zompist bboard

OK, so I decided to go back over and revise my Algonquian language project, pretty much from the bottom up, starting with a revised set of sound changes. These still retain much of what made the first version distinctive, but the accentual system has been revised and the diphthongs and cluster behave differently.

The sound changes as they stand right now are
This gives the following phonology, plus romanisation.

/p t k ʔ/ <p t k '>
/θ s ʃ h/ <θ s š h>
/m n j w/ <m n y w>

/i a o/ <i a o> in long (doubled) or short , plus or minus a high tone (unmarked and acute respectively).

You will note a couple of differences from the last version, most notably the presence of phonemic glides. However, these do not carry on the PA glides but instead result from vowel hiatus resolution subsequent to the loss of *k and *h: the original glides still merge as /ʃ/ as before, though the sound changes as have been rearranged now mean that there are fewer of them.

There are other phonotactic constraints to note. The glides rarely appear between two long vowels, their occurrence requiring the presence of two lost consonants from the proto-language (e.g. a hypothetical form nehkika·na would come out as náayoo(N) under these rules).

The glottal stop also has an interesting distribution. It only occurs initially as a defaulted addition to underlyingly vowel-initial words (and is thus not written in that position), and is lost when said word takes prefixs. Additionally, word-internal/word-final glottal stops are only ever preceded by a high tone, due to their origin in consonant clusters.

Word-final consonants are limited to the stops and fricatives bar <š>, at least underlyingly: <š m n> may appear as part of the plural stem of vowel-final roots, which will be discussed below in a future post.

OK, onto basic nominal morphology, specifically the final suffixes and plural-stem formation.

Basically the noun inflectional suffixes are continued to some extent from PA, but they have not been spared from the degredations of time. The system still marks the proximate-obviative-inanimate distinction, and has incorporated the locative into the set as well, while the vocative has been lost. The proximate singular plural essentially continue the PA forms, however in order to explain the rest of the forms it is necessary to say that underlyingly a reanalysis has taken place, which explains the behaviour of stem forms before the plural -o suffix.

Simply put, Proto-Algonquian stems that ended in all of *k *h *m *n *w and *y lost their stem-final consonant/semivowel through sound change, giving a vowel-final stem in the daughter-language. However, the lost consonant shows up again (when that consonant is not *k or *h) in the plural forms, and would show up also in the obviative and locative singulars as well. However, where it still resurfaces the final consonant has been reanalysed as forming part of a plural stem, which leaves the singular forms to interact with the bare stem.

Most commonly the inserted consonant is <š>, the reflex of both *w and *y. This is assumed to be the default form.

The proto-Algonquian nasals continue their original shapes in the plural stem, and are cited with a bracketed (M) and (N) respectively.

Finally, with stems which ended in one of either the consonants *h & *k or one of the clusters *hk or *nk, with or without a following semivowel, there is no separate plural stem: this causes the vowel of the plural to abut the stem-final vowel in the same manner as with the locative suffix given below. These roots are cited with a following (K), reflecting their historical origin.

Consonant-final stems do not show this in any way. This means that after consonants the singular and plural forms for both the obviative and the locative are essentially identical.

The rest of the system follows the pattern. The obviative and locative singular reflexes have been generalised and are used freely after both singular and plural stems.

In the case of the locative singular, as well as with all plurals before -K stems, this causes the vowel of the suffix -á to abut with the preceding vowel. This causes the vowel of the root to either be deleted (with root final short -o with the plural and -a with the locative) or else one of the vowels is converted into a glide or broken into a vowel-glide combination, potentially with the addition of echo vowels if that glide is adjacent to a consonant. The results of these operations are shown below, though with the first vowel the accent is ignored:
With the a + o combination the bracketed (a) is epenthesised whenever the suffix is of the form -oC with a final consonant.

The obviative singular, on the other hand, is simply -ot after consonants and -t after vowels.

The full system is given below.
Some examples of the plural forms:

mó'o
mó'-o
bear-PRO.PL
bears

mó'ahinot
mó'ahi(N)-ot
moccasin-INA.PL
moccasins

nakáayamot
na-káaaya(M)-ot
1-louse-OBV.PL
My lice

pasit
pasi-t
lynx-OBV
lynx, bobcat (obv.)

pasišot
pasi-ot
lynx-OBV.PL
lynxes, bobcats (obv.)

ó'iyá
ó'ii(K)-á
snake-LOC
In the snake/in a bunch of snakes/among snakes

(sorry with the lice example, the word given in the OP is wrong, because bugs in SCA2. I'll bring it up some other time: for now all that needs to be said is that that is the correct form as given here)

Possession has been simplified somewhat from PA. The combination of word-final nasal loss and the reanalysis of plural stems has effectively eliminated the possessed theme for alienable nominals, meaning that now the only distinction between alienable and inalienable nominals is that possessive marking is obligatory for the latter. however, there are traces of the theme marker in places, including in the 2nd and 3rd person plurals, and also in the plural stems in the one or two nouns which have been moved from the alienable to the inalienable classes, such as -káaya(M) "louse" and -šiya(M) "home, dwelling place".

