Arayaz's thread so that she doesn't flood the forum

[Arayaz]

Just wow.

I'm going to repeat what I, as an anthropologist of scrappers and other conlanging types, said in March: It's in the nature of the scrapper to find that one fatal flaw with each of his/her languages, be it a logistical, proof-of-concept, or strictly aesthetic flaw.

Maybe Ruykkarraber can be reincarnated as Ruykkarrasber.

I'll also quote from the KCT's official description of scrappers: "Like the lady who dates twenty different guys before making one lucky man her husband, scrappers want to settle down one day with one or more great conlangs, and become loyalists or fillers or maybe even circumnavigators. But for now, it's just trial-and-error."

Yeah, I fit pretty perfectly into the scrapper archetype ... I really thought I'd broken out of the cycle, but apparently not



Xúuuatxia (previously Hóubenk)

A new language, now that I've killed off most of the others.

/b~m t~tʃ~k̚~ʔ d~n~l ɲ~ni̯~i̯ k~k̚~ʔ ŋ~∅/
/s~ʃ~ɸ~x ʃ~ʂ h~ʃ~ɸ~x/

/i y~u ɨ~ɯ~i/
/e~ei ə̃ ə~ʌ~a o~ou ɔ̃/

I aimed in this phonology for a small number of phonemes but a large number of allophones, which I daresay I achieved.

Allophony details:

• /b/ becomes [m] word-initially (especially phrase-initially) and after a nasal vowel.
• /t/ becomes [tʃ] before [.i] and becomes [ʔ] or [k̚] in the coda, except before /s/.
• /d/ becomes [n] word-initially and after a nasal vowel and [l] when clustered with another consonant.
• /k/ becomes [ʔ] or [k̚] in the coda.
• /ɲ/ becomes [i̯] in all circumstances other than word-initially and after a nasal vowel.
• /ŋ/ is lost in all circumstances other than word-initially and after a nasal vowel.
• /s/ becomes [ʃ] before front vowels and [j]; and word-initially, it lenites to /h/, then undergoing the same allophonic processes as /h/ does (see below).
• /ʃ/ becomes [ʂ] before back vowels.
• /h/ becomes [ʃ] before front vowels and [j], [ɸ] before rounded vowels, and [x] before unrounded non-front vowels. In the coda, it becomes [ʃ] after front vowels, [ɸ] after rounded vowels, and [x] after unrounded non-front vowels. (Therefore, it never appears as [h]).
• /ɨ/ becomes [ɯ] adjacent to velar consonants, back vowels, and any allophone of /h/. After palatal consonants, it becomes [.i].
• /y/ becomes [.u] adjacent to velar consonants, back vowels, and any allophone of /h/.
• /e/ becomes [ei] when it is not in a diphthong and the next syllable contains a high vowel.
• /ə/ becomes [ʌ] adjacent to velar consonants, back vowels, and any allophone of /h/. In addition, /əə/ becomes [aa], which takes precedence over the previous rule.
• /o/ becomes [ou] when it is not in a diphthong the next syllable contains a high vowel.
• All vowels nasalize when in contact with a nasalized vowel. Nasalized [õ] and [ã] become [ɔ̃] and [ə̃].
• All high vowels become glides in certain circumstances (see below).

The language also has a two-tone register system, with low tone and high tone. In practice, it's more complicated:

• Each syllable nucleus may take high tone /˥/, mid tone /˧/, low tone /˩/, or be atonal. All syllables of lexical items have tone; some grammatical items are atonal.
• An atonal syllable may form a diphthong that has tone. (For example, an atonal prefix [ə-] plus a root [i˥ʔ] becomes [əi̯˥˩ʔ]; see below.)
• If a diphthong receives high tone, it is realized as falling tone [˥˩]. Similarly, if a diphthong receives low tone, it is realized as rising tone [˩˥].
• If two vowels come into hiatus and the first one is not atonal, the second one becomes atonal.
• An atonal segment becomes low tone after a high tone syllable and mid tone [˧] after a low or mid tone syllable or falling diphthong, or when there's no vowel before it.

