Still the best format for these things. Even better, this one won't get randomly deleted!
So time for some posts on Jalvaan.
To get this out of the way, here's the table of contrastive consonant segments:
The vowels are a e i o u plus length.
Most segments are written as the IPA, with the following exceptions:
[dʒ~tʃ] <j> [ɲ] <ny> [ʃ] <š>
Long vowels are written with a macron.
So time for some posts on Jalvaan.
To get this out of the way, here's the table of contrastive consonant segments:
| Labial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Glottal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plain Stop | p | t | k | ||
| Voiced Stop | b | d | dʒ~tʃ | ɡ | |
| Nasal | m | n | ɲ | ||
| Fricative | f | s | ʃ | h | |
| Resonant | v | r l | j |
The vowels are a e i o u plus length.
Most segments are written as the IPA, with the following exceptions:
[dʒ~tʃ] <j> [ɲ] <ny> [ʃ] <š>
Long vowels are written with a macron.
Is <j>'s pronounciation as [dʒ~tʃ] dialectal variation? Free variation?
And what about <j> (palatal resonant)? There's no orthographic difference between <j> [j] and <j> [dʒ~tʃ]?
Although I like carons a lot, and specially above s, if [ɲ] <ny>, then <sy> for [ʃ] would be awesome. Why so few conlangers think of <sy>, by the way?
And what about <j> (palatal resonant)? There's no orthographic difference between <j> [j] and <j> [dʒ~tʃ]?
Although I like carons a lot, and specially above s, if [ɲ] <ny>, then <sy> for [ʃ] would be awesome. Why so few conlangers think of <sy>, by the way?
I just like háčky. I know that really that should mean that I would use <ň> but... Hm, maybe I will use <ň>.
dZ~tS is free variation. /j/ is written <y>. I will amend the post.
Second the motion to ban Rhetorica's mom
dZ~tS is free variation. /j/ is written <y>. I will amend the post.
Second the motion to ban Rhetorica's mom
Jalvaan verbs encode a maximum of two participants, the subject and object being marked by a prefix and the subject, on primary verbs, with an additional suffix. Actor agreement is obligatory on all verbs: there are no verb forms unmarked for subject and object.
Agreement is somewhat complicated. In the most basic case, indexing is standard accusative:
biyeban
bi-1sA-yebstand-a-EPEN-n-1sS
I am standing
jakirrun
bi-1sA-a-3sO-kirrbreak-u-PST-n-1sS
I broke it
Both intransitives and ditransitives show a split in marking, for intransitives based on volitionality, for ditransitives based on animacy and salience. In intransitive verbs, the subject may be indexed by agent or object prefixes depending on whether the subject is in control or not:
binyēvan
bi-1sA-nyēlie_down-va-PST-n-1sS
I lay down
unyēvan
u-1sO-nyēlie_down-va-PST-n-1sS
I had to lie down (because I was feeling faint)
For (canonical) ditransitives the marking split is over the object slot: whether the goal or theme is marked is dependent on which is the more salient to the discourse. In other words, when any of G or T is a first of second person, then the discourse participant is indexed on the verb. If both G and T are third persons, the more animate or the more salient is indexed (although this is only visible when the two arguments differ in number). For example:
1. (theme indexed on the verb)
šayen aban dāyā ireštat mārā išbevrut
šaye2s.POSS.INALIEN-n-ABS abafather-n-ABS daiking-a-EPEN-:-DAT ireDEM.DIST-št-PL-a-EPEN-t-GEN mārwife-a-EPEN-:-DAT i-3sA-š-2sO-bevrpromise-u-PST-t-3sS
your father promised you to their king
2. (recipient indexed on the verb)
jūgun šī nyajūvān ki omeyēdāš nembī nyaforī
jūgufood-n-ABS ši2s.OBL-e-LOC ni-2sA-a-3sO-jūeat-vān-ANT kiSEQ omeyēdscraps-a-EPEN-št-PL-∅-ABS nembidog-:-DAT ni-2sA-a-3sO-forgive-ī-IMP.2s
when you've eaten your food, give the leftovers to the dog
Agreement is somewhat complicated. In the most basic case, indexing is standard accusative:
biyeban
bi-1sA-yebstand-a-EPEN-n-1sS
I am standing
jakirrun
bi-1sA-a-3sO-kirrbreak-u-PST-n-1sS
I broke it
