Page 1 of 1

Uuxh: An Introduction

Posted: 13 Oct 2019 15:24
by Davush
EDIT: Although Uuxh began as a 'hatelang', based on aesthetic choices which I usually don't make and/or dislike, I have now grown quite fond of it, so I don't feel that it can be described as a hatelang anymore. This was perhaps inevitable...
I am still using features which are outside of my comfort zone, however, which is fun.



Short: /a ɛ i ɔ u ə/ <a e i o u ë>
Long: /aː ɛː iː ɔː uː/ <aa ee ii oo uu>
Diphthong: /ai ɛi ɔi ui/ <ai ei oi ui>


Nasal /m n ŋ/ <m n ng>
Unvoiced Stop: /p t k/ <p t k>
Voiced Stop: /b d g/ <b d g>
Affricates: /ts dz tʃ~tɕ dʒ~dʑ/ <ç ds q j>
Unvoiced Fricative: /θ s ʃ~ɕ χ/ <th s sh x>
Voiced Fricative: /ð z ʒ~ʑ ʁ/ <dh z xh qh>
Liquid: /r l/ <r l>
Aspirates: /zʱ~ʒʱ rʱ lʱ/ <zħ rħ lħ>
Semivowel: /w j/ <w y>
Hiatus: /ʔ/ (non-phonemic)

Allophony and Notes

/a i u/ often become [æ ɪ ʊ] in closed syllables.
/a i u/ are often [ɑ ɪ ʊ] near uvulars.
/u/ is often fronted to [ʉ~y] near the palatals /tʃ dʒ ʃ ʒ j/.
/ə/ varies considerably between /ɨ~ə~ɯ/.

/aː/ is often backed somewhat to [ɑː] in most positions, especially near uvulars.
/uː/ is often fronted to [ʉː~yː] in most positions, especially near palatals.
/ɛ ɔ ɛː ɔː/ are generally always open-mid vowels with their cardinal values.
/wə/ often becomes /ø/ in casual speech, especially when unstressed leading to some analyses including /ø/ in the vowel inventory.

/p t k/ are lightly aspirated word-initially and medially.
Word-finally, /p t k/ are unreleased or may be realised as a glottal stop /ʔ/.
/b d g/ are fully voiced.
Some analyses include pre-nasalised /mb nd ŋg/, although these may be better considered clusters as they contrast with /mp nt ŋk/.
/ts dz/ do not occur before /i/, merging with /tʃ dʒ/.
/tʃ dʒ/ and /ʃ ʒ/ may be more accurately palatal [tɕ dʑ ɕ ʑ], especially near /i u/.
/χ ʁ/ are most often uvular. Word-final /ʁ/ is often pharyngeal [ʕ]
/r/ is always a trill.
The aspirates /zʱ rʱ lʱ/ are generally treated as voiced-aspirated fricatives causing breathy voice on the following or preceding vowel. Their exact realisation is quite variable.
Word-finally, /rʱ lʱ/ may devoiced to [r̥ ɬ].
/zʱ/ may also be [ʒʱ] or even [ðʱ] for some speakers. Word-finally, it may be realised as [zs], or a geminate [ss].
/w j/ frequently occur as the initial element of a cluster. If the following consonant is unvoiced, they are realized [ɸ ç], if voiced [β ʝ]. Some speakers have /ç ɸ/ word-initially.
/ʔ/ is non-phonemic and serves to break up certain vowel hiatus.

Initial Clusters
Uuxh permits most word initial CC clusters, with CCC clusters also occuring. These are also all permissible word-medially. The initial element of many of these clusters is a sonorant, breaking the sonority principle. These are believed to have come from sequisyllables whose vowel was lost.

Clusters which do not appear initially are:
Adjacent unvoiced stops, i.e. *pt *tk *kp, etc.
Stops with the same POA: i.e. *bp *dt *gk
The following types do contrast, however: bk, bg, pg.

