Txeumé

[ná'oolkiłí]

Introduction

I've been fooling around with an Spanish cypher for years now that has been getting more and more opaque. It's gotten to the point now that the phonological and syntactic rules used obscure the source so much that the end result is unrecognizably Indo-European, much less Spanish. So I suppose you might think of Txeumé [ˈtʃøʏ̯mɨ] as a full-fledged a posteriori conlang by now. In a nutshell: imagine a rigidly head-final V2 version of Spanish with an elaborate vowel system and pretty unintuitive orthography.

Phonology

Consonants are pretty straightforward:
/m n/
/p t d k g ʔ/
/ts tʃ dʒ/
/s ʃ/
/r l/

The following oral vowels are contrastive.
/i y u/
/ɪ ʊ/
/e ø o/
/ɛ œ ɔ/
/æ a ɒ/

But the exact surface realization of the vowels depends on whether or not a syllable is stressed, and whether or not it has a coda. The open stressed syllable allophones are:
[ɔɪ̯ aɪ̯ aʊ̯]
[iː uː]
[eɪ̯ øʏ̯ oʊ̯]
[ɪɛ̯ ʏœ̯ ʊɔ̯]
[ɛæ̯ aː ɔɒ̯]

In closed stressed syllables:

[e o]
[ɛ œ ɔ]
[ɛ œ ɔ]
[ɛ ɐ ɔ]

In prestressed syllables:
[ɪ ɵ ʊ]
[ɪ ʊ]
[ɛ ɵ ʊ]
[ɛ ɵ ʊ]
[ɐ ɐ ɐ]

Elsewhere:
[ɨ ɨ ə]
[ɨ ɨ]
[ɨ ə ə]
[ɨ ə ə]
[ə ə ə]

The following nasal vowels are contrastive:
/ɪ̃ ɛ̃ ɵ̃ ɐ̃ ɔ̃ ʊ̃/

In open stressed syllables, a nasal coda epenthesizes ([ŋ] or a nasal homorganic with the following consonant); in closed stressed or or prestressed syllables they are [ɪ̃ ɛ̃ ɵ̃ ɐ̃ ɔ̃ ʊ̃]; elsewhere [ə].

Syntax

Quite unlike Spanish, Txeumé is pretty rigidly head-final. Determiners follow nouns, verbs follow objects, auxiliaries follow verbs, complementizers follow clauses.

Ontzé mucheig autau eivg aiv camd...
[ˈɔ̃ndʒɨ mʊˈʔɛz ˈɔɒ̯tə ˈœz ˈʏœ̯ ˈkɔ̃ŋ]
/ˈɔ̃dʒ=ɪ muˈʔez ˈɒt=ɪ=a ˈøz ˈœ ˈkɔ̃/
man=DEF woman tall=DEF=ACC see:INF AUX:PLU.3S when
'When the man had seen the tall woman...'

In unembedded clauses, the verb is in second position.

Niern choäntz chutó.
[ˈnɪ̃r ʔɔˈɐ̃dʒ ʔʊˈtuː]
/ˈnɪ̃=r ʔoˈɐ̃dʒ ʔuˈtʊ]
children=DEF played football
'The children played football'

Xeig choäntz niern chutó
[ˈʃɛz ʔɔˈɐ̃dʒ ˈnɪ̃r ʔʊˈtuː]
/ˈʃez ʔoˈɐ̃dʒ ˈnɪ̃=r ʔuˈtʊ]
yesterday played children=DEF football
'Yesterday the children played football'

Two things make this interesting: first, auxiliaries will move instead of lexical verbs.

Xeig an niern chutó choäug
[ˈʃɛz ˈɐ̃n ˈnɪ̃r ʔʊˈtuː ʔɔˈʊɔ̯]
/ˈʃez ˈɐ̃ ˈnɪ̃=r ʔuˈtʊ ʔoˈɔ/
yesterday AUX:PERF children=DEF football play:PART.PL
'Yesterday the children played football'

Second, many verbs have prefixes which stay behind in post-object position even when the lexical core moves into second position (just like German separable prefixes). The verb stays whole if the clause is embedded, or if an auxiliary is present.

