Abaniscen

[Flavia]

I think I should finally make a thread for Abaniscen. It started as a sketch for Lexember 2022 and I haven't scrapped it since then, which means that it is more than one year old!

Phonology

Let's start with the boring part.
The phonemic inventory of Abaniscen is very small, consisting of five/nine vowels and twelve consonants.

/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>
/m n b t k v s ʃ x h ɾ j/ <m n b t c v s sh ch h r~l i~y>
All onset consonants (except /j/) can also be palatalized, and they always are before an /i/, so I chose to analyse palatalization as a feature of the vowel: /a ʲa e ʲe ʲi o ʲo u ʲu/.
There are some allophonic processes:

• ɾ > l / [#, Vfront(h)]_[(h)Vfront, #]
• mh hm nh hn ɾh hɾ lh hl jh hj > m̥ m̥ n̥ n̥ tʼ tʼ ɬ ɬ ç ç
• nʲ tʲ sʲ lʲ n̥ʲ ɬʲ > ɲ c͡ɕ ɕ ʎ ɲ̊ ʎ̝
• e o > ɛ ɔ / unstressed(*)
• a ɛ e i > ɑ œ ø y / Clabial_

The syllable structure is (C)(ʲ)V(Ccontinuant).

Stress is nonphonemic. Every third syllable counting from the end of the word/phrase is stressed. Stress is realized primarily by raised pitch, and the antepenultimate vowel (primary stress) is often lengthened as well.

[Porphyrogenitos]

Nice start! The coalescence of consonants into palatalized and voiceless forms reminds me a bit of Icelandic. Although I am wondering about how ɾh hɾ > tʼ tʼ came to be.

[Flavia]

Nice start! The coalescence of consonants into palatalized and voiceless forms reminds me a bit of Icelandic. Although I am wondering about how ɾh hɾ > tʼ tʼ came to be.

Thanks! The /tʼ/ can be explained diachronically: there was once /ɗ/, which became /ɾ/ in all contexts except _h_, where it remained glottalic. Maybe I'll add /hb/ > /pʼ/ as well, though it is by no means a common cluster.

---

Also, I forgot to clarify the spelling of /j/: <i> is used in the onset, <y> in the coda.

---

Morphosyntax

The interesting part.
Abaniscen is a heavily analytic language. Most words, excepting conjunctions, exclamations and the like, behave as one class syntactically. Perhaps the most important part of Abaniscen morphology is the <re> (<le>) infix. I'm not sure what is the correct nomenclature for its function, but for now I'm calling it "oblique" or "genitive." A single construction – OBL NOM – is used for action and property predication, for example:

celco<re> tia
dog<OBL> speak
The dog speaks.

lesia<re>n batiuh
human<OBL> big
The man is big.

Another construction – NOM NOM – is used for nominal predicates, as well for patients in bivalent clauses:

lesian inanhar
man chef
The man is a chef.

lesia<re>n celco novi
man<OBL> dog hear
The man hears the dog.

Thus celco novi -> the dog is being heard, celcore novi -> the dog hears (something).

The personal pronouns have irregular oblique forms:
1s ne | ni
2s bey | bi
3s is | i
1p nemor | nele
2p beynemor | bele(y)
3p isnemor | iles(nemor)

The third person singular oblique form i is used to form relative clauses, which are very common in Abaniscen.

celcore {i batiuh} tia
dog<OBL> REL big speak
The big dog speaks.

celcore tia {i cecumen}
dog<OBL> speak REL loud
The dog speaks loudly.

celcore veshtu na
dog<OBL> house be_in
The dog is in the house.

celcore {i veshtu {i batiuh} na} tia
dog<OBL> REL house REL big be_in speak
The dog that's in the big house speaks.

ni is novina {i veshtu na}
1s.O 3s hear:PST REL house be_in
I heard that/him/her/etc. in the house.

Of course, the other construction can also be used in relative clauses, though it isn't as common.

lesian is inanhanar chiusce
man REL chef:PST dead
The man who was the chef is dead.

Note the tense marking on the "noun".

If a relative clause modifies a 1st/2nd person pronoun, the i will often be skipped:

ni {Ø cancanar} astar
1s.O [REL] sing old
I who sing am old or perhaps I'm singing and I am old.

---

To be continued! Feedback and questions welcome.

[Arayaz]

Looks good! I'd been seeing it around in the translations, and was curious.

Does the "oblique" serve along the lines of an ergative? It marks agents, but not the subjects of transitive verbs?

If most words serve as the same class syntactically ─ celcore tia is "the dog speaks," but what's tiare celco? That is to say, what's the nominal meaning of something with a verb-like definition?

[Flavia]

Looks good! I'd been seeing it around in the translations, and was curious.

Does the "oblique" serve along the lines of an ergative? It marks agents, but not the subjects of transitive verbs?

If most words serve as the same class syntactically ─ celcore tia is "the dog speaks," but what's tiare celco? That is to say, what's the nominal meaning of something with a verb-like definition?

Did you mean "subjects of intransitive verbs"? Not really, as most concepts expressed by intransitive verbs in English still use the OBL NOM construction. I'll expand on its other uses some time. It also has a genitive meaning –

celcore ni
dog:O 1s.O
The dog is mine.

Another use of the OBL NOM construction is predication of possession:

ni celco
1s.O dog
I have a dog.