Affricates do not cluster initially, i.e. *tstʃ dzdʒ

The aspirated zʱ rʱ lʱ do not cluster with unvoiced consonants.
When they appear before voiced stops, the aspiration is transferred to the stop. I.e. /zʱb zʱd zʱg/ > [zbʱ zdʱ zgʱ].

Fricatives in roots only cluster with same-voicing type, i.e. θs, ðz, χs, ʁz, etc.
Affixes may break this rule, however.

Clusters whose initial element is θ, s, ʃ, χ, r, l do not allow unvoiced stops to follow. In these instances, the voicing-distinction is neutralised with the stop being fully-voiced, or unaspirated-unvoiced.

Stop + Fricative clusters agree in voicing.

Final Clusters
Word-final clusters are much more restricted. Any single consonant can appear word-finally.

As mentioned /p t k/ are either unreleased, or merge into /ʔ/ word finally.

The following clusters appear:

/pk tk kk/ commonly realised /ʔk ʔk ʔk/
/bk dk gk/
/bs ds gs/
/mn ns ŋs/
/mk nk ŋk/
/ðs ðk/
/sk ʃk zk ʒk/
/χs xk ʁs ʁk/
/rk lk/

Final /zs~ʒs rs ls/ become /zʱ rʱ lʱ/

Geminates do not occur in roots, but infrequently occur across morpheme boundaries.

Vowel Hiatus
/ai ɛi ɔi ʊi/ are the only true diphthongs in Uuxh.
Other combinations of short vowel + short vowel should be treated as two syllables. When a short vowel follows a long vowel, or vice versa, an epenthetic /ʔ/ is inserted.


Roots generally attract the stress. In multi-syllable roots, the default stress is on the initial syllable. E.g. /túŋχul/ 'cats'. If suffixes are present, the stress moves to the final syllable of the root, e.g. /tuŋxúle/ 'the cat' (with following perfective verb).

Clitics can often be chained which have their own stress patterns (Work-in-Progress).

Orthographical Notes

/w j/ are <ħw ħy> word-initially, e.g. ħyaadh /jaːð/ or /çaːð/. If they are the initial element of a cluster, they are <ŵ ŷ>, e.g. ŷka /jka/ [çkʰa].

Epenthetic /ʔ/ can either be an apostrophe or <ħ>. The apostrophe is generally preferred unless the word already contains many apostrophes.

/ŋ/ and /ŋg/ are distinct. /ŋg/ is <ñg>.

/wə jə/ are <ö ä>.

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 13 Oct 2019 17:44
by brblues
So, will you change your nick to Davuuxh too? [:D]

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 14 Oct 2019 17:17
by ixals
The most ůůüghxh language the CBB has ever witnessed [<3]

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 14 Oct 2019 18:01
by DesEsseintes
I propose the term uglang for what Davuüxh is trying to accomplish here. :mrgreen:

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 15 Oct 2019 04:41
by Pabappa
Very nice work. I actually like the term hatelang myself, as it's short and sweet, but every hatelang I work either turns into a lovelang (e.g. Dreamlandic) or becomes such a chore that I refuse to work on it (Thaoa, Tarise, etc).

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 15 Oct 2019 05:42
by Ser
An SF/fantasy-style hatelang? Not enough apostrophes.

The writing system could be made more annoying with -oo- for u:, so that the language would be called Ooxh.

(More seriously, it'd be good for you to learn the difference between phonemes and phones. "/matʃu/ > /matʃʷ/ or /maᵘtʃ/" would be better presented as "/matʃu/ [matʃʷ] or [maᵘtʃ]".)

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 15 Oct 2019 09:21
by DesEsseintes
Ser wrote:
15 Oct 2019 05:42
(More seriously, it'd be good for you to learn the difference between phonemes and phones. "/matʃu/ > /matʃʷ/ or /maᵘtʃ/" would be better presented as "/matʃu/ [matʃʷ] or [maᵘtʃ]".)
As can be observed here, Davush is well aware of the difference between / / and [ ] but probably formatted this in a hurry.