Ritzé chundiv ninra con
[ˈrɔɪ̯dʒɨ ʔʊ̃ˈdaɪ̯ ˈnɪ̃nrəkə]
/ˈridʒ=ɪ ʔʊ̃ˈdy ˈnɪ̃=r=a=kɔ̃/
book=DEF confused child=DEF=ACC=PFX
'The book confused the child'

Ritzé ninra conchundiv camd...
[ˈrɔɪ̯dʒɨ ˈnɪ̃nrə kəʔʊ̃ˈdaɪ̯ ˈkɔ̃ŋ]
/ˈridʒ=ɪ ˈnɪ̃=r=a kɔ̃=ʔʊ̃ˈdy ˈkɔ̃/
book=DEF child=DEF=ACC PFX=confused when
'When the book confused the child...'

Ritzé a ninra conchundiv
[ˈrɔɪ̯dʒɨ ˈaː ˈnɪ̃nrə kəʔʊ̃ˈdaɪ̯]
/ˈridʒ=ɪ ˈa ˈnɪ̃=r=a kɔ̃=ʔʊ̃ˈdy/
book=DEF AUX:PERF child=DEF=ACC PFX=confuse:PART
'The book has confused the child'

Sample Text

Notxéd Emtémm Sór é ma chót eg cav poig ruzand tav camd,
[ˈnoʊ̯tʃɨd ˈɵ̃tɨm ˈsor ɪˈmaː ˈʔot ˈɪɛ̯ ˈkɔɒ̯ ˈpɔz rʊˈtsɐ̃n ˈtɔɒ̯ ˈkɔ̃ŋ]
/ˈnotʃ=ɪ=d ˈɵ̃t=ɪ=m ˈsʊ=r ɪ=ˈmaː ˈʔʊt ˈɛ ˈkɒ ˈpoz ruˈts-ɐ̃ ˈtɒ ˈkɔ̃]
north=DEF=GEN wind=DEF=and sun=DEF 3S=more strong is which for fight-PRES.PART AUX when
'When the North Wind and the Sun were fighting over which was stronger'

é tziv carén xaimb aiucheig xeäus.
[ɪˈdʒaɪ̯ kɐˈrɪ̃n ˈʃɵ̃ŋ ɵˈʔɛz ʃɛˈɔs]
/ɪ=ˈdʒy kaˈrɪ̃ ˈʃɵ̃ œˈʔez ʃeˈɒ=s/
3S=coat warm wear:PART traveler arrived=REFL
'a traveler wearing a warm coat arrived'

Sóséntz sacótzed raiucheigau tziur cqitax aseigag cqén ma chót seigycq poig.
[sʊˈsɪ̃dʒ sɐˈkuːdʒɨd rɵˈʔeɪ̯zə ˈdʒyr kɪˈtɐʃ əsɛˈzɔɪ̯ ˈkɪ̃m ˈmaː ˈʔot sɛˈzikpəz]
/s=ʊˈsɪ̃dʒ s=aˈkʊdʒ=ɪ=d r=œˈʔez=ɪ=ə ˈdʒy=r kiˈtɐ-r=s ase-ˈz=aː ˈkɪ̃ ˈma ˈʔʊt seˈ-z=i=k=poz/
3PL=put.3PL REFL=agreement=DEF=at coat=DEF take.off-INF=REFL make-INF=IRR who more strong be-INF=COND=PFX
'They agreed that the one who could make the traveler take off his coat would be the stronger.'

Notxéd Emté olav su chóx é to cons, peig é ma chóx con solav camd,
[ˈnoʊ̯tʃɨd ˈɵ̃ntɨ ɔˈlɔɒ̯ sʊˈʔuːʃɨ ˈtoʊ̯kəs ˈpɛz ɪˈmaː ˈʔʊʃkə sɔˈlɔɒ̯ ˈkɔ̃ŋ]
/ˈnotʃ=ɪ=d ˈɵ̃t=ɪ oˈlɒ su=ˈʔʊʃ=ɪ ˈto=kɔ̃=s ˈpez ɪ=ˈma ˈʔʊʃ=kɔ̃ s=oˈlɒ ˈkɔ̃/
north=DEF=GEN wind=DEF blew 3S.POSS=strength=DEF all=with=PFX but 3S=more strength=with PFX=blew when
'The North Wind blew with all his might, but the stronger he blew,'

