Søsøzatli -> Šöžil

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 2026
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Søsøzatli -> Šöžil

Post by loglorn » 03 Apr 2014 00:03

I may post the sounds changes later, but for now i want to ask if a particular grammatical shift i am going to do is too much unbelievable:

Tense marking is done through enclitics that go to the first word in the sentence, that in the vast majority of cases is the subject.
Somewhere in the development of the language the tense became doubly marked, being marked both on the nouns and in the verb, and then the noun fragment of it was devoid of its temporal meaning (like the french ne pas thing), but, considering it was almost always in the subject, it becomes a nominative case marker (Søsøzatli originally does not mark neither the nominative nor the accusative).
Probably, in the middle of the process, each noun had several different nominative forms (from the different tenses' markers), probably the forms with less syncretism were ultimately elected, as my first attempts applying my sound changes into such things showed that different words show syncretism in different places, this would probably make rise a number of noun classes.
To illustrate that i'll show the evolution of a phrase (in IPA, because i plan to change my romanization and i don't know what happens in the meanwhile, as for the ortography):

I saw the cat:

mɪʒɪmɑ lɪ ɸɾøβɑ lɪ plɔmɸø
mɪʒɪ=mɑ lɪ ɸɾøβɑ lɪ plɔmɸø
1PS=PST DEF.SING cat DEF.SING see (The tense is there, in the first word, as a clitic)

mɪʑɪma lɪ hɾøba lɪ plonhøʑɪma
mɪʑɪ=ma lɪ hɾøba lɪ plonhøʑɪ-ma
1PS=PST DEF.SING cat DEF.SING see-PST (Past starts also being marked at the verb)

mɪʑɪmɮ ɾøbɮ plonhøʑɪm
mɪʑɪ-mɮ ɾøb-ɮ plonhøʑ-ɪm
1PS-NOM cat-ACC see-PAST (The marker on the first word loses it's temporal meaning and is now used to differentiate nominative and accusative case roles)

mɪʑɪɮ ʀøbɮ ploːʑɪn
mɪ<ʑɪ>ɮ ʀøb-ɮ ploːʑ-ɪn
1PS<NOM> cat-ACC see-PAST (some more sound changes, and this is the final form. At least in mɪʒɪ, there's not even a trace of the -ma, and probably there will be a declension that patterns alike. The nominative is glossed an infix because the accusative form is mɪɮ and, if you think synchronically, the nominative is now an infix)

I'll run other words through my sound changes to see what are the effects of it and how many declensions are going to surface, and see what happens to my other cases (i already know my benefactive is going to die). Havoc will happen upon the verbs also, but i will think about that later.

So, as far as this got, how absurd is this? (i will soon have a functional reference grammar of Søsøzatli available for further comparison)
Edit: I changed some of the sound changes, so some word's final form changed
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]


Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

Post Reply