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 15 Oct 2019 12:40
by Davush
Thanks all for the replies. Yes apologies for the sloppy formatting, it needs a good overall edit. (I am aware of // [ ] ). @Des Uglang is fun 😁

@Ser Apostrophes will be a-plenty, don't worry! 😉 Mostly used when applying certain affixes. Speaking of which, I'm considering having <sh> become <x'> or possible <çh>.

As Pabappa mentioned, there is a balance between ugly but still enjoyable, and so ugly that it's off putting.

Here are numbers 1-10:

1 Xhbaa /ʒbaː/
2 Kërr /kər/
3 Öö /ɔː/ (vowel-only words get diaeresis)
4 Åub /ɑub/
5 Shon /ʃɔn/
6 Zħre /zrʰɛ̤/
7 Iqa /itʃa/
8 Iqaaq /itʃaːtʃ/
9 Roong /rɔːŋg/
10 Hjo'a /çɔʔa/


Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 15 Oct 2019 17:14
by DesEsseintes
How about /m̥ n̥ ŋ̊ l̥ r̥/ or a subset thereof?

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 16 Oct 2019 06:01
by Khemehekis
brblues wrote:
13 Oct 2019 17:44
So, will you change your nick to Davuuxh too? [:D]
Or maybe Davuuçh, because XH represents /ʒ/ and Davush's screenname has an SH.

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 16 Oct 2019 14:35
by Davush
Khemehekis wrote:
16 Oct 2019 06:01
brblues wrote:
13 Oct 2019 17:44
So, will you change your nick to Davuuxh too? [:D]
Or maybe Davuuçh, because XH represents /ʒ/ and Davush's screenname has an SH.
Davuuxh and Davuuçh are tempting, but I think I'll remain Davush (or Dāvush more accutately). [:D]

Edit: See updated phonology.

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 17 Oct 2019 23:21
by Davush
Introduction to Nominals

Uuxh will have a very rich system of derivational morphology as well as grammatical morphology.

Nouns are divided into two basic categories: countable and uncountable.
Countable nouns include all nouns which represent a physical entity. Uncountable nouns include abstract concepts, among other things. This post looks only at countable nouns. (This will be further elaborated.)

The basic unmarked form of the countable noun in Uuxh represents a 'generic plural'.


klħa /klʱa̤/ dogs (in general)
tungxul /tʊŋxʊl/ cats (in general)
bo /bɔ/ eyes
noom /nɔːm/ girls

Countable nouns have three degrees of plurality, indicated by the following prefixes. Note that most prefixes are followed by an apostrophe, and are never capitalised. I haven't fully decided on stress yet, but prefixes will probably never take stress.

iib' /iːb/ 'a small amount of, few'
aab' /aːb/ 'a moderate amount of, some''
qoo' /tʃɔː/ 'a large amount of, many''

iib'klħa /iːbəklʰa̤/ 'few dogs' (C'CC are broken up with epenthetic schwa after the prefix.)
aab'tungxul /aːbtʊŋχʊl/ 'Some cats'
qoo'bo /tʃɔːbɔ/ 'Many eyes'

These suffixes can be further extended by the intensifier suffix -sa:

iibsa' 'a tiny amount of, very few''
aabsa' 'a very moderate amount of, not many/not few'
qoosa' 'a huge amount of, very many''

iibsa'noom 'very few girls'
aabsa'bo 'not many nor few eyes, a very moderate number of eyes'
qoosa'tungxul 'many, many cats''

In addition, countable nouns belong to a certain class. Each class is characterised by its own morpheme, which plays several functions. Here, it is used as a suffix to form a definite plural.