Syllable structure is generally (C)V(V)(C), where /b/, /d/, /ɲ/, and /ŋ/ may not serve as codas, and there may not be codas after nasal vowels. This allows hiatus of vowels, but a sequence of, say, /Cə.uC/ is not distinct from a diphthong /Cəu̯C/; diphthongs are falling (i.e. the second segment is nonsyllabic) unless the first segment is a high vowel, in which case they are rising. When three vowels come into contact, if one is a high vowel, it becomes a glide (its tone being moved to the vowel it was originally in a diphthong with): [i y u ɨ ɯ] → [j ɥ w j̈ ɰ]; some speakers reduce this to [j w w j w]. If none are high, they remain in hiatus; the first two are treated as a diphthong, and the third as a lone vowel. When four vowels come into contact, the same process applies, with two separate diphthongs being the end consideration. If five or more vowels come into contact, all except the first two and final two are deleted, and the above process then applies.

This has been a phonological roller coaster, and while I like it a lot, it's not gonna be fun to romanize.

After a lot of consideration, I came up with the following romanization ([k̚] and [ʔ] being romanized the same, as they're not contextual variations, and no romanization being given for [h], since it never occurs):

/b~m t~tʃ~k̚~ʔ d~n~l ɲ~ni̯~i̯ k~k̚~ʔ ŋ~∅/ <b~m t~tx~k d~n~l ny~ny~i k ng~∅>
/s~ʃ~ɸ~x ʃ~ʂ h~ʃ~ɸ~x/ <s~x~f~h x ∅~x~f~h>

/i y~u ɨ~ɯ~i/ <i u y~y~i>
/e~ei ə̃ ə~ʌ~a o~ou ɔ̃/ <e~ei an a o~ou on>

/˩ ˧ ˥ ˥˩ ˩˥/ <à a á áa aá>

Gliding is not written in the romanization.
When a sequence of vowels is nasalized, they are all followed by <n>.

I'd post some example words, but this post is long enough already and I want to get it up before I do anything else.

[Keenir]

Spoiler:

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I realized that Ruykkarraber's name is invalid ─ it should be Ruykkarrasber.

Spoiler:

Maybe its an exonym - what their neighbors call the language and its speakers...and-or, its a name for archiving purposes, rather than the name it'll have in whatever material gets published.

Spoiler:

Then I realized that I've been inconsistent overall with forming compounds, and I considered scrapping Ruykkarraber (and with it, Rü’ravesh and Hejísas), which could be a good idea anyway, since since I made them so long ago, they feel a bit clumsy now.

Spoiler:

maybe just scrap the parts that feel clumsy, and keep the parts that aren't so bad?

tldr: I killed them all

Now thats an Anakin quote if ever there was one. :)
(sorry)

[Arayaz]

Spoiler:

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I realized that Ruykkarraber's name is invalid ─ it should be Ruykkarrasber.

Spoiler:

Maybe its an exonym - what their neighbors call the language and its speakers...and-or, its a name for archiving purposes, rather than the name it'll have in whatever material gets published.

Why would their neighbors' exonym for them just be their endonym with a grammatical error?

Spoiler:

Then I realized that I've been inconsistent overall with forming compounds, and I considered scrapping Ruykkarraber (and with it, Rü’ravesh and Hejísas), which could be a good idea anyway, since since I made them so long ago, they feel a bit clumsy now.

Spoiler:

maybe just scrap the parts that feel clumsy, and keep the parts that aren't so bad?

But every part of the language is a connected net, so if one part is gotten rid of, it's far easier to get rid of the whole thing.

tldr: I killed them all

Now thats an Anakin quote if ever there was one. :)
(sorry)

I wasn't strong enough to save you, Ruykkarraber. I wasn't strong enough. But I promise I won't fail again ...

[_Just_A_Sketch]

Spoiler:

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I realized that Ruykkarraber's name is invalid ─ it should be Ruykkarrasber. Then I realized that I've been inconsistent overall with forming compounds, and I considered scrapping Ruykkarraber (and with it, Rü’ravesh and Hejísas), which could be a good idea anyway, since since I made them so long ago, they feel a bit clumsy now.

But then again, do I want to scrap Ruykkarraber? It's been with me for so long, I mean. I started it on November 26 ─ 156 days ago. Aside from 2c2ef0, which I don't really count due to its dormancy and reworking, Ruykkarraber is my oldest language. It holds memories; it's like a dusty book on my highest shelf. I find myself attached to it, y'know?