Both intransitives and ditransitives show a split in marking, for intransitives based on volitionality, for ditransitives based on animacy and salience. In intransitive verbs, the subject may be indexed by agent or object prefixes depending on whether the subject is in control or not:
binyēvan
bi-1sA-nyēlie_down-va-PST-n-1sS
I lay down
unyēvan
u-1sO-nyēlie_down-va-PST-n-1sS
I had to lie down (because I was feeling faint)
For (canonical) ditransitives the marking split is over the object slot: whether the goal or theme is marked is dependent on which is the more salient to the discourse. In other words, when any of G or T is a first of second person, then the discourse participant is indexed on the verb. If both G and T are third persons, the more animate or the more salient is indexed (although this is only visible when the two arguments differ in number). For example:
1. (theme indexed on the verb)
šayen aban dāyā ireštat mārā išbevrut
šaye2s.POSS.INALIEN-n-ABS abafather-n-ABS daiking-a-EPEN-:-DAT ireDEM.DIST-št-PL-a-EPEN-t-GEN mārwife-a-EPEN-:-DAT i-3sA-š-2sO-bevrpromise-u-PST-t-3sS
your father promised you to their king
2. (recipient indexed on the verb)
jūgun šī nyajūvān ki omeyēdāš nembī nyaforī
jūgufood-n-ABS ši2s.OBL-e-LOC ni-2sA-a-3sO-jūeat-vān-ANT kiSEQ omeyēdscraps-a-EPEN-št-PL-∅-ABS nembidog-:-DAT ni-2sA-a-3sO-forgive-ī-IMP.2s
when you've eaten your food, give the leftovers to the dog
Old Inggirian Verbal Morphology (Part 1)
(crosspost from my universe, boo)
The inflectional verbal morphology of Old Inggirian divides itself, albeit not neatly, into three sets of forms: bound forms, nominal forms and finite forms. Finite forms are those forms that carry personal marking, and nominal forms are those which may head the body of a relative clause. The finite forms, apart from being the only ones to carry personal marking, may only appear at the end of a sentence or clause. The nominal forms, although frequently employed, especially in later texts, as medial verb forms to the (progressively rarer) finite forms ending a sentence, all have nominal or adnominal functions to some degree. The remaining forms all essentially act as adverbs, and thus are called bound forms.
The finite forms essentially occupy a 2x2 matrix:
The precise meaning of these categories, although convenient for analysis, requires explanation.
The aorist is the unmarked form. Its semantic value is simply the assertion of some state or action. Pragmatically, this most often translates to a future or present interpretation, but the aorist can be used where the use of the "past" -ne is rendered superfluous by context. It has no aspectual interpretation.
The subjunctive, similar to the aorist, has no fixed temporal reference, but simply indicates full or partial non-assertion. Its use is therefore very wide. It occurs in complement phrases, especially to verbs of quotation or fearing. It can indicate that the speaker is unsure, for instance because he has inferred the information being communicated. Finally, it can indicate a state of potentiality.
The past (which is quite misleadingly named) is an asserted form that carries fixed reference to some point of time. When context does not specify a time period, the default interpretation is a past time reference. However, it is grammatical also to use this form in any other time context. In these situations, its use over the aorist is usually conditioned by the presence of a subclause that refers to a different time.
The conditional is the non-asserted counterpart to the past, and derives its name from the unusual counterfactual construction of Old Inggirian, in which the protasis is a finite verb in the conditional and the apodosis a nominalization in the infinitive. On its own it may fulfill similar functions as the subjunctive, but with a past time reference (such as a sort of potential-in-the-past).
Old Inggirian has a very pedestrian set of finite personal endings, distinguishing three persons and two numbers.