ma mimd setxas setxav aiucheigé tziura. Chinavg éndiv éig.
[ˈmaː ˈmɵ̃d ˈseɪ̯tʃəs sɛˈtʃɔɒ̯ œˈʔeɪ̯zɨ ˈdʒaɪ̯rə ʔɪˈnʊɔ̯ ɪ̃ˈdaɪ̯ ˈɪz]
/ˈma ˈmɵ̃=d ˈsetʃ=a=s seˈtʃ-ɒ œˈʔez=ɪ ˈdʒy=r=a ʔiˈnɒ=ɪ=a ɪ̃ˈd-y ɪ=z/
more self=GEN near=at=FOC bring.close-PAST.3S traveler=DEF coat=DEF=PFX end=DEF=at give.up-PAST.3S 3S=PFX
'the closer to himself the traveler pulled his coat. Finally he gave up.'

Tonsg en pesav sór caroig con tzixaig en, ma moment etg en itav auicheigé tziurcq.
[ˈtɔ̃nsə pɛˈsɔɒ̯ ˈsʊr kɐˈrɔskə dʒɪˈʃaːzə ˈmaː mɔˈmɛ̃t ˈɪɛ̯tə ɪˈtɔɒ̯ œˈʔeɪ̯zɨ ˈdʒyrk]
/ˈtɔ̃s=ɛ̃ peˈs-ɒ ˈsʊ=r kaˈroz=kɔ̃ dʒiˈʃa-z=ɛ̃ ˈma moˈmɛ̃t ˈɛt=ɛ̃ iˈt-ɒ œˈʔez=ɪ ˈdʒy=r=k/
then=in start-PAST.3S sun=DEF heat=with shine=INF=PFX and moment that=in take.off-PAST.3S traveler=DEF coat=DEF=PFX
'And then the Sun began to shine warmly, so the traveler took off his coat.'

Sig chesav Notxéd Emté Sórs é ma chót eig cqe con.
[ˈsiː ʔɛˈsɔɒ̯ ˈnoʊ̯tʃɨd ˈɵ̃ntɨ ˈsʊrs ɪˈmaː ˈʔʊt ˈɛskəkə]
/ˈsi=a ʔeˈs-ɒ ˈnotʃ=ɪ=d ˈɵ̃t=ɪ ˈsʊ=r=s ɪ=ˈma ˈʔʊt ˈez=ke=kɔ̃/
so=at confess-PAST.3S north=DEF=GEN wind=DEF=FOC 3S=more strong was=COMP=PFX
'So the North Wind confessed that it was the Sun who was stronger.'

More to come! Phonology & syntax to be explored in more depth, as well as the sound changes, morphology, and orthography.

[Basilius]

Nice orthography. Do you have a historical background for it?

I understand, "prestressed" is first pretonic, as opposed to both posttonic and further pretonic? (the distinction is inspired by Russian vowel reduction rules, I believe?)

Couldn't instantly figure out how the coda consonants are used in spelling...

It will be curious to see an elaboration on this German-oid syntax, too.

[ná'oolkiłí]

Thanks! The orthography's been inspired by a bunch of different things — Catalan and Greek, most notably. It retains a good amount of etymology, so it's not entirely regular. Not impossible to read, though, I think. It deserves a nice detailed post on its own.

Yes, similar to Russian. So given a word of the shape CV₁CV₂ˈCV₃CV₄ — V₃ is stressed and has the most contrasts; V₂ is prestressed/pretonic, so it has fewer but still a good number; V₁ & V₄ are just unstressed so whole vowel system almost entirely collapses. In other words:
C{ɨ,ə}C{ɪ,ɛ,ɵ,ɐ,ɔ,ʊ}ˈC{i,ɪ,y,e,ø,ɛ,œ,æ,a,ɒ,ɔ,o,ʊ,u}C{ɨ,ə}.