Mammals belong to the Qhaz /ʁaz/ class
Body parts belong to Yqh /ɪʁ/ class
Children belong to the Gy /gi/ class

klħaqhaz /klʰa̤ʁaz/ 'the dogs'
tungxulqhaz /tʊŋχulʁaz/ 'the cats'
boiqh /bɔʔɪʁ/ 'the eyes'
noomgy /nɔːmgi/ 'the girls'

The class markers are not always suffixed depending on function and may be better thought of as 'floating'.

Finally, there are three numbers indicated via Suffix: Singulative, Dual, and Trial. The singulative emphasises 'one' or a 'single' and should not be confused with an indefinite singular. Suffixes are attached directly without apostrophe, but epenthetic schwa may be inserted if necessary.

Singulative: -xhab (xhbaa 'one')
Dual: -kr (kërr 'two')
Trial: -o (öö 'three').

Klħaxhab /klʰa̤ʒab/ 'a single dog'
Klħakr /klʰa̤kr/ 'two dogs'
Klħao /klʰa̤ɦɔ/ 'three dogs (/ʔ/ is realised /ɦ/ after breathy vowels)

Tungxulxhab /tʊŋxulʒab/
Tungxulkr /tʊŋxʊlkr/
Tungxulo /tʊŋxʊlɔ/

These can also be combined for further nuance:
-xhabkr 'one or two' (e.g. klħaxhabkr /klʰa̤ʒabkr/ 'one or two dogs')
-kro 'two or three' (e.g. noomkro /nɔːmkrɔ/ 'two or three girls')

Similarly, these may add the intensive -sa:
Klħaxhabsa 'a SINGLE dog', Tungxulkrsa 'TWO cats' Boħosa 'THREE eyes'

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 18 Oct 2019 16:12
by Salmoneus
This puzzles me a little, because it kind of reads like a parody of 'hatelangs'... in that every word in Uuxh is really beautiful. The phonology and phonotactics seem design for maximum euphony, which seems rather at odds with the normal 'hatelang', which is typically harsh and ugly...

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 18 Oct 2019 16:25
by Davush
Salmoneus wrote:
18 Oct 2019 16:12
This puzzles me a little, because it kind of reads like a parody of 'hatelangs'... in that every word in Uuxh is really beautiful. The phonology and phonotactics seem design for maximum euphony, which seems rather at odds with the normal 'hatelang', which is typically harsh and ugly...
I suppose it could be read as a parody, although that wasn't my intention. Of course, euphony is in the ear of the beholder (lol), so a lot of the features are ones that I personally dislike combined with orthographical choices I usually wouldn't make. But at the same time, I don't want it to be so harsh and ugly that I either can't pronounce it or it makes me not want to work on it altogether...(which is partly why I suggested 'anti-aesthetics-lang' rather than a purely 'hatelang'. [:D] )

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 19 Oct 2019 11:37
by Davush
More Noun Stuff

An indefinite singular is marked by the prefix dh':

dh'noom /ðnɔːm/ 'a girl'
dh'jůůp /ðdʒɯːp/ 'a flower''
dh'gor /ðgɔr/ 'a forest'

A definite singular is marked by the suffix -a or -s. The speaker is free to choose between these.

nooma / nooms 'the girl'
jůůpa / jůůps 'the flower'
gora / gors 'the forest'

A definite plural is marked by the class morpheme as a suffix.

noomgy /nɔːmgi/ 'the girls' (gy being the children class)
jůůppal /dʒɯːppal/ 'the flowers' (pal being the flora class)
hwååshux /ʍɑːʃʊχ/ 'the snakes' (ux being the reptile class)

These may sometimes be double marked, with the addition of the definite marker -a/s, e.g. hwååshuxa / hwååshuxs.

The Locative

The locative is characterised by the addition of the suffix -k. When combined with the definite suffix -a/s, the locative comes first.

gor 'forests'
gork 'in forests'

dh'gor 'a forest'
dh'gork 'in a forest'

gora / gors 'the forest'
gorka / gorks 'in the forest'

Word Order
Uuxh has relatively free word order, with SVO being the default and most common.