Regarding your second question – the nominal meaning of tia is something like "utterance", because "speech" is aban. So tiare celco would be "the utterance has a dog". I'd imagine phrases like that would be used in Abaniscen's equivalent of colorless green ideas sleep furiously. This is an unfortunate example though – most verbs have 'nominal' forms that are much more usable.

[Arayaz]

Looks good! I'd been seeing it around in the translations, and was curious.

Does the "oblique" serve along the lines of an ergative? It marks agents, but not the subjects of transitive verbs?

If most words serve as the same class syntactically ─ celcore tia is "the dog speaks," but what's tiare celco? That is to say, what's the nominal meaning of something with a verb-like definition?

Did you mean "subjects of intransitive verbs"?

Yeah, thanks for catching that :)

Not really, as most concepts expressed by intransitive verbs in English still use the OBL NOM construction. I'll expand on its other uses some time. It also has a genitive meaning –

celcore ni
dog:O 1s.O
The dog is mine.

Another use of the OBL NOM construction is predication of possession:

ni celco
1s.O dog
I have a dog.

Huh... So it has a variety of uses, then.

Regarding your second question – the nominal meaning of tia is something like "utterance", because "speech" is aban. So tiare celco would be "the utterance has a dog". I'd imagine phrases like that would be used in Abaniscen's equivalent of colorless green ideas sleep furiously. This is an unfortunate example though – most verbs have 'nominal' forms that are much more usable.

Okay, thank you!

Is there a consistent connection between nominal and verbal meanings? Like, is there a formula to convert from one to another? (e.g. "instance of [verb]ing" or "to be [noun]")

[Flavia]

Is there a consistent connection between nominal and verbal meanings? Like, is there a formula to convert from one to another? (e.g. "instance of [verb]ing" or "to be [noun]")

"instance of [verb]ing" is usually correct to assume. "to be [noun]" is covered by the [NOM NOM] construction though. For actual physical objects like dog or apple, it's "to have X". There are a couple of irregular ones like aban – language, to be a speaker of a language.

[Arayaz]

Is there a consistent connection between nominal and verbal meanings? Like, is there a formula to convert from one to another? (e.g. "instance of [verb]ing" or "to be [noun]")

"instance of [verb]ing" is usually correct to assume. "to be [noun]" is covered by the [NOM NOM] construction though. For actual physical objects like dog or apple, it's "to have X". There are a couple of irregular ones like aban – language, to be a speaker of a language.

Hmm. So could you have "apple" > "to have an apple" > "instance of having an apple"?

[Flavia]

Is there a consistent connection between nominal and verbal meanings? Like, is there a formula to convert from one to another? (e.g. "instance of [verb]ing" or "to be [noun]")

"instance of [verb]ing" is usually correct to assume. "to be [noun]" is covered by the [NOM NOM] construction though. For actual physical objects like dog or apple, it's "to have X". There are a couple of irregular ones like aban – language, to be a speaker of a language.

Hmm. So could you have "apple" > "to have an apple" > "instance of having an apple"?

No, not really. Remember there is no derivation here, it's the same word being used in a different context. Also, "to have an apple" is somewhat of a mental shortcut – apple in ni apple means exactly the same thing as in applele red, it's just being used in different applications of the [OBL NOM] construction – possession vs property predication. You could look at it like that:

ni apple – my apple exists – I have an apple
applele red – the apple's redness exists – The apple is red
ni apple eat – my eating exists, and the apple is what's being eaten – I'm eating the apple.

(I don't have my Abaniscen dictionary at hand right now, hence the pseudo-Abaniscen examples)

[Flavia]

There are three 'number' affixes. The longer form is used after consonant-final stems.

-(ne)mor: plural. Not obligatory, in fact usually omitted when context allows. Has an iterative meaning for action words.

-(ne)hay: nullative.

-(ne)nin: general. Can have a habitual meaning for action words, but it is rarely used this way.

celcorenin batiuh
dog-OBL-GENERAL big
Dogs are big.

celcorehay batiuh
dog-OBL-NULL big
No dog is big.

ni cancanarnehay
1s.OBL sing-NULL
I do not sing.

---

A couple of deictic words in oblique form can be used directly after the subject:

iore now (time-OBL)
nare here (LOC-OBL)
ayare because of this (cause-OBL)
necare this way (manner-OBL)

ni ayare is tianahay
1s.OBL because_of_this 3s say-PST-NULL
That's why I didn't say it.

(Compare:
ni ayare isnehay tiana
This is why I didn't say anything.)

[Glenn]

lesia<re>n celco novi
man<OBL> dog hear
The man hears the dog.

Thus celco novi -> the dog is being heard, celcore novi -> the dog hears (something).

Your case system is certainly intriguing; the OBL NOM construction makes me think of a NOM-ACC alignment with a marked nominative and an unmarked accusative, but the genitive/possessive function gives it a different twist. The OBL is not an ergative, but the fact that it also has a genitive function reminds me of the fact that in natlangs, one of the possible sources of ergative marking is the genitive.

[Flavia]

lesia<re>n celco novi
man<OBL> dog hear
The man hears the dog.

Thus celco novi -> the dog is being heard, celcore novi -> the dog hears (something)

.

Your case system is certainly intriguing; the OBL NOM construction makes me think of a NOM-ACC alignment with a marked nominative and an unmarked accusative, but the genitive/possessive function gives it a different twist. The OBL is not an ergative, but the fact that it also has a genitive function reminds me of the fact that in natlangs, one of the possible sources of ergative marking is the genitive.

Thanks! The case system is category 5 in Milewski's typology.