Haha, yeah, those are tricky. In general, <g#> opens the vowel, but it'll be /z/ if the rhyme has a <i> in it. <v> rounds a vowel. <n#> signals a nasal vowel; <m#> usually means the vowel is rounded and nasal. If you want to do more than one of these things at once there is a specific order, so you might get funny things like <aimg> /ɔ̃z/.

The syntax has really only evolved in the past couple weeks, and I'm pretty excited about it. A lot of function morphemes are clitics consisting of a single segment, and since opening / closing syllables can drastically change a vowel's surface form, there are some fun syntax/phonology interface phenomena.

[ná'oolkiłí]

Sound Changes
I've never actually written down the sound changes that give turn Spanish into Txeumé, and doing it now is harder than I would have expected. So the derivation that follows may not be perfectly accurate, but it gives a pretty good description.

Stage I
V{s,T}{T,F,σ} → V_+laxØ{T,F,σ} (s-dropping/vowel laxing phonologized)
{i,e,a,o,u}lσ → {ɪ,ɪ,ɒ,ʊ,ʊ}
tʃ → ts
j → ʃ (yeísmo phonologized)
CV̆# → CØ#
V́V̆# → VØ#
VNr → Ṽdʒ
FR → ʃ
ɲ → in

Stage II
RT, TR → tʃ
RD, DR → dʒ
Tl, lT → l
Fl → l
f, x → ʔ
VNσ → ṼØ

Stage III
R → z
Vbσ → V_+rdØ
Vbl → V_+rdr
bV → ØV_+rd
Vb → V_+rdØ
VlV → r

Stage IV
D → Ø
V_{αfront, βback, γhigh, δlow}CV̆_{αfront, βback, γhigh, δlow} → VVC

Stage V
V₁V₁ → VØ
IE, EI → ɪ
UE, UO → ʊ
EA, AE, AI, IA → æ
OA, AO → ɑ
VTV → VDV
I{o,ɔ} → Ø{ø,œ}

Stage VI
VA → V_+laxØ
V_-rdV_+rd → V_+rdØ

σ — syllable boundary
# — word boundary
V́ — stressed vowel
Ṽ — nasal vowel
V̆ — unstressed vowel
T — voiceless stop
D — voiced stop
F — fricative
R — rhotic (tap or trill)
N — nasal consonant
I — high front vowel, αlax
E — front mid vowel, αlax
A — low vowel, αfront, βback
O — mid back vowel, αlax
U — high back vowel, αlax

—————

I'm sure there are a few things missing or out of order, and little details are always in flux, but that about covers it. Here are some simple examples:

Spanish → Txeumé
ama → amm /ˈam/ 'loves' (apocope)
mal → mav /ˈmɒ/ 'bad' (l-vocalization)
él → é /ɪ/ 'he'
sol → só /ˈsʊ/ 'sun'
con → con /ˈkɔ̃/ 'with' (vowel nasalization)
otro → otx /ˈotʃ/ 'other' (Cr-affrication)
gran → tzan /ˈdʒɐ̃/ 'big'
ser → seig /ˈsez/ 'to be' (r-sibilation)
loco → roc /ˈrok/ 'crazy' (l-rhotization)
dejar → dechaig /deˈʔaz/ (x→ʔ)
hay → ay /ˈæ/ (umlaut)
año → ainn /ˈæn/
edad → eä /eˈa/ (voiced stop deletion)
reconquista → jgegoncqiet /zegɔ̃ˈkɪt/ (intervocalic voicing)

And some more complex ones:
huevo → ó /ˈʊ/ 'egg'
rincón → jgingqom /zɪ̃ˈgɔ̃/ 'corner'
atmosférico → amogchéigc /amɔˈʔɪzk/ 'atmospheric'
viva → iv /y/ 'life'
nuevos → nóg /nœ/ 'new:M.PL'
perspectiva → pegtztiv /pɛdʒˈty/ 'perspective'
murciélago → mutxérau /muˈtʃɪrɒ/ 'bat'
averiguar → eaiugaiug /øˈzøz/ 'to find out'

Please point out any inconsistencies you find, or things you need clarification on.