The Copulae

Uuxh has several copulae with different functions. They generally function like regular verbs, albeit with less TAM marking available. Some common ones include:

The Stative: aaz (used for NOUN = NOUN type general truths)
The Locative: tësht (used for NOUN = in/at/near/etc.)
The Exclamatory: xhag (used for both of the above, with an exclamatory/revelatory tone)

Tungxul aaz qhazaïng
Cats are mammals

Tungxula tësht gorks
The cat is in the tree

Tungxulkr xhag gorks!
Look, two cats are in the tree!

The Negative Copulae

aaz, tësht > ngyëll
xhag > xhgyëll

Tungxul ngyëll qhazaïng
Cats are not mammals

Tungxul xhgyëll qhazaïng!
Cats aren't mammals, you see!

Negative raising (SVP > VPS) is common with the predicate being placed before the subject. When this happens, the subject is marked with -ïall and does not take any number/definiteness marking.

Qdiya (S) tësht (V) soobka (P).
The man is in the house.

Qdiya (S) ngyëll (V) soobka (P).
The man is not in the house.

Ngyëll (V) soobka (P) qdiyall (S-ïall).
The man/men is/are not in the house.

Xhgyëll (V) qhazaïng (P) klħaħïall (S).
Dogs are not mammals, you know!

Uuxh has three primary registers: Neutral, Deferent, and Familiar. Each has its own set of pronouns. Some neutral-register pronouns are:

1sg: xoo
2sg: iiq (talking to an in-group member)
2sg: aad (talking to an out-group member)
3sg an.: iin
3sg inan.: eej

The neutral pronouns are generally acceptable in most circumstances. When occurring as subjects, they have a short forms which prefix to the verb:
xoo - x'
iiq - q'
aad - d'
iin - n'
eej - j'

X'aaz dh'noom
/xaːz ðnɔːm/
'I am a girl'

Q'aaz dh'ika
/tʃaːz ðika/
'You (in-group) are a woman'

D'tësht soobks
/dtəʃt sɔːbks/
'You (out-group) are in the house'

N'xhag dh'hwååsh!
/nʒag ðwɑːʃ/
'It is a snake!'

J'aaz dh'ħïaadh.
/dʒaːz ðjaːð/
'It is a tree'

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 21 Oct 2019 15:41
by Davush
The Interrogative

This may also hold true for verbs in general, but I'll focus only on the copula(e) for now.

An interrogative is formed by the prefix ħó- /ɔ/ to the relevant word in question. It is always stressed, hence the acute. It is usual to add the sentence final particle ůů. Although this is not obligatory, questions sound abrupt without it. Ħo can appear anywhere in the sentence, although it is more usual to raise it to the front.

Ħó-ngleħa tësht gorks ůů?
INT-3an.COP boy.DEF forest.LOC.DEF INT
/ˈɔŋlɛʔa təʃt gɔrks ɯː/
Is the boy in the forest?

Ħó-gorks ngleħa tësht ůů?
/ɔgɔrks ŋlɛʔa təʃt ɯː/
Is the boy in the forest?

Ħó combines with the subject pronouns thus:

Qó'aaz dh'tungxul ůů?

/ˈtʃɔʔaːz ðtʊŋχʊl ɯː/
Are you a cat?

Jó'tësht ħïaadhka ůů?
/dʒɔtəʃt jaːðka ɯː/
Is it in the tree?

The Present

The forms of the copulae here have all been in the gnomic aspect. If the event/action/etc. is taking place in the present (at the time of speaking), the particle eb is used. This may either attach to the verb as a suffix, or appear in sentence final position. It can combine with ůů to make ebůů.

