description

Date of last modification: 2022-02-24.


§ Introduction

Yaıgawe, also known as NLL2, is a constructed monosemic language, i.e. a loglang: syntactic ambiguities are disallowed, as well as word polysemy and homonymy not resolvable through syntax alone, as well as opaque idiomatic expression not explicitly marked as such. It is also an artlang, inasmuch as aesthetics (in the eyes of the author) is taken into account.
It is currently in a developmental stage of early prototype, and the description given here may be obsoleted by future changes to the language.
The general design of the language aims at simplicity, a limited number of function words, keeping all the content words into a single lexically-assigned part-of-speech (called "contentive", which may assume the roles of verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs etc. depending on the inflectional ending their receive), going as far as deriving all the conjunctions, quantifiers and interjections from contentive words.
The phonology is also designed to be fairly simple, and the syllable structure is a simple ``CV(C)`` (with V possibly standing for a diphthong).
The vocabulary is a priori, not derived or borrowed from that of existing natural or constructed languages.


§ Phonology

§§ Vowel phonemes

There are 5 vowel phonemes:

┌───────────┐┌───────────┐
│ IPA       ││ Spelling  │
├───────────┤├───────────┤
│  i     u  ││  ı     u  │
│  e̞     o̞  ││  e     o  │
│     ä     ││     a     │
└───────────┘└───────────┘

There are 3 diphthongs: /äi̯/, /äo̯/ and /e̞o̯/, written respectively ⟪aı⟫, ⟪ao⟫ and ⟪eo⟫.
/äi̯/ may be pronounced [äe̯] in a closed syllable, or [äj] when the next syllable begins with the consonant /j/, in which case the approximant is geminated at the syllable boundary: /äi̯.jä/ → [äj.jä].
Similarly, /äo̯/ may be pronounced [äw] when immediately preceding a syllable beginning with /w/: /äo̯.wä/ → [äw.wä]. /e̞o̯/ behaves similarly.

Vowels immediately preceding the uvular plosive /q/ may undergo slight lowering and backening, as shown below:
  [i] → [ɪ]
  [e̞] → [ɛ]
  [ä] → [ɑ]
  [o̞] → [ɔ]
  [u] → [ʊ]


§§ Consonant phonemes

There are 20 consonant phonemes:

┌───────────────────────┐┌──────────────────────┐
│ IPA                   ││ Spelling             │
├───────────────────────┤├──────────────────────┤
│         j   w         ││        y   w         │
│     ɾ                 ││     r                │
│     l                 ││     l                │
│ m   n       ŋ         ││ m   n      ŋ         │
│ b   d   d͡ʒ  ɡ         ││ b   d  j   g         │
│ p   t   t͡ʃ  k   q   ʔ ││ p   t  č   k   q   ʼ │
│ f   s               h ││ f   s              h │
└───────────────────────┘└──────────────────────┘


§ Phonotactics

Every word (be it a lexical word or a function word) bear a high tone on its last syllable (the prominent syllable), which may also be a little louder, and low tones on all the preceding syllables, if any.

Syllable structure: CV(C)?, with V possibly being a diphthong.
If a word ends with a plosive or affricate consonant, it must be phonologically voiceless, although it may assimilate in voice with a voiced plosive or affricate at the beginning of the next word.

/h/ may be realized as [ç] when it immediately precedes the /i/ vowel, and as [x] when it immediately precedes the /u/ vowel.


§ Morphophonology and Morphology

There are two lexico-morphosyntactic word classes: contentives and function words.
Contentives and function words are not formally distinguishable; whether a word is a function word or a contentive is assigned lexically. Function words are a closed class and are relatively few in number, however.

• A root (of either a function word or a contentive) is a string of syllables which must end with a vowel: "la", "lata" and "lanta" are valid root forms, but "lat" is not, for example.
• A word stem may be either a single root or a string of several roots, semantically ordered head-finally, i.e. through left-grouping. When several roots are strung together, there is no formal hint of where are the boundaries between each root, i.e. the root compound is not unambiguously segmentable, which is not regarded as problematic since root compounds are always lexicalized, semantically opaque: they only offer hints of meanings and enhance memorization and remembrance, but their exact meanings is not unambiguously derived from their components, their meanings are listed in the dictionary and must be learnt in the same way as those of opaque monolithic roots.
• With the exception of some indeclinable function words, all word stems may receive an inflectional ending (desinence) to become a complete word. This ending is composed of a single coda consonant, or may be an empty/null ending (-∅) in the case of a few grammatical roles. The desinence ending indicates the syntactic role of the word in the sentence.