I've always been a scrapper, according to the KCT. With this thread, I started to lose that a bit, moving more into the filler category. But old habits die hard, I suppose. It's infinitely easier to destroy than to create, as they say ... it's easier, in my mind, to get rid of the whole language than to retool it to fix the issue. And once I see one error, all the other, smaller things jump out at me. Like my clumsy reduction in the auxiliaries, my inconsistent stress-based things ...

Unlike languages I've killed before, I still like Ruykkarraber. So am I changing, as a person? Can an old dog truly learn new tricks? Or am I blinded by time to its faults? I had a very different mindset a hundred and fifty-six days ago; I was a very different conlanger, a very different person. A language I make today would be much better than a language I made then, Ruykkarraber included. But ... Ruykkarraber is still a nice language, isn't it? In some ways, at least.

So perhaps I should keep Ruykkarraber.

And yet still, its faults glare back at me. Should I, then, retool it? Remake it? Perhaps I'm instead going to be a perfectionist in the KCT. I've already had some tendencies of theirs; I'd fit right in. Or should I throw Ruykkarraber into the pile with Shelik and Anopí and Laakitlantu, of "I loved you, but you couldn't last"? Then turn back to Makihip and ŋAħual and nĄwatł and Abisj and fill out this continent with them all instead? Or should I give up on this whole worldbuilding thing? I've never been good at culture-building; is it even worth it to try?

I'll never be satisfied with anything, will I? Perhaps I'll never be able to settle down with anything. Perhaps all of my languages will be replaced, over and over again, until all that's left is the Areyaxi languages that I hate but I'm stuck with, and whichever latest project I'll kill tomorrow. It was rare before that I would keep something for as long as I did Ruykkarraber. So when I kill that, what becomes of it all? It's a difficult decision to throw away something so rare as a language I was able to keep for so long ...

I'll never be satisfied, and look where Hamilton wound up ...

Or should I accept how I am? The goal of this all is simply fulfillment and enjoyment, which I can find anyway no matter if I kill the language afterward ... or can I? I believe I can, but who knows? Perhaps this brief time of linguistic stability was why I've felt happier. Maybe getting rid of the work I've done will cast me back into the pit of depression. I doubt that that's all there was to my sadness, but what if it contributed to it?

Are my languages my anchor to reality? For many artists, that's the role their creations serve for them ... is it worth it to try to find out? I know which things and people I couldn't live without ... and conlanging certainly is among those ranks, but is a specific language among them? Not just any language, but Ruykkarraber? Can I truly kill Ruykkarraber, when everywhere I go, I see its influence?

There are conlangers I know who are far more skilled than I on this board. I aspire to create something like they could; will I ever be able to achieve my dreams if I kill anything after a long enough period of time? Or is that the key to improvement? In the past I've thought it may have been; a continuous uphill climb fueled by the replacement of anything inadequate, like natural selection. But then, what if the fact that I've stopped growing to hate languages as quickly is just a sign that I've peaked, that I'm no longer improving enough to notice anything wrong? What if, by scrapping Ruykkarraber, I'm finally continuing the climb?

Should I even post this? It's not like it's relevant to any of my work. I could just say "I killed Ruykkarraber" and be done with it; what matters about this post was the process of writing it; I've learned things about myself from doing so, but wandering introspection like this post is hardly suitable for the board. I don't want to be spamming or flooding anything, even if this is my own personal thread ...

I killed Ruykkarraber; I broke the anchor's chain; whether I am sailing into better skies or drifting into the rocks of the shore, I don't know.

And while I'm at it, I'll kill Makihip and ŋAħual and nĄwatł. They're not well-organized, and doubtless many flaws have slipped through the cracks; and should I keep Abisj too? Is it worth it? I might as well set myself fully on my way to wherever I'll end up, but Abisj isn't so bad. I'll give it another day of life, perhaps; I'll let it see the sun set over the sail as I see where it is I'm heading now that I'm finally adrift and free.

A toast to you all, to the past, and to the future!

tldr: I killed them all

I think you made a good choice killing off all those langs. Even though Ruykkarraber means a lot to you, it's a product of someone who isn't really you anymore. We grow and change as people and so do our conlangs. I don't know how well I'm putting this, but I do have a quote that popped into my head that I feel illustrates my thoughts quite well: To live is to die. Nothing lasts forever, not our lives, not our identity at any moment, and most certainly not our conlangs. We may move on from projects and times in our life but they happened and that's what matters. Ruykkarraber and all your other scrapped langs are a part of your journey and a part of who you are today.