[Culla]

You are missing a translation for the 3rd part of the text. Otherwise this looks pretty cool. Looking forward to seeing some grammar so I can comment a bit more than I can now.

[ná'oolkiłí]

Syntax

Though it's a Spanish descendant, Txeumé has very little in common syntactically with Romance languages. It's overwhelmingly head-final, with the added quirk that verbs appear in the second position of non-embedded clauses (this, of course, is the V2 phenomenon familiar from Germanic languages). Extensive cliticization of function morphemes (which might have superficially very different allomorphs) clouds things up a good amount, keeping you on your toes.

Let's first look at nominal phrases. Bare nouns are interpreted as indefinite. Definiteness is expressed with a clitic that takes the shape é /ɪ/ after consonants and r /r/ after vowels (etymologically these allomorphs are both derived from Sp. el 'the'). In a previous post I sketched the language's weight-sensitive vowel allophony; since this enclitic either opens or closes a syllable, vowel quality in the root will usually change between bare and definite pairs.

peig, peigé, só, sór
[ˈpɛdz, ˈpaɪ.dzɨ, ˈsuː, ˈsor]
/ˈpedz, ˈpedz=ɪ, ˈsʊ, ˈsʊ=r]
dog, dog=DEF, sun, sun=DEF
'a dog, the dog, a sun, the sun'

I'm calling this the definiteness clitic instead of an article because it obligatorily appears with possessive pronouns (which, in turn, are proclitics); articles and possessive pronouns generally don't cooccur (*my the book, *mi el libro).

speigé
[ˈspaɪ.dzɨ]
/s=pedz=ɪ/
3.POSS=dog=DEF
'his/her/their dog'

Adjectives directly follow nouns; they will therefore host the definiteness enclitic.

speig netzé
[ˈspɛdz ˈnaɪ.dʒɨ]
/s=ˈpedz ˈnedʒ=ɪ/
3.POSS=dog black=DEF
'his black dog'

Demonstratives follow the definiteness enclitic. Txeumé distinguishes proximal (e)t and distal (e)s demonstratives (transparently derived from Sp. este/a and ese/a; aquel/lo/a has shifted into the role of tonic third person pronoun, but more on that later).

speig netzés
[ˈspɛdz ˈnaɪ.dʒɨs]
/s=ˈpedz ˈnedʒ=ɪ=s/
3.POSS=dog black=DEF=that
'that black dog of his'

Other modifiers like PPs and relative clauses come at the very front of the nominal phrase.

caséne speig netzés
[ˈkaː.sɨn ˈspɛdz ˈnaɪ.dʒɨs]
/ˈkas=ɪ=n s=ˈpedz ˈnedʒ=ɪ=s/
house=DEF=in 3.POSS=dog black=DEF=that
'that black dog of his in the house'

This gives us the following DP template:

XP Poss Noun Adj Def Dem

————

Now let's move on to clausal syntax. Underlying word order is SOV. This is preserved in embedded clauses (this should be familiar if you've looked into German syntax at all).

omtz peiga eus...
[ˈɔ̃dʒ ˈpaɪ.dzə ˈœs]
/ˈɔ̃dʒ ˈpedz=a ˈø=s/
man dog=ACC see:3S.PRES=if
'if a man sees a dog...'

In matrix clauses, we see that the verb appears after the first constituent in the clause, which might be after the subject (SVO) or an adverb (AdvVSO).

omtz év paiga
[ˈɔ̃dʒ ˈwiː ˈpaɪ.dzə]
/ˈɔ̃dʒ ˈʏ ˈpedz=a/
man see:3S.PAST dog=ACC
'A man saw a dog'

xeiga év omtz paiga
[ˈʃaɪ.dzə ˈwiː ˈɔ̃dʒ ˈpaɪ.dzə]
/ˈʃedza ˈʏ ˈɔ̃dʒ ˈpedz=a/
yesterday see:3S.PAST man dog=ACC
'Yesterday a man saw a dog'

You might have noticed that the subject and object in both the above examples were indefinite. That's because all definite arguments must be doubled by clitic pronouns. These clitics cluster together in a position between the subject and object.

omtzé ré peigau eus...
[ˈãʊ̃.dʒɨ rɪ.ˈpaɪ.dzə ˈœs]
/ˈɔ̃dʒ=ɪ r=ɪ=ˈpedz=ɒ ˈø=s/
man=DEF 3S.SUBJ=3S.OBJ=dog=ACC.DEF see:3S.PRES=if
'if the man sees the dog...'