The inflectional verbal morphology of Old Inggirian divides itself, albeit not neatly, into three sets of forms: bound forms, nominal forms and finite forms. Finite forms are those forms that carry personal marking, and nominal forms are those which may head the body of a relative clause. The finite forms, apart from being the only ones to carry personal marking, may only appear at the end of a sentence or clause. The nominal forms, although frequently employed, especially in later texts, as medial verb forms to the (progressively rarer) finite forms ending a sentence, all have nominal or adnominal functions to some degree. The remaining forms all essentially act as adverbs, and thus are called bound forms.
The Finite Forms
The finite forms essentially occupy a 2x2 matrix:
| Realis | Irrealis | |
|---|---|---|
| No f. reference | -∅ | -ki |
| Fixed reference | -ne | -sin |
The precise meaning of these categories, although convenient for analysis, requires explanation.
The Aorist
The aorist is the unmarked form. Its semantic value is simply the assertion of some state or action. Pragmatically, this most often translates to a future or present interpretation, but the aorist can be used where the use of the "past" -ne is rendered superfluous by context. It has no aspectual interpretation.
The Subjunctive
The subjunctive, similar to the aorist, has no fixed temporal reference, but simply indicates full or partial non-assertion. Its use is therefore very wide. It occurs in complement phrases, especially to verbs of quotation or fearing. It can indicate that the speaker is unsure, for instance because he has inferred the information being communicated. Finally, it can indicate a state of potentiality.
The Past
The past (which is quite misleadingly named) is an asserted form that carries fixed reference to some point of time. When context does not specify a time period, the default interpretation is a past time reference. However, it is grammatical also to use this form in any other time context. In these situations, its use over the aorist is usually conditioned by the presence of a subclause that refers to a different time.
The Conditional
The conditional is the non-asserted counterpart to the past, and derives its name from the unusual counterfactual construction of Old Inggirian, in which the protasis is a finite verb in the conditional and the apodosis a nominalization in the infinitive. On its own it may fulfill similar functions as the subjunctive, but with a past time reference (such as a sort of potential-in-the-past).
The Personal Desinences
Old Inggirian has a very pedestrian set of finite personal endings, distinguishing three persons and two numbers.
| Singular | Plural | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st | -wa | -gawa |
| 2nd | -bag | -su |
| 3rd | -g̃ | -seg̃ |
i'm trying to wrap my head around the "fixed temporal reference" thing. does "no fixed temporal reference" mean the speaker isn't asserting past/present/future, or just that they aren't asserting a specific time interval/point in particular? if it's the former, it doesn't seem very useful, most just for generic or habitual statements. if it's the latter, then it seems like you could use it more widely. but even in that situation, doesn't it mean that if you use a definite time adverbial, like "three days ago" or "in September" or "8:30 pm" that you'd have to use a fixed reference verb form?
or am i completely misunderstanding this? i'd like to know, since it's a cool idea.
or am i completely misunderstanding this? i'd like to know, since it's a cool idea.
It's the latter. As for which form to use with a definite time adverbial, I think that without any other temporal constructs in the same clause, either goes, simply because non-fixed reference forms are — hence the name — unmarked for time. So if I say:
orothis-wag̃o-LOC buwayesterday jabsuhole urube-∅-AOR-g̃-3s
it can't really mean anything other than "there was a hole here yesterday". The same thing goes for the ~past~, of course. I mean, essentially, the feature of the fixed reference forms is that they are marked for tense. The tense just happens to be unspecified. So they can either double up on other explicit time marking or act as a sort of discursive temporal switch reference marker, and they're only obligatory in the latter case. Probably there is also a thing where, if either would work, fixed reference forms are preferred for perfectives and non-fixed forms for imperfectives. It seems like it would easily acquire that particular implicature.
The important question I don't have a good answer for yet is what that means for time marking across a paragraph, or between speaker turns. I figure that fixed-reference forms are used whenever it needs to be established what time is being talked about. For instance, if you need to establish that you're *not* switching back to the default. So if you say the above sentence, then whoever you are talking to might reply:
urukureal je?Q pasuthing gaNEG toresee-ne-PST-wa.-1s
"Really? I didn't see anything."