Here is the full list of inflectional endings:

  -ʼ:   Interjection
  -h:   [Illocution] Performative
  -s:   [Illocution] Assertive
  -f:   [Illocution] Requestive
  -yam: [Illocution] Polar Question
  -wam: [Illocution] Content Question
  -t:   Serialization
  -∅:   Oblique (complement of certain function words)
  -q:   [Case] Pendent
  -∅:   [Case] Nominative, first core argument
  -n:   [Case] Accusative, second core argument
  -l:   [Case] Dative/Ternative, third core argument
  -ram: [Case] Quaternative, fourth core argument
  -gam: [Case] Co-nominative
  -č:   [Case] Eventive (event instantiating the clause)
  -k:   Restrictive adjective
  -p:   Restrictive propositional adverb
  -ŋ:   Restrictive afterthought conjunction
  -ŋam: Restrictive afterthought statement conjunction
  -ham: Restrictive forethought conjunction
  -r:   Binary quantifier
  -wım: Linker to the Nominative case of the immediately preceding contentive
  -nım: Linker to the Accusative case of the immediately preceding contentive
  -lım: Linker to the Ternative case of the immediately preceding contentive
  -rım: Linker to the Quaternative case of the immediately preceding contentive
  -gım: Linker to the Co-nominative case of the immediately preceding contentive
  -čım: Linker to the Eventive case of the immediately preceding contentive
  -pım: Linker attaching the contentive as an adverb modifyig the immediately preceding contentive


§ List of function words

⟪◈⟫ henceforth stands for any inflectional ending. Function words which do not end with that symbol are indeclinable.

  ao:    vocative
  o:     forthought binary logical connective constructor (FLCC)
  on:    medial connective (MC)
  da:    plural union
  ol:    connective predicate -> n-ary forethought connective
  ok:    n-ary forethought connective terminator
  wa:    particle linking the following complement to the preceding contentive (quivalent to the "-◈ım" ending) (LNK)
  wao:   terminator of pre-filling phrase
  wıʼa◈: rebinder for lambda pronoun #1
  nıʼa◈: rebinder for lambda pronoun #2
  lıʼa◈: rebinder for lambda pronoun #3
  rıʼa◈: rebinder for lambda pronoun #4
  no◈:   accusative inner case selector
  lo◈:   dative inner case selector
  ro◈:   quaternative inner case selector
  čo◈:   eventive inner case selector
  lu◈:   unary quantifier constructor (UQC)
  a◈:    initiator of named variable
  neo◈:  opaque proper name initiator (OPNI)
  wı◈:   sequence initiator (SI)
  wo:    sequence terminator (ST)
  qeo◈:  quote initiator (QI)
  qeoʼ:  quote terminator (QT)
  qu◈:   initiator of foreign quote with arbitrary delimiters (ADFQI)
  ya◈:   content clause initiator (CCI)
  na◈:   relative clause initiator (RCI)
  yu◈:   propery clause initiator (LCI)
  ča◈:   binary relation clause initiator (BRCI)
  reča◈: ternary relation clause initiator (TRCI)
  koča◈: quaternary relation clause initiator (QRCI)
  peo◈:  "whether" subordinate clause initiator (WSCI)
  qa:    head-final pendent clause relativizator (HFPCR)
  la:    end of subordinate clause (EOSC)
  he:    end of communication (EOC)
  eo:    more to come, I'm not done speaking
  e:     acknowledgement (ACK)
  hum:   single word eraser (SWE)
  lam:   clause eraser (CE)
  eom:   sentence eraser (SE)

  (Some more function words may be added in the future.)


§ Syntax

Sentences are rigidly verb-initial. A matrix verb can occur only once in a sentence, and its appearance always signals that a new sentence is beginning; only matrix verbs can, and must, bear an Illocution ending, it is what formally distinguishes matrix verbs from other words.
A matrix verb can make up a complete sentence by itself; verb complements, including the core arguments of the verbs, are optional; the core arguments that don't appear explicitly are implicitly existentially quantified (“something, someone”).

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Kučus.
  │ ❖ eat-ASR
  │ ➥ There is eating; eating is taking place; something eats something.
  └─

The syntax is fairly highly head-initial (although not always): adjectives and adjectival relative clauses are placed after their target noun, subordinating conjunctions are placed at the beginning of the subordinate clause they open, and so on.