These clitic pronouns can of course stand by themselves, without full DPs to double.

ré paigau eus...
[rɪ.ˈpaɪ.dzə ˈœs]
/r=ɪ=ˈpedz=ɒ ˈø=s/
3S.SUBJ=3S.OBJ=dog=ACC.DEF see:3S.PRES=if
'if he sees the dog...'

Clitic clusters count their own constituents. That means that if no subject is present, we have the order Cl V O, but if there is one we have S V Cl O.

é rév paigau
[ɪ.ˈruɪ̯ ˈpaɪ.dzə]
/ɪ=r=ˈʏ ˈpedz=ɒ/
3S.SUBJ=3S.OBJ=see:3S.PRES dog=ACC.DEF
'He saw the dog'

omtzé év ré paigau
[ˈãʊ̃.dʒɨ ˈwiː rɪ.ˈpaɪ.dzə
/ˈɔ̃dʒ=ɪ ˈʏ r=ɪ=ˈpedz=ɒ/
man=DEF see:3S.PAST 3S.SUBJ=3S.OBJ=dog=ACC.DEF
'The man saw the dog'

If you've studied German, you've probably encountered that language's separable verbal prefixes. As I mentioned above, German verbs move to the second position in unembedded clauses. If a verb has a separable prefix, though, it will be left behind in the underlying SOV position after the verb movement. This very same phenomenon occurs in Txeumé. Take the verb conmeig 'to eat'. In unembedded clauses, the element con appears at the every end of the clause, stranded when the verb root moves into second position. In an embedded context, on the other hand, we see the underlying position of the verb.

omtzé mev ré jgosau con
[ˈãʊ̃.dʒɨ ˈmeʊ̯.rɨ ˈdzaʊ.sə.kə]
/ˈɔ̃dʒ=ɪ ˈmø=r=ɪ ˈdzos=ɒ=kɔ̃/
man=DEF eat:3S.PAST=3S.SUBJ=3S.OBJ rice=ACC.DEF=PFX
'The man ate the rice'

omtzé ré jgosau conmeus
[ˈãʊ̃.dʒɨ rɪ.ˈdzaʊ.sɨ kɔ̃ˈmœs]
/ˈɔ̃dʒ=ɪ r=ɪ=ˈdzos=ɒ kɔ̃=ˈmø=s/
man=DEF 3S.SUBJ=3S.OBJ=rice=ACC.DEF PFX=eat:3S.PAST=if
'if the man ate the rice...'

Hopefully I'll update this thread more often than once every five months!

[Astraios]

I reeeally like it, it's pretty.

[hwhatting]

Txeumé is pretty rigidly head-final. Determiners follow nouns, verbs follow objects, auxiliaries follow verbs, complementizers follow clauses.

This is meant as a genuine question, not as criticism - are you sure about the order in all cases? The head-final languages I know (all Turkic) all are determiner-noun, and originally don't have complementizers, but use participal constructions; where they have complementizers, they are loaned (from Persian in the case of Turkish) and clause-initial (modeled on the languages they are loaned from).
In any case, a well-done language!

[ná'oolkiłí]

I reeeally like it, it's pretty.

Thank you! Hopefully I'll get up some more posts soon.

This is meant as a genuine question, not as criticism - are you sure about the order in all cases? The head-final languages I know (all Turkic) all are determiner-noun, and originally don't have complementizers, but use participal constructions; where they have complementizers, they are loaned (from Persian in the case of Turkish) and clause-initial (modeled on the languages they are loaned from).
In any case, a well-done language!