X'tësht gorks 'I am in the forest' (gnomic aspect: somewhat unnatural)
X'tështeb gorks / X'tësht gorks eb 'I am in the forest at this minute'

Ħó-tungxula tësht ħïaadhks ebůů?
/ˈɔtʊŋχʊla təʃt jaːðks ɛbɯː/
Is the cat in the tree (now, at present)?

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 23 Oct 2019 12:56
by Davush
The Existential Copula

The existential copula peng and its negative equivalent meng are used to express existentials and possession (e.g. to have). Unlike English, Uuxh uses the definite plural form when expressing a general statement of existence. They can combine with xhag and xhgyëll to make them exclamatory.

Tungxulqhaz peng gorks.
There are (the) cats in the forest.

Tungxulqhaz peng-xhag gorks!

There are cats in the forest!

When used with the locative, it can be used similar to 'have':

Xka peng dh'soob.
I have a house (at me exists a house)

Qdika peng dh'ħwooz.
The man has a stick (at the man exists a stick)

Peng are often raised to the front of a sentence. When Meng is raised, it is similar to ngyëll/xhgyëll in that the subject gains the marker -ïang. If combined with exclamatory xhag/xhgyëll, these do not move.

Peng tungxulqhaz gorks.
There are cats in the forest.

Peng tungxulqhaz xhag gorks!
There are cats in the forest!

Meng gorks tungxulïang.
NEG.exist forest.LOC cat.SUBJ
There are no cats in the forest

For comparison:

Tungxula ngyëll gorka. 'The cat is not in the forest' (no raising)
Ngyëll gorka tungxulïall. 'The cat/cats are not in the forest' (raising + subject marking -ïall)

Tungxulqhaz meng gorka. 'There are no cats in the forest' (no raising)
Meng gorka tungxulïang. 'There are no cats in the forest' (raising + subject marking -ïang)

The Deferent Pronouns and Polite Marker
These are used when showing deference to the speaker. Especially common among strangers and in formal situations. The neutral pronouns are listed for comparison

xoo - baï 'I'
iiq - aqaï 'You' (in group)
aad - doï 'You' (out group)
iin - zħoï 'He/She/It' (animate)
eej - ajaï It (inanimate)

The deferent pronouns do not have a reduced form. When using deferent speech, verbs are marked with the polite suffix -e.

X'aaz dh'qdi 'I am a man' (neutral)
Baï aaze dh'qdi 'I am a man' (deferent/polite)

D'tësht soobks 'You are in the house' (neutral, you=out-group)
Döi tështe soobks 'You are in the house (polite, you=out-group)

Uuxh has several types of genitive marking depending on animacy and the relationship between the nouns. The usual order is Noun-Genitive, with the relationship being expressed via a particle.

If the relationship in question is one of possession, the particle is: shë when the possessée is animate, and një when inanimate. The definite marker -a/s is optional on the head noun and is commonly omitted. The genitive noun is expressed by the definite ablative -uï.

The man’s dog (The dog of the man)
Klħa shë qdiħuï

The man’s house
Soob një qdiħuï.

The girl’s tower
Oïky një noomuï.

In more transparent terms, these may be analysed as deriving from a construction such as ‘the tower (which) it from the girl’.

If the possessée is plural, the class mark is suffixed to the genitive particle.

The man’s dogs
Klħa shëqhaz qdiħuï

The woman’s houses
Soob njëxhet ikaħuï.

The girl’s towers
Oïky njëxhet noomuï.

If the relationship does not describe possession by an animate noun, ëshka (sg.) and ëshëk (pl.) are used with the dative -dze.

The roads of the city
Ungbë ëshëk çůůradze.

The gate of the palace.
Soxr ëshka diigbadze.

If the relationship describes a general feature akin to ‘full of’ or ‘characterised by’ the noun is turned into an adjective with -zħeen.

The palace of dogs (i.e. a palace which is full of dogs, associated with dogs, etc.)
Diigba klħazħeen.

A city of palaces.
dh'Çůůr diigbzħeen.

Some example sentences using all of the above...