And here is another quote to end this reply: life comes and goes in waves, don't drown trying to chase a wave that has long passed.

Edit: Turns out that this was my 100th post, I kinda forgot I was there already. I meant to use it on Kahóra, but this was worth it :)

[Keenir]

Spoiler:

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I realized that Ruykkarraber's name is invalid ─ it should be Ruykkarrasber.

Spoiler:

Maybe its an exonym - what their neighbors call the language and its speakers...and-or, its a name for archiving purposes, rather than the name it'll have in whatever material gets published.

Why would their neighbors' exonym for them just be their endonym with a grammatical error?

the neighbors were nice and polite people who wanted to call them by the right name...but then a typo happened. (or the neighbors unwittingly replaced one sound or letter with something they could hear or write better)

I wasn't strong enough to save you, Ruykkarraber. I wasn't strong enough. But I promise I won't fail again ...

There is a bit of Vader in Luke and Leia...the not-as-bad bits I mentioned before, perhaps, or the influence of Ruykkarraber. :)

eagerly looking forwards to what you craft next...which you just posted. :)

[Flavia]

Spoiler:

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I realized that Ruykkarraber's name is invalid ─ it should be Ruykkarrasber.

Spoiler:

Maybe its an exonym - what their neighbors call the language and its speakers...and-or, its a name for archiving purposes, rather than the name it'll have in whatever material gets published.

Why would their neighbors' exonym for them just be their endonym with a grammatical error?

Maybe they can't pronounce /sb/?

---

I'm more of a perfectionist or whatever that's called in Khemehekis's typology. I scrapped Abaniscen multiple times and remade it, and the only thing the versions have in common is a single syntactical feature. And doing that actually helped me make "better" conlangs later. So maybe it's good that you decided to scrap them.

[Arayaz]

I think you made a good choice killing off all those langs. Even though Ruykkarraber means a lot to you, it's a product of someone who isn't really you anymore. We grow and change as people and so do our conlangs. I don't know how well I'm putting this, but I do have a quote that popped into my head that I feel illustrates my thoughts quite well: To live is to die. Nothing lasts forever, not our lives, not our identity at any moment, and most certainly not our conlangs. We may move on from projects and times in our life but they happened and that's what matters. Ruykkarraber and all your other scrapped langs are a part of your journey and a part of who you are today.

And here is another quote to end this reply: life comes and goes in waves, don't drown trying to chase a wave that has long passed.

Edit: Turns out that this was my 100th post, I kinda forgot I was there already. I meant to use it on Kahóra, but this was worth it :)

Thank you for this wonderful wisdom

the neighbors were nice and polite people who wanted to call them by the right name...but then a typo happened. (or the neighbors unwittingly replaced one sound or letter with something they could hear or write better)

Perhaps (although there's no writing here yet).

I wasn't strong enough to save you, Ruykkarraber. I wasn't strong enough. But I promise I won't fail again ...

There is a bit of Vader in Luke and Leia...the not-as-bad bits I mentioned before, perhaps, or the influence of Ruykkarraber. :)

eagerly looking forwards to what you craft next...which you just posted. :)

Yep Although Sóubenk is not very Ruykkarraber-y (so far, at least)

I'm more of a perfectionist or whatever that's called in Khemehekis's typology. I scrapped Abaniscen multiple times and remade it, and the only thing the versions have in common is a single syntactical feature. And doing that actually helped me make "better" conlangs later. So maybe it's good that you decided to scrap them.

Yeah, this is the position that I'm ultimately coming down on. As I said above:

But then, what if the fact that I've stopped growing to hate languages as quickly is just a sign that I've peaked, that I'm no longer improving enough to notice anything wrong? What if, by scrapping Ruykkarraber, I'm finally continuing the climb?

I think, thanks in part to yall's comments, that this is true, and I am.

[Arayaz]

Xúuuatxia Nouns

All nouns are either classed as motile or sessile. An individual noun may change its noun class depending on the circumstances; for example, xe "log" is usually sessile, but becomes motile if it's rolling down a hill, for example. But if it was being pushed, it would still be sessile, because it wasn't moving on its own.