It depends on what your analysis is, I think. A lot of people use 'head-final' somewhat informally to mean 'all the modifiers come before the noun/verb'. But from a theoretical perspective (which is where I'm coming from), 'head-final' means 'every projection has it head on the right and its complement on the left'. So you might have a structure like this:

Code: Select all

                 CP
                 /\
               ... C
               /
              VP
              /\
            DP  V'
                /\
              ... V
              /
             PP
             /\
         DemP  P
          /\
        DP  Dem
        /\
   PossP  D'
          /\
         NP D

If you're assuming that demonstratives have their own projection, then in a head-final language we would expect them to appear at the end of the extended nominal projection. Not every thinks DemP is on top of DP, though. I don't know a lot about Turkish syntax, but I imagine you could say that demonstratives are actually in the specifier of DP, in which case they would naturally precede the noun.

As for complementizers, that is something I've been wrestling with. I've been toying around with developing the kind of participle constructions you see in Turkic languages from the nonfinite verb forms there are in Spanish. I'll have to read more about it, I think.

(Another sticking point for me is that I think it's actually theoretically impossible for a language to be rigidly head-final and V2...)

[hwhatting]

It depends on what your analysis is, I think. A lot of people use 'head-final' somewhat informally to mean 'all the modifiers come before the noun/verb'. But from a theoretical perspective (which is where I'm coming from), 'head-final' means 'every projection has it head on the right and its complement on the left'. So you might have a structure like this:

(snip)

If you're assuming that demonstratives have their own projection, then in a head-final language we would expect them to appear at the end of the extended nominal projection. Not every thinks DemP is on top of DP, though. I don't know a lot about Turkish syntax, but I imagine you could say that demonstratives are actually in the specifier of DP, in which case they would naturally precede the noun.

It would be nice to get a legend with the chart - it's diffcult to discuss when you have to guess the terminology. Anyway, I can only say that the Turkic languages I know treat demonstratives, adjectives, possessors etc. as modifiers, preceding the noun, with the added twist that possession is also marked by a suffix on the possessed noun. As they are generally head-final, and I haven't yet seen an example of a consequently head-final language that has independent demonstratives or adjectives follow the noun (I'm not talking about suffixes here), I'd take this as prima facie evidence so far that the analysis treating the demonstrative as part of the specifier is correct. As I said, I'm open for counterexamples from outside my comfort zone.

(Another sticking point for me is that I think it's actually theoretically impossible for a language to be rigidly head-final and V2...)

Yes, this would only work if you'd be able to slot everything else before the verb into one giant NP (or whatever it's called in your framework). So one solution would be to have Txeumé be only partially head-final.

[Astraios]

Basque:

gizon bat, gizona, gizon hau, gizon handia
man one, man=DEF, man this, man big=DEF

hemen zaudela dakit
here 2P.ABS-PRS-be:estar-ABS.PL=CMPL 3.ABS.PRS-PRS-know-1S.ERG.PRS


Lakota:

wičháša waŋží, wičháša kiŋ, wičháša kiŋ lé, wičháša tȟáŋka kiŋ
man one, man=DEF, man=DEF PROX, man big=DEF

lél yaúŋ kiŋ slolwáye
here 2.ACT-be.located=DEF know‹1S.ACT›

[hwhatting]

@ Astraios - thanks for the examples!
How do Basque and Lakota treat possession and adpositions (or their equivalents)?

[Astraios]

Basque has a genitive suffix -ren, which attaches to the possessor and precedes the possessed, and it has postpositions. Lakota has a declinable inalienable prefix tȟa- which attaches to the possessed and follows the possessor, and it also has postpositions (it more commonly expresses possession by a verbal affix though).

gizonaren zaldi aurrean
man=DEF-GEN horse front=INES

wičháša kiŋ tȟašúŋke itȟókab
man=DEF POSS-dog APPL-be.firstborn~ADV

"before the man's horse"

[hwhatting]

Ok, Basque is like Turkic in that respect, and Lakota wrt adpositions, while differing wrt possession in using prefixes / marking on verb, but not wrt order.
So if we set aside adjectives, numerals, and demonstratives, concerning which we're discussing whether they're heads or not, we have:
Turkic: verb-final, possessor-possessed, postpositions - no grammatical prefixes
Basque: verb-final, possessor-possessed, postpositions - grammatical prefixes (on the verb)
Lakota: verb-final, possessor-possessed, postpositions - grammatical prefixes (on verbs and nouns)
So I wonder whether the fact that Lakota and Basque postpone adjectives, numerals, and demonstratives may have something to do with the fact that they allow grammatical prefixes?