Penge ikakr soobks një qdiħuï.
/pɛŋgɛ ikakr sɔːbks ndʒə tʃdiʔɯi/
'There are two women in the man's house' (polite)

Ħó-qoosa'ħwëth peng ħïaadhk ëshëk goradze ůů?
/ɔtʃɔːsawəθ pɛŋ jaːðk əʃək goradzɛ ɯː/
Are there very many birds in the trees of the forest?

Meng ħïaadhka ħwëthïang.
/mɛŋ jaːðka wəθjaŋ/
There are no birds in the tree.

Ħó-iib'ħwooz penge qaïka soobks?
/ɔʔiːbwɔːz pɛŋgɛ tʃaika sɔːbks/
Do you have a few sticks in the house? (polite)

Meng aïqka xhgyëll hwååshïang!
/mɛŋ aitʃka ʒgjəl wɑːʃjaŋ/
NEG.exist grass.LOC NEG.COP snake.NEG.SUBJ
Look, there are really no snakes in the grass!

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 27 Oct 2019 11:22
by Davush
Some thoughts on Verbs

Verbs in Uuxh are marked for imperfective or perfective aspect, which can combine with other markers for further TAM nuance.

Aspect combines with the subject pronouns. The singular forms tend to be prefixed, and the plural forms suffixed, although this is not always the case. Each register will have its own forms of pronoun + aspect affixes, which will make for a quite a large system.

The neutral register imperfective is:

1sg. xwë-
2sg. qwë-
2sg. dwë-
3sg. nwë-
3sg. jwë-

and the plural forms are suffixed:

1pl. -oox
2pl. -ooq
2pl. -ood
3pl. -oon
3pl. -ooj

Infinitives take the suffix -xan, this is the dictionary form. (There may be other infinitive/gerund type things but -xan is enough for now).

qidxan 'to speak'
grubsxan 'to run'
imxan 'to drink'
çaaxan 'to take'

Aspect markers very rarely appear alone, they are more commonly used together with other TAM markers. The imperfective-continuous is marked by the suffix -k (which may be related to the locative -k.)

qidxan /tʃɪdχan/ 'to speak' (stem: qid-)

xwëqidk /χwətʃɪdk/ I am (currently) speaking
qwëqidk /tʃwətʃɪdk/ You (in-group) are speaking
dwëqidk /dwətʃɪdk/ You (out-group) are speaking
nwëqidk /nwətʃɪdk/ He/She/It (an.) is speaking
jwëqidk /dʒwətʃɪdk/ It is speaking

qidkoox /tʃɪdkɔːχ/ We are speaking
qidkooq /tʃɪdkɔːtʃ/ You are speaking
qidkood /tʃɪdkɔːd/ You are speaking
qidkoon /tʃɪdkɔːn/ He/She/It is speaking
qidkooj /tʃɪdkɔːdʒ/ It is speaking

When a pronominal form isn't required, the aspect affixes become ħwë- (sg.) and -oo (pl.). If the subject appears directly before the verb, subject marking is optional. Some speakers may use ħwë for both sg. and pl.

Ngleħa ħwëqidk 'The boy is speaking'
Ikaky grubskoo / ħwëgrubsk 'The women are running'

Xhag can be used to make the sentence exclamatory.

The dogs are running in the woman's palace!
Klħaqhaz grubskoo xhag diigbka një ikaħuï.
/klʱaʁaz grʊbskɔː ʒag diːgbka ndʒə ikaʔui/

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 01 Nov 2019 12:20
by Davush
Some Verbal Aspect Stuff

(Still very much a work in progress, so this is likely to change.)

The imperfective pronominal affixes were mentioned in the last post. The perfective pronominal affixes are quite different:

1sg be-
2sg me-
2sg de-
3sg the-
3sg dhe-

I'm not totally sure yet whether verbs may appear with only the aspect marker, or if they must also combine with a tense suffix.