§§ Illocutionary desinences

The illocutionary desinences available for matrix verbs are the following:
  • ⟪-h⟫: Performative;
  • ⟪-s⟫: Assertive;
  • ⟪-f⟫: Requestive;
  • ⟪-yam⟫: Polar Question;
  • ⟪-wam⟫: Content Question.

The Performative illocution marks a sentence as describing a state of affairs that comes to existence only by virtue of the speaker uttering the utterance: this can be exemplified by expressions such as “I hereby greet you”, “I promise you to never let you down”, “I nominate you capitain”, “I declare you married”. Unlike the Assertive illocution, these do not passively describe a pre-existing state of affair, but actively cause the described situation to come into existence.

The Assertive illocution marks a sentence as being a passive description of what the speaker believes to be an existing state of affair; its purpose is to let the addressee know what the speaker thinks to be true.

The Requestive illocution marks a sentence as describing a counterfactual imaginary situation which the speaker would like the addressee to take action for bringing it about to reality. In short, it expresses a request, albeit not a threatening one like an authoritarian order issued to a subaltern.

The Polar Question illocution expresses a yes-no question, i.e. a description of a situation which the speaker is requesting the adressee to tell them whether it is the case or not.

The Content Question illocution expresses a fill-in-the-blank question, a question containing one or more “blanks”, represented by lambda pronouns; the speaker requests that the addressee fills in these “blanks” with actual values in such a way as to create a complete sentence that holds true, describing a true state of affairs.

Other illocutions (such as commands, suggestions, promises…) may be expressed by applying the Performative illocution on a suitable matrix verb, expressing the desired speech act (e.g; “I promise…” for the promissory illocution).


§§ Noun cases

The four core cases are semantically opaque, they merely indicate which participant slot of the clause's verb (among the slots defined in the definition of the contentive playing the role of the verb) is selected for the marked noun to go into. As case marking of the core arguments of the verb is mandatory, there's no fixed order of appearance for them, they can be introduced in any order.

For example:
• ⟪Kučus nı poyan.⟫
  "eat-[assertive] I-(nominative) apple-[accusative]"
  "I eat an apple / I eat apples"

This sentence can be reordered as ⟪Kučus poyan nı.⟫, without change of meaning.

If the accusative ending ⟪-n⟫ is moved around however, the meaning will change:
• ⟪Kučus nın poya.⟫
  "An apple eats me."

In the dictionary, participant slots are represented by numbers in black circles: ⟪➊⟫, ⟪➋⟫, ⟪➌⟫ and ⟪➍⟫, respectively corresponding to the nominative, accusative, ternative and quaternative cases. As an example, the word ⟪kuču⟫ from the previous examples is thusly defined:

   ⟪kuču: ➊ eats ➋.⟫

The maximal number of allowed argument slots is 4.

When a noun case is applied to a contentive of arity 2 or above, the first argument slot of the contentive is selected for describing the referent of the noun: ⟪kučun⟫ is a noun referring to something which eats (and not something eaten), in the accusative case.
In order to select another slot for describing the noun's referents, you may use a suitable slot-swapping predicate:

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Ŋulırıwas lı kučut.
  │ ❖ delicious-ASR nominative_accusative_swapper eat-SER
  │ ➥ What is eaten is delicious.
  └─


The Pendent case ⟪-q⟫, or “Null case”, introduces a noun phrase that does not interact directly with the argument structure of the clause it appears in; the purpose of this case is to introduce a noun phrase that will be referred later on with the Pendent pronoun ⟪qe⟫, or a quantifier phrase binding a variable that is not applied in-situ, but merely declared for a later use (such as in a clause belonging to a deeper level of nesting, as in ⟪two people are such that I know that their name is "John"⟫).

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Bas wıyat mır peq ıt ya seya nı qen.
  │ ❖ much-ASR has_frequency-SER ∄-BQZ among-PND you_know_what-SER CCI
  │   interact_socially me PND_PN-ACC
  │ ➥ None of them is such that I frequently interact socially with them.
  └─


The Eventive case ⟪-č⟫ introduces a noun phrase representing a spatiotemporal event described by the proposition harboring this phrase. This can be used for expressing adverbs describing physical events, such as in ⟪He danced beautifully.⟫.