[hwhatting]

Just came across this during re-reading:

I'm calling this the definiteness clitic instead of an article because it obligatorily appears with possessive pronouns (which, in turn, are proclitics); articles and possessive pronouns generally don't cooccur (*my the book, *mi el libro).

speigé
[ˈspaɪ.dzɨ]
/s=pedz=ɪ/
3.POSS=dog=DEF
'his/her/their dog'

There are languages where article and possessive pronouns co-occur (example: "my dog"):
Italian: il mio cane; Bulgarian: mojeto kuče (moje Poss to Art.); if your possessive is uninflected, Old Greek also qualifies as an example: ὁ κύων μου (ho - art., mou - enclitic poss. 1Person).
So there's no need to not use the term "article"; OTOH, I think "definiteness clitic" is a good choice.

@Astraios: I also noted that Txeumé puts relative clauses and prepositional phrase attributes before nouns; how do Basque and Lakota handle this? Turkic languages put them before nouns as well, e.g. Kazakh:
qaladaɣᵼ üj
city-LOC-SUFF house "the house in the city" (-ɣᵼ is needed to turn case forms into atrributes).
bul meniŋ balalᵼq šaɣᵼm ötken qala
this 1SG-GEN childhood period-POSS.1SG pass-PARTICIPLE.PAST.PERF city
"This is the city where I passed my childhood."

[Astraios]

Basque uses another verbal suffix similar to the complementizer and the relative clause precedes:

hor eserita dagoen gizona
there sit-ADV 3.ABS.PRS-PRS-be:estar-REL man=DEF

Lakota treats relative clauses as verbal attributes (and many of its "adjectives" take this pattern too), and it follows the noun (which must be indefinite, i.e. "a man, the there-sitting one"):

wičháša waŋ hél yuŋké kiŋ
man=IND MED-ADV.SPAT sit=DEF

[Drydic]

wičháša kiŋ tȟašúŋke itȟókab
man=DEF POSS-dog APPL-be.firstborn~ADV

"before the man's horse"

I didn't know the Lakota considered horses dogs.

[Astraios]

Inalienably possessed dogs are horses, and so are magic dogs and noun-incorporated dogs. Supposedly it's because they used to use dogs for the same things they would later use horses for, not because they thought they look particularly similar.

[Drydic]

DOG CAVALRY

...wait, what?

[Astraios]

xD Pack animals and food. Maybe riding was originally the special feature that made them magic.

[hwhatting]

@astraios: Thanks for the examples!

[Astraios]

De nada.

[Ser]

Do you think you could do a "historical gloss" of the "The North Wind and the Sun" text? By historical gloss, I mean doing something like the following for Spanish from the point of view of 1st c. BC Latin:

• El viento del norte y el sol disputaban sobre sus poderes,
  Illum ventum dë-illum nortem et illum sölem disputäbant super suös pot-ere-ës,
  
  y decidieron conceder la palma al que despojara a un viajero de sus vestidos.
  et dëcïdërunt concëdere illam palmam ad-illum quem despoliärat ad ünum viäticum-ärium dë suös vestïtös.

It basically gives a quick glance at the etymology of every root and affix.

[Drydic]

For the record Serafin uses umlauts instead of macrons because he finds them easier to type, even though they're so incredibly jarring.

[Hallow XIII]

Illum ventum de-illum nortem et illum sölem disputäbant super suös pot-ere-ës,
[ˈilːum ˈwentum de ˈilːum ˈnortem et ˈilːum ˈsølem dispuˈtæbant super suˈøs potereˈəs]

et dëcïdërunt concëdere illam palmam ad-illum quem despoliärat ad ünum viäticum-ärium dë suös vestïtös.
[et dəkɨˈdərunt konˈkədere ˈilːam ˈpalmam ad ˈilːum kʷem despoliˈærat ad ˈynum wiˈæticum ˈærium də suˈøs wesˈtɨtøs]