The function of the fixed form there is to anchor what he is saying in your time context. The aorist would mean "Really? I don't see anything.", because the present is the default time context. And so on.
orothis-wag̃o-LOC buwayesterday jabsuhole urube-∅-AOR-g̃-3s
it can't really mean anything other than "there was a hole here yesterday". The same thing goes for the ~past~, of course. I mean, essentially, the feature of the fixed reference forms is that they are marked for tense. The tense just happens to be unspecified. So they can either double up on other explicit time marking or act as a sort of discursive temporal switch reference marker, and they're only obligatory in the latter case. Probably there is also a thing where, if either would work, fixed reference forms are preferred for perfectives and non-fixed forms for imperfectives. It seems like it would easily acquire that particular implicature.
The important question I don't have a good answer for yet is what that means for time marking across a paragraph, or between speaker turns. I figure that fixed-reference forms are used whenever it needs to be established what time is being talked about. For instance, if you need to establish that you're *not* switching back to the default. So if you say the above sentence, then whoever you are talking to might reply:
urukureal je?Q pasuthing gaNEG toresee-ne-PST-wa.-1s
"Really? I didn't see anything."
The function of the fixed form there is to anchor what he is saying in your time context. The aorist would mean "Really? I don't see anything.", because the present is the default time context. And so on.
Hello, here are an update on Jalvaan. The update is the list of allowed clusters.
The voiced stops, as well as the semivowels, don't occur as the first element of consonant clusters. The only three-consonant cluster, [ndr], must be considered to be phonemically /nr/.
| p | t | k | b | d | j | g | f | s | š | h | m | n | ny | v | r | l | ly | y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | pp | pš | ph | pm | ||||||||||||||||
| t | tt | tf | th | tm | tn | |||||||||||||||
| k | kk | kf | kš | kh | km | |||||||||||||||
| j | šb | šd | šg | jv | jr | |||||||||||||||
| f | ft | fk | ff | fs | fš | fn | fr | fl | ||||||||||||
| s | ss | sm | sn | |||||||||||||||||
| š | šp | št | šk | šf | šš | šm | šn | šny | šv | šr | šl | šly | ||||||||
| h | hp | ht | hk | hb | hd | hg | hf | hs | hš | hm | hn | hv | hr | hl | ||||||
| m | mp | mt | mk | mb | md | mj | mg | ms | mš | mh | mm | ml | ||||||||
| n | nt | nd | ng | ns | nš | nh | nm | nn | ndr | |||||||||||
| ny | nyp | nyk | nyb | nyj | nyf | nyš | nyh | nny | nyv | nyly | nyy | |||||||||
| r | rg | rf | rš | rh | rm | rv | rr | rl | rly | ry | ||||||||||
| l | lp | lt | lk | lb | ld | lg | lf | ls | lš | lh | lm | lv | ll | |||||||
| ly | lyp | lyk | lyb | lyj | lyf | lyš | lyh | lym | lyny | lyv | lly | lyy |
The voiced stops, as well as the semivowels, don't occur as the first element of consonant clusters. The only three-consonant cluster, [ndr], must be considered to be phonemically /nr/.
This post uses the orthography rather than IPA because I’m on my phone and X-SAMPA is unreadable
Before /i/, the coronals /t d n l r/ palatalized to /č j ny ly n/. Before /y/, the same happened, except that (in the “standard” dialect, i.e. the one I write in) /ry/ stated unchanged. č later merged into š in all positions, and /y/ dropped after palatals. Clusters of /ny ly/ + /y/ were later restored by the shift of prevocalic /g/ to /y/ after palatals and /i/, which rule remains synchronically active: kony-gam > konyyam.
The dropping of /y/ before /i/ restored /r/ in that position: *yayri > yēni, *amuryin > amurin.
Before /i/, the coronals /t d n l r/ palatalized to /č j ny ly n/. Before /y/, the same happened, except that (in the “standard” dialect, i.e. the one I write in) /ry/ stated unchanged. č later merged into š in all positions, and /y/ dropped after palatals. Clusters of /ny ly/ + /y/ were later restored by the shift of prevocalic /g/ to /y/ after palatals and /i/, which rule remains synchronically active: kony-gam > konyyam.
