to understand the system. Polysynthetic langs tend to become kitchensinky.
(Imperative could be just irrealis sg2, polite or nonpolite depending who you are speaking to.)

One could of course question if they are synchorically just four suffixes. I have to think what they look like with other verbs.

[Omzinesý]

I think I'll abandon the Algonquian four-way transitivity/gender marking.

Animate definite object marker on verbs could be like the definiteness marker on nouns.

-' after a vowel
-' before a final resonant
-a after an obstruent

sy' 'does it/him/her/them'
sy'n 'to do it/him/her/them'

-n could be the infinitive marker.

If the object is Inanimate, no object marker is used.

The animate object marker could also be used only if 1) there is no object NP (pronominal object) or 2) the object NP does not precede the verb.

rõk-a ceelo-' we
woman-DEF man-DEF see
'The woman saw the man.'

ceelo-' rõk-a we-'
man-DEF woman-DEF see-DEF.O
'The man was seen by the woman.'
'The man, the woman saw him.'

rõk-a we-'
woman-DEF see-DEF.O
'The woman saw him.'