Sessile nouns are pluralized by a circumfix a- -a; motile nouns are pluralized by a circumfix i- -a.

xe
log
log

axea
PL.SESS-log-PL
logs (in place)

ixea
PL.MOT-log-PL
logs (rolling)

Due to the language's allophony, this can be very complicated:

ngón
person
person

íoan
PL.MOT-person-PL
people

Above, the prefix i- deletes the ng, producing ión, and the suffix -a is also nasalized, thus becoming ióan. Then, due to the vowel contact rules, the word is divided into syllables as [ĩ̯ɔ̃˥.ʌ̃˧], and the diphthong [ĩ̯ɔ̃]'s high tone becomes falling tone, thus íoan [ĩ̯ɔ̃˥˩ʌ̃˧]. (This could also be [ĩ̯ɔ̃ʌ̯̃˥˩˧]. Fun!)

In addition, the language has an indefinite article (but no definite article). The indefinite article is nguk for motile nouns and hy for sessile nouns; the ng of the motile article is often deleted after words that end with oral vowels.

ngón
person
the person

ngón nguk
person INDEF.MOT
a person

xei hy
log INDEF.SESS
a (nonmoving) log

xe uk
log INDEF.MOT
a (rolling) log

ixea uk
PL.MOT-log-PL INDEF.MOT
some (rolling) logs

Next up: verbs and/or syntax!

[Khemehekis]

I'm more of a perfectionist or whatever that's called in Khemehekis's typology. I scrapped Abaniscen multiple times and remade it, and the only thing the versions have in common is a single syntactical feature. And doing that actually helped me make "better" conlangs later. So maybe it's good that you decided to scrap them.

This sounds like a replacer.

[Flavia]

I'm more of a perfectionist or whatever that's called in Khemehekis's typology. I scrapped Abaniscen multiple times and remade it, and the only thing the versions have in common is a single syntactical feature. And doing that actually helped me make "better" conlangs later. So maybe it's good that you decided to scrap them.

This sounds like a replacer.

It's probably midway between replacer and perfectionist. I don't remake the language completely different right away, it's like Ship of Theseus.

[Arayaz]

I'm more of a perfectionist or whatever that's called in Khemehekis's typology. I scrapped Abaniscen multiple times and remade it, and the only thing the versions have in common is a single syntactical feature. And doing that actually helped me make "better" conlangs later. So maybe it's good that you decided to scrap them.

This sounds like a replacer.

Hmm, a replacer is a filler-scrapper? Sounds a bit like me.

[Khemehekis]

It's probably midway between replacer and perfectionist. I don't remake the language completely different right away, it's like Ship of Theseus.

Ah, if it's like the Ship of Theseus, that sounds like a perfectionist.

[Khemehekis]

This sounds like a replacer.

Hmm, a replacer is a filler-scrapper? Sounds a bit like me.

Another type that's a mix of filler and scrapper is the remapper!

[Visions1]

Am I late to the funeral/mass grave filling?

If I may add, you can always come back to them later. I always promise that when I shift focus to another conlang and then forget them.
Eventually I look them over again in theory, remember them, fall back in love again. I still want to return to several of them - some posted on here, some not yet.

Also, frankly, I look at you Arayaz, and think "Wow, I can't do what you do" probably a lot more than you do to me. You have all these complicated things that make my banged-up head swirl. Don't worry, you're going along quite fine.

Is this a good time to say I know I need to finish the Swang posts, and I'm just busy with the recon relay.

[Arayaz]

Xúuuatxia Syntax

Word order is verb-initial; the language is strongly head-initial in general. Ordering of arguments depends on focus, and is usually sorted by class: motile first, sessile second. The language is direct-inverse, so it is assumed that the motile noun is the agent. If the nouns are the same class, though, the agent must precede the patient. Adverbs or converbs usually directly follow the verb, but can be backed to after both arguments.

ibú kon xei hy
[i˧bu˥ kɔ̃˧ ʃei̯˧‿xɨ˧]
see 1sg log INDEF.SESS
I see a log.

All verbs that can be used with two arguments can also be used with one. This follows an ergative pattern for sessile nouns and an accusative pattern for motile nouns.

ibú kon
[i˧bu˥ kɔ̃˧]
see 1sg
I see something. I see it.

ibú xei hy
[i˧bu˥ ʃei̯˧‿xɨ˧]
see log INDEF.SESS
Something sees a log. It sees a log.