The dropping of /y/ before /i/ restored /r/ in that position: *yayri > yēni, *amuryin > amurin.
quoting Hallow XIII, 子:
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal Plain Stop p t k Voiced Stop b d dʒ~tʃ ɡ Nasal m n ɲ Fricative f s ʃ h Resonant v r l j
The vowels are a e i o u plus length.
A slight update! There is now also /ʎ/, spelt ly, and <j> is now [dʒ~ʒ], with no voiceless allophone. As for the vowels, there are the diphthongs /ai au ei ou oi ui/ plus the short (monomoraic) diphthongs /ŏi ŭi/, spelt <ai au ei ou ōi ūi oi ui>.
Fish makes you more intelligent
yes, this really wanted gloss tags. too lazy for that right now though
Āni olkar uvakku leidan yākehmallur.
Two men set off travelling together.
Leidē yājīyo yararrā kūhoulyar yāršānyveftur, yō gāfman birjan da, ānyō tēpun yoš.
They bought provisions for the road, one bread and cheese, the other fish.
Leidan yakipējaivān yabesābam gāfman yašānyveftūngo yoš ānyō "nyipiraumanšō tēpui yōrvandō nyajīna, bāru tēpui iltan yōrvandō nyajīna?" iš hušpam yagahput.
After having walked for a while, the one who had bought the bread asked the other: "Your people eat a lot of fish. Why do you eat so much fish?"
"Tēpun nyajīyam nyisehmēšō tollyin nyāššeš, iš tōgō tēpui yōrvandō vajīm."
If you eat fish, you will become smarter. That is why we eat so much fish.
"Iltan yargam olba ki nyitēpuišō inyakmandō nyuforī!"
If that is so, give me some of your fish!
"Tēpū bišforgamhē amban" daršām inohundō lēpa nyakmā imukalbašvān nyakmā tomšehan yaforvat.
"Very well, I shall give you some", he said. He cut off a piece of the head and gave it to his companion.
"Ini igilvendō bā varran?" iš hušpan "yō gilyin" daršām yafaināpavat.
"How much is it", asked he? "One dollar", answered the other.
"Ūrya amban" daršām gilyin yaforvat ānyō.
"Very well", he said, and paid the dollar.
Yagal rēpē deki ilaporvān ki yoš tēpū imuneftūngo "nyadenī, bā varram iš tēpun nyašānyveftuš?" hušpam yagahput.
After some more time had passed, he asked the one from whom he had taken the fish: "How much did you buy this fish for?"
"Yō gilyim jašānyveftun."
"I paid one dollar."
"Moiyo, yō gilyim nohū nyušamamgam ājvīyan ōyō iškelemat!"
"Hey! You sold me the head for one dollar, and all the rest was for you!"
"Nyabenī tēpū nohun nyišehpamšō nyatolsēyam nyisehmēšō koryane iltan tollyin nyorfāvānhē ānyi! Ōyō nyajīvān ki bā nyōšševānhē, bahko yasaurat?"
"See how smart you've become just from licking its head! If you'd eaten the entire thing, who knows what you would have done!"
Āni olkar uvakku leidan yākehmallur.
two man-PL together road-DIR 3pA-3sO-travel-INCH-PST-3pS
Two men set off travelling together.
Leidē yājīyo yararrā kūhoulyar yāršānyveftur, yō gāfman birjan da, ānyō tēpun yoš.
road-LOC 3pA-3sO-eat-NMLZ 3sS-3pO-exist-CVB.FUT provision-PL 3pA-3pO-buy-PST-3pS, one cheese-DIR bread-DIR and, other fish-DIR that.
They bought provisions for the road, one bread and cheese, the other fish.