There will likely be quite a lot of tense distinctions. The recent discontinuous past marker is qha and the remote discontinuous past is qhoo. The discontinuous implies that the event or resulting situation no longer holds, i.e. the opposite of the perfect.

grubsxan 'to run'

begrubs qha 'I ran (recently)'
begrubs qhoo 'I ran (a long time ago)'

Qha and Qhoo can also be used with the imperfective for an imperfect-past. They commonly appear with continuous marker -k: qhak / qhook.

Xwëgrubs qhak I was running (recently)
Xwëgrubs qhook I was running (a long time ago), I used to run

Similarly the recent future is můů and the remote future is ħïoo. These more commonly occur with the perfective, but can be used with the imperfective if the continuous nature of the verb is highlighted.

Thegrubs můů He will run (soon)
Thegrubs ħïoo He will run (some time in the future)
Xwëgrubs můů I will run / I will be running

The tense particles such as qha, můů, etc. are moveable. When used with the perfective which has a direct object, it is common to move them after the object.

çaaxan 'to take''
Beçaa nïa tungxul qha 'I took the cat'
Beçaa nïa tungxul můů 'I will take the cat'

The may also come before the verb if the tense element is emphasised:

Můů beçaa nïa tungxul 'I will take the cat'

I am considering having the tense particle have separate interrogative and negative forms, which will lead to quite a large (but transparent) system.

Re: Uuxh: An Anti-Aesthetic Language

Posted: 06 Nov 2019 13:06
by Davush
Some Overhauls

I've decided to change some things quite significantly. They now replace anything from the above posts.

Notably, aspect (perfective/imperfective) now combines with definiteness on the subject (excluding pronouns, which have their own system).

for Imperfective (<ö> now replaces <wë>, which is either /wə/ or /ø/)
-e for Perfective

Intransitive verbs will also have a separate set of past (and possibly future) tense markers. Notably, ba replaces qha for intransitive verbs.

This is all better illustrated by an example.

zħuujxan /zʱuːdʒχan/ 'to sleep'

qdi-ö zħuuj-k /tʃdiwə zʱuːdʒk/
'The man is sleeping'

qdi-ky-ö zħuuj-k /tʃdikiwə zʱuːdʒk/
The men are sleeping

qdi-e zħuuj-ba /tʃdiɛ zʱuːdʒba/
'The man slept'

An indefinite subject now receives the suffix -eng (which is probably related to the existential copula peng). With an indefinite subject, the aspect markers become suffixed. I am unsure whether indefinite subjects will distinguish singular/plural.

qdi-eng zħuuj-ö-k /tʃdiɛŋ zʱuːdʒwək/
A man is sleeping

qdi-eng zħuuj-e-ba /tʃdiɛŋ zʱuːdʒɛba/
A man slept

It is common for indefinite subjects to follow the verb in intransitive clauses. In this case, the verb receives the appropriate pronominal+aspect affix.

zħuuj-ö-k qdi-eng /zʱuːdʒwək tʃdiɛŋ/
A man is sleeping

Objects in Transitive Clauses

I am still working this out, so this may change. Compare the following:

1:Tungxule psaax qhang klħa 'The cat bit a/some dogs'
2:Tungxule psaax klħa qha 'The cat bit the dog'
3a:Tungxule psaax qhazqha klħa 'The cat bit the dogs'
3b: Tungxule psaax klħaqhaz qha 'The cat bit the dogs'

In 1 the tense marker qha gains the existential -ng for an indefinite object. (Compare with indefinite subjects in intransitive sentences which gain -eng). I am unsure if they will distinguish number.

In 2, qha usually appears after a definite object.

In 3a, qha is suffixed to the classifier, before the definite object. In 3b, qha comes after the usual plural form (noun + classifier). I'm not sure if these will be simple alternatives, or if there will be a slight nuance.

This is quite interesting, although I'm not sure if such a system is realistic, and how it might have arisen diachronically.