Possessed nouns are never proximate, while possessors are always proximate: animate nouns always take obviative marking. Unlike in PA the corresponding noun inflection comes before the plural possessor suffixes, as does all other inflection.

The possessive affixes are given below. Before word-initial glottal stops (even those which etymologically had a word-initial *h or *k) an epenthetic -k- is inserted. however, when other sound changes result in a word-initial glide, the epenthetic -k- is not added. With the plural suffixes an epenthetic -a- is added after consonants.
The suffix for the 1st person exclusive has been replaced with the Ist person inclusive suffix.

Examples:

nakimoot
na-imoo-t
1-chief-OBV
My chief

ikatanišot
i-atani-ot
3-person-OBV.PL
His/her people

išiyamot
i-šiya(M)-ot
3-home-OBV.PL
His homes

nawí
na-wí(M)
1-blanket
My blanket

awímotano
a-wí(M)-ot-ano
2-blanket-INA.PL-1.PL
Our (incl) blankets

nakóháano
na-óhá(N)-á-no
1-mountain-LOC-1.PL
On our mountain

This time round I'm going to deal with the pronominals before the verbal morphology.

Firstly the personal pronouns.
As you can see they make a similar set of distinctions to the possessive suffixes, though with an obviate instead of an indefinite form.

They aren't used that often: they are most commonly found in contranstive and intensive contexts.

The demonstratives, on the other hand, have been majorly reshaped. There is only a three-way distance distinction (proximal, distal and absent).
The absent (somewhat ironically) is the only one which continues a PA form unmodified, being descended from the set D or F animate singular. The distal was formed from a reduplicated/reinforced set B singular, while the proximal is a set-A form which has had been augmented by the adverb *mah- "over (here).

These forms take nominal inflections when used pronominally but are uninflected and postnominal when used adjectivally.

Finally, as before the indefinite and interrogative pronouns fall together into a single set, as in Siouan. Unlike the demonstratives, these do come in special animate and inanimate forms.
The animate form descends from the original animate interrogative *awe·n- while the inanimate descends from the original inanimate indefinite *ke·ko·ki.

mowa makaašoyomiši.
mowa makaašoyomi-ši
PROX sun.dance.lodge-be.II
This is a sun dance lodge.

EDIT: nap ašoo namáθímanoo
nap ašoo na-máθí-man-oo
water ABS 1-compltely-drink.TI-1s
I have drunk the water up.

niit nawímawáyaa, iit amó'ahinawáyaa.
niit na-wí(M)-o-áyaa iit a-mó'ahi(N)-o-áyaa
1s 1-blanket-PL-make.AI 2s 2-moccasin-PL-make.AI
I make blankets, you make moccasins.

ošaa paakaat?
ošaa paa-kaat
ANI.IND come.AI-3.INT
Who is coming?

íi našoopókoo.
íi na-šoopók-oo
INA.IND 1-see.TI-1s
I see something.

Now onto the verbs (oh boy).

Four orders have been continued in some form from PA: the indicative, conjunct, imperative and interrogative. however, their functions have shifted significantly along the way.

The indicative remains mostly unchanged, being used in both affirmative and negative indicative clauses. EDIT: There has been one significant development, however, in that the 3rd person animate prefix i- has been extended to animate intransitive verbs on the model of both the possessive affixes and the transitive inanimate verbs.

The conjunct and its submodes, however, have seen significant rearranging. The indicative has shifted to take up the functions of the original participle, while the changed mode incorporated the original functions of the indicative. The participle remains in a few relic formations such as Maakóoθik "Council of Ten" (the tribal governing body, consisting of five men and five women each), Mošíi'okaniwi "those we exchange (goods & wives) with" or "Crow" (probably, given the intimate relationship between the two tribes I'm imagining) and Óomoyoopošik "those who stand across (from us)" or "Blackfoot" (or possibly the Gros Ventres I'm not entirely settled on this one). The iterative has been lost entirely.

The interrogative has seen the largest shift: it now is used for main clause questions, pretty much to the exclusion of its former roles, though it still retains much similarity with the conjunct order. This comes in two suborders: the polar suborder which takes initial change, and the content suborder which does not.

Initial change has been regularised in the same way as in Arapaho: short vowels are lengthened and long vowels gain an infixed -oš-.

There are other similarities between the conjunct and the interrogative modes: they both fall into two submodes based on the presence vs. absence of intial change and in losing the number distinctions outside of retaining an inclusive.