Leidan yakipējaivān yabesābam gāfman yašānyveftūngo yoš ānyō "nyipiraumanšō tēpui yōrvandō nyajīna, bāru tēpui iltan yōrvandō nyajīna?" iš hušpam yagahput.
road-DIR 3pS-LOC.APPL-go-enter-CVB.PST 3pS-walk-CVB.PRES cheese-DIR 3sA-3sO-buy-CVB.PST-NMLZ that other "2s-tribe-DIR-2s fish-GEN 3s-much-3s 2pA-3sO-eat-2pS, why fish-GEN thus 3s-much-3s 2pA-3sO-eat-2pS?" this question-COM 3sA-3sO-ask-PST-3sS
After having walked for a while, the one who had bought the bread asked the other: "Your people eat a lot of fish. Why do you eat so much fish?"
"Tēpun nyajīyam nyisehmēšō tollyin nyāššeš, iš tōgō tēpui yōrvandō vajīm."
fish-DIR 2sA-3sO-eat-CVB.PRES 2s-mind-LOC-2s quick-DIR 2sS-be-POT-2sS, this thing-ABL fish-GEN 3s-much-3s 1pA-3sO-eat-1pS.
If you eat fish, you will become smarter. That is why we eat so much fish.
"Iltan yargam olba ki nyitēpuišō inyakmandō nyuforī!"
thus 3sS-be-CVB.PRES if then 2s-fish-GEN-2s 3s-piece-3s 2sA-1sO-give-IMP!"
If that is so, give me some of your fish!
"Tēpū bišforgamhē amban" daršām inohundō lēpa nyakmā imukalbašvān nyakmā tomšehan yaforvat.
"fish-DAT 1sA-2sO-give-CVB.PRES-NMLZ good-DIR" QUOT 3s-head-3s small piece-DAT 3sA-ABL.APPL-cut-CVB.PST piece-DAT companion-DIR 3sA-3sO-give-PST-3sS.
"Very well, I shall give you some", he said. He cut off a piece of the head and gave it to his companion.
"Ini igilvendō bā varran?" iš hušpan "yō gilyin" daršām yafaināpavat.
"this-GEN 3s-price-DIR-3s what amount-DIR" this question-DIR "one coin-DIR" QUOT 3sA-3sO-answer-PST-3sS.
"How much is it", asked he? "One dollar", answered the other.
"Ūrya amban" daršām gilyin yaforvat ānyō.
"very good" QUOT coin 3sA-3sO-give-PST-3sS other.
"Very well", he said, and paid the dollar.
Yagal rēpē deki ilaporvān ki yoš tēpū imuneftūngo "nyadenī, bā varram iš tēpun nyašānyveftuš?" hušpam yagahput.
3s-some time-GEN and_then 3sS-pass-CVB.PST then that fish-DAT 3sA-ABL.APPL-take-CVB.PST-NMLZ "2sA-3sO-say-IMP, what amount-COM this fish-DIR 2sA-3sO-buy-PST-2sS?" question-COM 3sA-3sO-ask-PST-3sS.
After some more time had passed, he asked the one from whom he had taken the fish: "How much did you buy this fish for?"
"Yō gilyim jašānyveftun."
one coin-COM 1sA-3sO-buy-PST-1sS.
"I paid one dollar."
"Moiyo, yō gilyim nohū nyušamamgam ājvīyan ōyō iškelemat!"
eh one coin-COM head-DAT 2sA-1sO-sell-CVB.PRES rest-DIR entirely 3sA-2sO-stay-3sS!
"Hey! You sold me the head for one dollar, and all the rest was for you!"
"Nyabenī tēpū nohun nyišehpamšō nyatolsēyam nyisehmēšō koryane iltan tollyin nyorfāvānhē ānyi! Ōyō nyajīvān ki bā nyōšševānhē, bahko yasaurat?"
2sA-3sO-see-IMP fish-DAT head-DIR 2s-tongue-COM-2s 2sA-3sO-touch-CVB.PRES 2s-mind-LOC-2s already so quick-DIR 2sS-become-CVB.PST-NMLZ 2s.COP! entirely 2sA-3sO-eat-CVB.PST then what 2sA-3sO-do-POT-CVB.PST-NMLZ, who 3sA-3sO-know-3sS?
"See how smart you've become just from licking its head! If you'd eaten the entire thing, who knows what you would have done!"