When a verb's agent is sessile or its patient is motile, it must take the atonal suffix -h -ix. When the word has a coda, it instead takes the atonal suffix -he. This is the inverse suffix. In univalent clauses, it switches the role of the argument; in bivalent clauses, it reverses the roles of the arguments.

ibúix xei hy
[i˧bu̯iʃ˥˩ ʃei̯˧‿xɨ˧]
see-INV log INDEF.SESS
A log sees something.

ibúix kon
[i˧bu̯iʃ˥˩ kɔ̃˧]
see-INV 1sg
Something sees me.

ibúix kon xei hy
[i˧bu̯iʃ˥˩ kɔ̃˧ ʃei̯˧‿xɨ˧]
see-INV 1sg log INDEF.SESS
A log sees me.

When a verb has two arguments of the same class, as I noted above, the agent normally must precede the patient; with the inverse suffix, the patient must precede the agent.

ibú kon tà
[i˧bu˥ kɔ̃˧ tə˩]
see 1sg 2sg
I see you.

ibú tà kon
[i˧bu˥ɸ tə˩ kɔ̃˧]
see-INF 2sg 1sg
You see me.

ibúix kon tà
[i˧bu̯iʃ˥˩ kɔ̃˧ tə˩]
see-INF 1sg 2sg
You see me.

ibúix tà kon
[i˧bu̯iʃ˥˩ tə˩ kɔ̃˧]
see-INF 2sg 1sg
I see you.

[Arayaz]

Am I late to the funeral/mass grave filling?

It will likely never end So you definitely didn't miss it!

If I may add, you can always come back to them later. I always promise that when I shift focus to another conlang and then forget them.
Eventually I look them over again in theory, remember them, fall back in love again. I still want to return to several of them - some posted on here, some not yet.

True!

Also, frankly, I look at you Arayaz, and think "Wow, I can't do what you do" probably a lot more than you do to me. You have all these complicated things that make my banged-up head swirl. Don't worry, you're going along quite fine.

Thank you! It warms my heart to receive such affirmations, even if I feel they're unwarranted. By the way, your Swang stuff is really cool! I've seen it in the Conlang Conversation Thread and really loved how it looks and glosses.

Is this a good time to say I know I need to finish the Swang posts, and I'm just busy with the recon relay.

Sure, it's a great time!

Edit: 1400! I meant to use that on something else, but this is a fine place too

[Arayaz]

Xúuuatxia Questions

This'll be pretty short.

All questions have an initial atonal particle o, regardless of their nature. This particle is phonologically connected to the next word, and may be written as such if one wishes.

WH-questions are formed with ngùoka "what," which acts as a normal noun. Due to the language's being tonal, there is no associated intonation.

o ibú tà ngùoka (or oibú)
[oi̯˧bu˥ tə˩ ŋu̯o˩˥kʌ˧]
Q see 2sg what
What do you see?

This word may replace nouns (as above) or verbs (as below). When it is a verb, it is clause-initial, so it is always preceded by o; the combination o ngùoka is replaced by ouòka.

ouòka tà
[ou̯˧o˩kʌ˧ tə˩]
do.what 2sg
What are you doing?

[Arayaz]

Xúuuatxia Parts of Speech

NOUNS

• May take pluralization and articles.
• Belong to a noun class (motile or sessile) and often may be used with the other, depending on semantics.
• May be modified by relative clauses.
• May be replaced by pronouns.

VERBS

• May take the inverse suffix.
• May be modified by adverbs and converbs.
• May be replaced by the anaphoric verb tòan.

ADVERBS

• Modify verbs.
• Take no inflection.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────


VERBING
All nouns may be used as verbs in one of two ways: bare, in which case the verb's semantics are unpredictable, or with one of two copula prefixes: ma- and ku-. For example:
kouxì n. water
kouxì v. to drink
makouxì v. to be wet
kukouxì v. to be water

Or:
ỳlku n. squirrel
ỳlku v. to shoot a squirrel
màylku v. to be nimble
kùylku v. to be a squirrel


RELATIVIZATION
A verb may be relativized, turned into something that can modify a noun, with the suffix -ia. An object may also be included, in the order V-O-ia. An object incorporated in this way cannot inflect in any way, and becomes indefinite or general; an object left unincorporated and instead fronted before the verb, as in O V-ia, may be specific, and thus may take an article, pluralization, or both. A relativized verb may also take a prefix os- to become an agentive noun; such constructions may have incorporated objects, but not decorporated objects.

ibú ngón ỳlku
[i˧by˥ ŋɔ̃˥ ɨ˩lku˧]
see person squirrel
The person sees the squirrel.