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Kas jaıwat ı rıwač.
  │ ❖ was-ASR dance-SER CTX[NOM] beautiful-EV
  │ ➥ You-know-who danced beautifully.
  └─


§§ Other inflectional endings

§§§ The interjective ⟪-ʼ⟫

The interjective ending ⟪-ʼ⟫ turns a contentive into an interjection expressing an attitude or other state experienced by the speaker at the moment of utterance. Similarly to noun cases, the first argument slot of the contentive is selected for describing the attitude of the speaker.

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Fao’!
  │ ❖ feel_pain-ITJ
  │ ➥ Ouch!
  └─

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Ŋulırıwas fao poyat, yagı’.
  │ ❖ delicious-ASR DEM[NOM] apple-SER, feel_pleasure-ITJ
  │ ➥ This apple is delicious, yum.
  └─


§§§ The oblique ⟪-∅⟫

The oblique ending is realized as an absence of consonantal desinence at the end of a contentive word, thus formally indistinguishable from the nominative, except by appearing in different syntactic environments. It marks contentives that are complements of certain particles, as well as subordinate verbs immediately following a subordinator such as ⟪na⟫, ⟪ya⟫, ⟪yu⟫… (In which case, it could be considered that the subordinate verb is sort of a complement of said subordinator.)
For example:

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Kas pat kı yan aıyuga nı ın.
  │ ❖ PST-ASR make_true-SER you[NOM] CCI[NOM] know[OBL] I[NOM] you_know_what-ACC
  │ ➥ You made me know it. / You made [I know it] be true.
  └─

Here, the main verb of the subordinate clause “I know it”, ⟪aıyuga⟫ (“know”), bears no explicit ending as it immediately follows the content clause initiator ⟪ya⟫.

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Aıyugas nı yan aıyuga kı ın.
  │ ❖ know-ASR I[NOM] CCI[NOM] know[OBL] you[NOM] you_know_what-ACC
  │ ➥ I know that you know.
  └─

Nouns bearing the null-marked nominative cases, such as ⟪nı⟫ and ⟪kı⟫ in the above, are distinguishable from oblique-marked subordinate verbs by the fact they are not directly following a subordinator; when two null-marked contentives follow a subordinator, the verb is always the first one (Yaıgawe being rigidly verb-initial), and any following null-marked contentive is to be interpreted as a nominative-marked noun.

Oblique contentives may also occur as the complement of certain other particles, such as the vocative ⟪ao⟫:

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Ao daya, qorof walat kı nın.
  │ ❖ VOC friend[OBL] accompany-REQ move-SER you[NOM] me-ACC
  │ ➥ O friend, please go with me.
  └─


§§§ The adjectival ⟪-k⟫

The adjectival ending ⟪-k⟫ marks a contentive as modifying adjectivally the preceding noun, restricting its referents. By adding this inflectional ending on the relative clause initiator ⟪na⟫, it is possible to construct a full-fledged adjectival relative clause, which may be explicitly terminated with the particle ⟪la⟫ (terminator of subordinate clauses).

⸨Note: the syntax of this ending might be changed so that it be no longer specific to modification of nouns but rather of any preceding contentive phrase or serial predicate, turning this ending into a marker of “contentive restrictor” instead of “noun restrictor” or adjective.⸩

Adjectival relative clauses, such as “which I ate” in the sentence “the apple which I ate was delicious”, may be constructed by appending the adjectival ending to the relative clause initiator ⟪na⟫:

  ┌───────────────
  │ ◆ Kas ŋulırıwat poya nak ka kučut nı rın.
  │ ❖ was-ASR delicious-SER apple[NOM] RCI-ADJ was[OBL] eat-SER I[NOM] RSM-ACC
  │ ➥ The apple I ate was delicious.
  └─

Here, ⟪rı⟫ is the resumptive pronoun, which refers back to the antecedent of the relative clause, the apple in this case. Since the apple is the thing being eaten, it bears the accusative case ending ⟪-n⟫.

⟪na⟫ relative clauses are not inherently adjectival and may behave nominally (“[what I ate] was delicious”) or even as verbs, with the meaning “to be that which…”: “the apple [is what I ate]” (⟪nas kuču nı rın la poya⟫ in Yaıgawe). This is way adding the ⟪-k⟫ ending to ⟪na⟫ is necessary for obtaining a noun-modifying (adjectival) relative clause, i.e. what is usually simply called “relative clause” in grammars of languages such as English. (See more about ⟪na⟫ in the section about subordinators.)

(...)


§ Lexicon: contentives

See the dedicated file ⟪lexicon⟫.