My commentary on your post is in red.
Yaškik Yat-Vṛḵaẕīkam (alt. romanization: Vrkhazhian Language
) is a highly fusional inflecting language with a triconsonantal root system. Nouns, Adjectives, and Verbs are formed by modifying roots consisting of three consonants using a variety of patterns and affixes. It's morphosyntactic alignment is Nominative Accusative.
Its, not it's. Sorry, this is just something that bugs me.
Vrkhazhian is divided into two languages: Ancient Vrkhazhian
and Modern Verkhazhian
. Ancient Vrkhazhian was a Sed'Ashiranian language that was spoken about 10, 000 years ago. Modern Vrkhazhian is a language that is spoken in the present day. (The information provided on this thread is Modern Vrkhazhian
Are your speakers particularly long-lived, because otherwise this is a rather implausible time depth.
Ancient and Modern Vrkhazhian are both descendants of the family of languages known as Sed'Ashiran. The languages of Sed'Ashiran were first spoken by a race of humanoids with bony plating around their skulls. These creatures were called the Khsinesir [x'sinesir]. [ˈxsinesir], unless [x] constitutes a separate syllable.
They could not produce bilabials or round vowels, so at first the languages did not have bilabials or rounded vowels. How did they arise then?
Due to the physiological nature of the Khsinesir they had little to no sexual dimorphism, so finding mates was difficult. This prompted them to incorporate complex gender systems into their languages to make up for this. This is extremely implausible. You would be shocked at how little impact sexual biology has on natlang gender systems.
With time, the Humans who learned the languages eventually included bilabials and rounding to vowels. How? Just spontaneously? Did the bilabials and rounded vowels replace a separate distinction made bny the Khsinesir? What was the conditioning factor?
In general, phonology bores me to tears, so I'm not going to offer any in-depth commentary on this, just point out the really egregious bêtises
The vowels /a e i o u/ are also distinguished by length. Stress is always placed on the long vowel.
The stops /p b t d/ are distinguished between normal and uvularized.
Not listed in the table is that the voiceless stops /p t k q/ are also distinguished by pre-aspiration.
I have little to say here on the plausibility or otherwise of your phoneme inventory, but I do think it would be helpful for you to detail precisely how this is Romanised, particularly the vowels.
The syllable structure is at minimum (C)VC, though there can be a maximum of (C)CVC.
- The palatal fricative [ç] is an allophone of /h/ when it's net to /j/
- The phonemes /x χ/ become voiced [ɣ ʁ] when next to voiced stops.
- The phonemes /ʃ ʒ ʧ ʤ/ palatalize next to front vowels and /j/ and become [ɕ ʑ ʨ ʥ]
- The phoneme /i/ becomes rounded [y] when it is next to /ɹ~ɾ/
Verbs in Vrkhazian are inflected for seven aspects, though the imperative is used as a seperate morpheme.
The aspects are listed as below:
At least two of these aren't aspects. The causative and reflexive are, for want of a better word, voices: they indicate how many participants there are in an action, while aspects describe the temporal structure of an action. How would your language distinguish between I shaved myself, I was shaving myself, I have shaved myself recently, I just finished shaving myself and I'm starting to shave myself? Under your current schema, it can't. Also, the aspects and voices you have chosen don't make sense as a system: aspectual systems are often quite complex and intricate, and frequently made up of a number of branching oppositions. As an example, my own conlang Chaziat distinguishes stative, imperfective, "aoristic", perfective and retrospective: this might just seem like I've thrown a bunch of terms together, but I've actually built them together as a holistic system, and it branches. All it seems that you've done is cherry-picked a list that interests you and thrown them all together for no thought about how they work together.
The auxiliary verb "ʾīzmet" is used for the imperative aspect. The imperative is not an aspect, it is a mood.
Here is a chart listing the different verb stems:
Here's a bigger image
It is worth mentioning here that in spite of first appearences, a natural triconsontal root system isn't simply a matter of plugging any three consonants into a template of three vowels: it's difficult to explain precisely what I mean, but your system feels remarkably unnaturalistic and almost engineered.
Along with aspects, verbs are also inflected for nine moods:
The modal verb "ʾaht" is used to denote the affirmative in a verb. It is unusual to have the affirmative marked. Is the negative the unmarked form of the verb? Do both modal (recte: auxiliary- the affirmative is not a mood) verbs and lexical verbs inflect? Does the use of an auxiliary trigger any particular morphological changes on the main verb?
Nouns in Vrkhazhian are declined for three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter, as well as two numbers, singular and plural. What you describe below seems rather to be a system for indicating the biological sex of a referent: are genders lexical (like in French, Arabic or German, for example, where they're an inherent property of the noun and frequently not at all related to biological sex) or more like the English system wherein "natural" gender agreement is used?
To show examples of how the gender system works we will take the word ḵav ['xaβ] which means “human”
The suffix -ī turns the noun masculine, an example of this would be ḵavī “man”.
The suffix -ē turns the noun feminine, so ḵav would become ḵavē “woman”.
The masculine and feminine plural suffixes are -ot and am, whereas the neuter plural is -al.
Vrkhazhian also has five cases: nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, and locative.
The nominative is the unmarked case whereas the others are marked with particles.
Below examples also use the word "ḵav" along with a the diminutive affix ha-
- Tū haḵav - child
- Tō haḵavī - boy
- Ta haḵavē - girl
- Tū haḵaval - children
- Tō haḵavot - boys
- Ta haḵavam - girls
Though some nouns do not take gender such as "šīm" (house)
so we only have tū šīm and tū šīmal only.
- Šen ḵav - human
- Šol ḵavī - man
- Šaf ḵavē - woman
- Nū ḵav - human's
- Nol ḵavī - man's
- Na ḵavē - woman's
The last case is the locative affix "yat-", which is rarely used, and is usually found in the names of places, country and overall popular places. An example of this is found in the name of the language itself "Yaškik Yat
-Vṛḵaẕīkam". Does the locative prefix not inflect for gender?
That's all I have for now, what do you think?
These are my thoughts on what you have written already. Please ask for clarification or examples if you don't understand what I'm saying. Next I'll try to come up with some questions which might help you formulating something less kitchen-sinky.