ngón ibúia
[ŋɔ̃˥ i˧by˥i̯ə˩]
person see-REL
the person who sees

ngón ibúylkuia
[ŋɔ̃˥ i˧byɨ̯˥˩lku˧i̯ə˩]
person see-squirrel-REL
the person who sees squirrels

ngón ỳlku ibúia
[ŋɔ̃˥ ɨ˩lku˧ i˧by˥i̯ə˩]
person squirrel see-REL
the person who sees the squirrel

ngón ỳlku uk ibúia
[ŋɔ̃˥ ɨ˩lku˧‿(u)ʔ i˧by˥i̯ə˩]
person squirrel INDEF.MOT see-REL
the person who sees a squirrel


CONVERBS
All verbs may become adverbs in several ways. The most common is the prefix nó-, which forms an imperfective converb "while." There are two others, the posterior converb yh- "having/after," and the anterior converb xi- "before." When this occurs, an object may be incorporated or left before the verb in the same way that it may in relative clauses (see above). The converb prefixes are not atonal.

ibú nóiiah kon ixea uk
[i˧bu˥ noi̯˥˩i̯ə˧x kɔ̃˧ iʃeə̯‿uʔ]
see IMPF.CVB-kill-INV 1sg PL.MOT-log-PL INDEF.MOT
While dying, I saw several rolling logs.

ibú yxìaiah kon ixea uk
[i˧bu˥ ɨʃi̯ə˩˥i̯ə˧x kɔ̃˧ iʃeə̯‿uʔ]
see POST.CVB-kill-INV 1sg PL.MOT-log-PL INDEF.MOT
After dying, I saw several rolling logs.

ibú xìiiah kon ixea uk
[i˧bu˥ ʃi̯i˩˥i̯ə˧x kɔ̃˧ iʃeə̯‿uʔ]
see ANT.CVB-kill-INV 1sg PL.MOT-log-PL INDEF.MOT
Before dying, I saw several rolling logs.

[Visions1]

I'm so glad you liked it so!

Also, you know, since you said you liked them, I went to go look at my old Swang posts in the conversation thread, and I found this gem:

Nggadiri asho dangugu riya riyapavaka.
I made a new language again.

Riya asho asinji itichitichi riya ─ itichi asho mbojiko riya nyarisha.
I made its descendents too ─ then I killed them.

[Arayaz]

I'm so glad you liked it so!

Also, you know, since you said you liked them, I went to go look at my old Swang posts in the conversation thread, and I found this gem:

Nggadiri asho dangugu riya riyapavaka.
I made a new language again.

Riya asho asinji itichitichi riya ─ itichi asho mbojiko riya nyarisha.
I made its descendents too ─ then I killed them.

That was Nggadiri, which was supposed to be spoken in the desert west of Ruykkarra and the place where the Lua languages are spoken; none of these languages are living any longer. I liked the Lua languages, though. Perhaps I'll bring ’em back one day (read: I will not).

This is the 100th post of this thread, by the way!!

Xúuuatxia Lexicon

I haven't included words formed with ku-, since their meanings are entirely predictable.

Verbs marked "vt" may take one or two arguments; verbs marked "vi" may only ever one.