Finally the imperative has lost the number distinction for the 2nd person, and is used for both affirmative and negative commands.

Verbs still come in four stem types: animate intransitive, inanimate intransitive, transitive animate and transitive intransitive.

No secure information on TAM yet: haven't been able to work much on the details outside of what's already taken care of with the verbal orders.

miiθíihiθ inapo a
miiθíih-θ i-nap-o a
eat.AI-3.CONJ 3-die-3.PL REP
Those who eat (it) die (so I'm told)

ašoopomaθ
a-šoopom-aθ
2-see.TA-1>2
I see you

miitinóo
miit-inóo
give.TA-2>1p.IMP
Give us (it)!

íi íi'asomayaat?
íi íi'as-omayaat
INA.IND chop.TI-2.INT
What are you chopping up?

Starting with the inanimate intransitive, because this has the fewest forms, only marking for the number of the subject, and lacking the imperative order entirely (for obvious reasons).

In the independent order, the inflection is the same as the inanimate nominal morphology: an unmarked singular with a plural -ot (taking a special plural stem as with nouns). The conjunct order is also unmarked, except by initial change, though it additionally lacks the number distinction.

The interrogative order, on the other hand, has been majorly reshaped. The singular would have, by regular sound change, become a simple -aat whose vowel would abut with the stem-final vowel. however, by analogy with the plural, regularly -tayaat, the singular was back-formed to -yaat, with no change to a stem-final vowel. The plural was later lost leaving -yaat as the final form (a similar change was used to back-form the proximate AI from the obviative AI in the same order).

Examples.

má'aa
má'aa
be.red.II
It is red/That which is red (note that this has separated from má'oo "blood"

aanoo.
IC-anoo
IC-be.long.II
When it is long.

mákáašiyaat?
IC-máká-aaši-yaat
IC-bow-be.II-INA.INT
Is it a bow?

nošiisonoyaat?
IC-niiso(N)-yaat
IC-two.II-INA.INT
Are there two of them?

Now for the animate intransitive.

The independent is fairly conservative, retaining all the PA contrasts, though the distribution of forms has been influenced by the nominal morphology, with the third person forms gaining a personal prefix and the suffixes being the same as the proximate and obviative inflection suffixes (including showing the singular-plural stem contrast). Also note that the 1p, 21p ans 2p suffixes are reflexes of the combined suffix *-eʔm-ena, and would have caused all preceding long vowels to shorten and low-tone vowels to gain a high tone, but that was lost due to analogy. This history is reflected in that the epenthetic vowel they take before consonant-final stems has a high tone.
The conjunct, on the other hand, has shown significant innovation, losing the number distinction as with all the other verb classes.
The same collapse of contrasts is seen in the interrogative. With the third person, the -k reflects the same conjunct third person marker -t as the conjunct, with the conjunct form having been palatalised by the original *-i suffix of the conjunct indicative while the interrogative saw no such palatalisation. Additionally, the 21 form would have been -(š)áwaat be regular sound change, however analogical pressure from the conjunct and other forms in the interrogative forced the shift to the current form.
Finally, the imperative takes the form of a simple suffixed -(i)t, and is used for both singular and plural addressees.

nanapoo
na-napoo
1-sleep.AI
I sleep

apaamá
a-paa-má
2-come.AI-1PL
We (incl) come

ihišo
i-hi-o
3-say.so-PL
They said so

nookiθ
nook-θ
fetch.AI-3.CONJ
He who fetches (things)

mošiiθíihoo napoonaat?
IC-miiθíih-oo nap-oonaat
IC-eat.AI-1.CONJ die-1.INT
Will I die if I eat it?

máθímanit!
máθí-man-t
completely-drink.AI-IMP
Drink up!

Names, aren't they wonderful! I have some ideas for the name of the people, the names bands and a name for their language.

I think I'll give them a French exonym, like the Gros Ventres, Nez Percé and Brulé. I'm currently thinking of Les Acharnés for both the people and language (as usual with these things), which translates as "the fierce ones", but I'm open to alternative suggestions.

As for the autonyms, for the people as a whole I'm probably going to go down the Arapaho route and call them the Akatanišona "Our people", with that being a relatively recent coinage to describe as a single unit what had before been a disparate cluster of peoples speaking closely related dialects of this language.

The names for the different bands are a bit more interesting. There are five bands I already have names for: the Yákáwašošoošo "Thick Necks", the Apíyóoθošo "Dew-Hides", the Saašoopikoopaašo "Rope-Haulers", the Honiwinákáašo "Hard Ones to Kill" and the Asiimó'ahano "Fast Shoes", and there maybe one or two more I add later on. There are also exonyms for the neighbouring tribes. Their allies the Crow are the Mošíi'okaniwi, "Those we trade with", while their enemies the Gros Ventres and the Blackfoot are the Óomoyoopošik "Those who stand across [the Missouri River] from us" and the Aaní'onoošamik "Those of the long road" respectively.