LEXICAL
àesu vi. to emerge, to come out, to show up, (of the sun or moon) to rise
aiúk nm. sun
akán nm. fish crow
ásos ns. plan, idea
ásos vt. to want, to intend, to anticipate, to expect, to mean
áxe adv. never, not at all
èixiof ns. the next day-night cycle
ek ns. dirt (the k is t)
etek ns. ground, land; place
fúan ns. vine
fúan vt. to grip, to grasp
fueà vt. to harm, to be against the benefit of, malefactive
hafo vt. to sneak around (in)
hàfuu ns. bog turtle (h is an allophone of s here)
hỳiha vi. to exist, to live (just a general term for existing, but once dead, even though you still exist, you don't hỳiha)
hýxìu nm. hand
hýxìu vi. to be five in number
hýxìuhýxìu vi. to be ten in number
ía interj. expresses surprise
ía conj. but (used along with ak: ak ía, ...)
ìaia vt. to kill, to cause the death of
ibú ns. eye
ibú vt. to see, to notice
íxke vi. to be excellent, to be amazing, to be great
íxke interj. that's great!
ixsú vi. to not be present
kanngak vt. to trade with, to exchange with (NOT "exchange for")
katxíe vt. to ignore, to except, to exclude
kìuan vi. to be alone, to be (the) only, to be one
kóan vt. to speak, to say (irregular past tense kóon)
kouxì n. water (sessile if stagnant, motile if flowing)
kouxì vi. to drink something (usually water)
kouxìkouxì vt. to drown
máa n. mother
maaíuk vi. to give off light, to glow (stative)
maakán vi. to be clever, to be crafty, to be resourceful
máknì vi. to be nervous, frantic, and scared, e.g. if you don't know what to do in a difficult situation
makouxì vi. to be wet
mánkof vt. to come before, to precede; to win in a fight (against)
màok vi. to be sharp, to be dangerous
masàfuu vi. to be cautious, to be careful, to be secretive
matáak vi. to be pale
màylku vi. to be nimble, to be agile, to be slim and darting
mỳku adv. always, ceaselessly
mysý vt. to be bold, to be courageous, to be brave with regard to
mysýmysý vt. to be foolish, to be overconfident with regard to
nátxi vt. to apply force to, to apply pressure to; to make it so that, to cause
nàakù vt. to know, to be sure of
ngón nm. person
ngóon nm. band, group of people
ngian ns. leaf
ngitu nm. a type of spirit that lives underwater and only comes out at night during the new moon because it hates to be seen, but sometimes offers trades to people
ngúah vt. to help, to aid, to benefit, to be for (benefactive)
òk ns. spear
òk vt. to pierce, to stab, to spear
òkòk vt. to fight against, to battle
oiù vt. to steal, to take (negative connotation); (with refl.) to flee
osfueia nm. harmful being, evil spirit
osmánkoxia n. the first part, the first one
ostansàyia nm. hard worker, hardworking person (also: laborer? this society doesn't have division of labor, though)
ostoaxiia n. the second part, the second one
ostoxèia nm. storyteller
ousỳ nm. leg
ousỳ vt. to kick; (with refl.) to run
oukí vt. to be during, (with nyu) to be while
táak nm. moon
tansày ns. saltwater; sweat
tansày vt. to labor, to work (on)
toaxi vt. to come after, to follow, to occur after; to be because of (kinda??)
toiu ns. knot
toiu vt. to fasten; to ensure; intr. w/ nyu (toiuix nyu: ...) to have to
toxè nm. story
toxè vt. to tell a story (about), to explain
toxèan nm. story about oneself; explanation of oneself; manifesto
toxèan vi. to explain oneself; to tell a story about oneself
txìdì vt. to alter, to change
txiktáak nm. lunar month (occasionally txitatáak)
txita nm. period of time
txitatáak nm. lunar month (usually contracted to txiktáak)
uak vi. to be good, to be familiar, to be comfortable, to be normal, to be common (the k is t)
ùuk nm. a kind of ibis that forms a strong pair-bond
ùuk vi. to reoccur, to happen again
úx vt. to hold, to wield, to use
úxi vi. to be empty; to be new (of the moon)
xe ns. log (motile if it's moving)
xexe ns. pile of wood; campfire
xe vt. to make out of wood
xíonf vi. to be powerful, to be strong
xisá vt. to live in, to inhabit; to be (generally or permanently) inside
xúuan ns. mouth; voice
ỳlku nm. squirrel (sessile if dead)
ỳlku vi. to shoot a squirrel


GRAMMATICAL
ak conj. and; and then (as in, "Help me and I'll help you."); thus, so
e part. imperative particle (accompanied by verbal suffix -(a)k for most speakers)
hy art. indefinite sessile
iu art. honorific or proper nouns
kon pro. 1sg
nyu pro. s. nominalizes a following clause (I'll post details about that soon)
(ng)uk art. indefinite motile
ngùoka pro. interrogative
o part. question particle
ouòka v. to do what
tà pro. 2sg
tòan v. to do so, to do that
toxak conj. and so, and then, and also; links concepts in a story
xik adv. not


NAMES
Haio
Ìixtu


Note to self (May 4): -an reflexive


Also, I'm realizing how lightweight the inverse suffix is. Like, the difference between "I'm dying" and "I'm killing something" is ìaiah kon and ìaia kon. So I might change the suffix to something stronger, or accompany it with some other syntactic change. But then again, I could leave it as is.

Edit: May 2: Inverse suffix has been fortified to -ix.