The language itself will be referred to by the name Aθošaašó "We speak thus."

Now for the transitive-inanimate verbs.

The independent mode is fairly conservative, however the number marking for the inanimate argument has been lost. As with animate-intransitive and possessive affixes, the 1st person plural forms have the same number suffixes but differing person prefixes.
The conjunct forms mirror the animate-intransitive in terms of the categories that are encoded, the difference being that the transitive-inanimate has an overt inanimate object. Note, though, that the obviative has been reshaped by adding the proximate suffix -ó to the obviative suffix -ot, and the 21 and 2 forms have had the second vowel shortened in analogy with the forms of the animate intransitive and to increase their distinctiveness from the 1 form.
The interrogative forms mirror the conjunct forms also, with the obviative being reshaped again on the model of the proximate as in the conjunct.
Finally, the imperative has the single suffix -ót, with no indication of the number of either argument.

našoopókoo
na-šoopók-oo
1-see.TI-SING
I see it

ipíikoyokomo a
i-píikoyok-omo a
3-bring.TI-3p REP
They brought it inside (I'm told)

šiit imó'ahino níi'ookó
šiit i-mó'ahi(N)-o níi'ook-ó
3s 3-moccasin-PL lick.TI-3.CONJ
He is one who licks his moccasins

ošootiišomayaat?
IC-ootiiš-omayaat
IC-hide.TI-2.INT
Did you hide it?

piiníikiišót!
piiníikiiš-ó
leave.alone.TI-3
Leave it alone!

I'm not sure at this point that the French will expand into the Louisiana territory before English/Traatɥŋ (read the new culture doc if you don't know what Traatɥŋ is).

OK, transitive animate verbs, oh boy, there's quite a bit going on here.

With the independent order, it is best to classify the markers into three distinct sets: local (consisting only of SAPs), non-local (only 3rd persons) and mixed (consisting of both a third person and an SAP).

The local forms are fairly conservative, though the second person loses its number contrast whenever the other argument is 1PL. Only the suffixes are given here, since all the forms take the second person prefix a-.
The non-local forms have been analogised somewhat, though there is still the restriction that one proximate may not act on another. Again only the suffixes are given, with all forms taking the 3rd person prefix i-
The mixed forms are slightly more complicated, in that they properly fall into two subsets: direct and inverse. The direct denotes action on the third-person argument, the inverse on the SAP. This set is again fairly conservative, though as usual there is only a single number suffix for both inclusive and exclusive 1st person plurals.
In order to denote the number/obviation of the third person argument, the nominal inflections are suffixes to these forms (hence the Ks in the table above).

The conjunct and interrogative are significantly simpler, lacking as they do the number distinction. However, the theme markers which were historically present have been buried by sound changes and synchronically the forms are best considered as a single unit. Again the same rule that two proximates may not coincide applies.

Conjunct: Interrogative: Finally the imperative has three suffixes, still with the lack of a number distinction for the 2nd person argument: -it for 2>1s, inóo for 2>1p and a zero morph for 2>3.

našoopomoošo
na-šoopom-oo-o
1-see.TA-DIR-PL
I see them

našoopomaw
na-šoopom-a(K)-o
1-see.TA-INV-PL
They see me

aniimíi
a-niimi-:K-i
2-dance.(AI)-CAUS-2>1
You make us dance

pamookiyoo
pamook-:K-oo
live.(AI)-CAUS-3>3'
He makes him live

pošaaθaθó
IC-paaθ-aθó
IC-bring.TA-3>21.CONJ
If they bring us

šíitišóo
šíit-išóo
name.TA-2>1.CONJ
You who named me

miiyooθayakaat?
IC-miyooθ-ayakaat
IC-fight.TA-3'>3.INT
Did the others fight them?

nooθomošit!
nooθ-omoš-it
fetch-APPL-1s.IMP
Fetch it for me!

Is Daléekommos just the name of the language or also the people? Also, can you provide both the phonemic and phonetic pronunciation of the name

mèþru wrote:Is Daléekommos just the name of the language or also the people? Also, can you provide both the phonemic and phonetic pronunciation of the name

The language (it translates to "that which we understand"): the people are known as the Sakannesansóo (Our people). These are pronounced as /nanêːkommos/ [dalêːkomːos] and /sakannesansôː/ [sakanːesansôː] respectively.

I should really start a new thread for it, I meant to last night but I didn't have the time.

You can just post it on the Native American scenario thread.

mèþru wrote:You can just post it on the Native American scenario thread.

OK.

btw, what's your account name on Tumblr? Or do you just hawk around my blogs without actually having an account?

The second. I have a blogspot (http://methru.blogspot.com. I actually mentioned you and your tumblr there once or twice.