Re: New Language - Tacakta

Joseph Flatula wrote:
>After the enthusiastic responses I got from posting on Altsag Venchet
>(thanks everybody!), I've decided to post a summary of one of the other
>languages I've got going, Tácakta.  Like Altsag Venchet, this language has
>a
>history of its own, and has neighboring languages it has borrowed from.
>
>Tácakta is a mostly inflectional language, VSO in structure, modifiers
>before what they modify.
>
>Consonants
>------------
>voiced stops: b, d, g
>voiceless stops: p, t, k
>aspirated stops: ph, th, kh
>approximants: r, l
>nasals: m, n
>fricatives: f, s
>affricates: ps, c, x  -  /ps/, /ts/, /ks/
I don't think you can properly call [ps] and [ks] "affricates". Having them
being monophonemic should however not be a problem.

>Vowels
>--------
>a, e, i, o, u
>
>An umlaut indicates a long vowel: ä.
>An acute accent indicates a stressed vowel: á.
>A circumflex indicates a vowel that is both long and stressed: â.
>
>Consonants may cluster many different ways, as may vowels.  Stress is on
>the
>penultimate syllable.
Are vowel "clusters", sometimes or always, diphthongal (or triphthongal
etc)?

Are /s/ and /f/ always voiceless, or would they turn into [z] and [v] in
some positions?

>
>Nouns
>-------
>All nouns belong to a particular gender, or are generic.  In addition, they
>are either strong or weak, there being three categories of strong nouns.
>
>--- Gender ---
>Earthly nouns are those things that are inanimate or natural items.
>Alive nouns are animals, humans, things that move and breathe.
>Divine nouns are deities, the heavens, and gifts of the gods.
>Abstract concepts belong to one of these three genders, or are "generic",
>which is essentially a separate gender.
Is there any reason NOT to consider "generic" a fourth gender? Do generic
words differ from Earthly, Alive and Divine ones in any more substantial
ways than lacking a plural vocative?

>--- Case ---
>vocative
>nominative
>accusative
>genitive
>ingeminate - This is the one I mentioned a few days ago for the object of
>the first verb and the subject of the second.  For example, "me" in: He
>wants me to run away.
>dative
>
>--- Declension ---
>The inflection of a noun is dependant on its gender, number, and
>declension.
>In the singular, all nouns use the same forms.
>Strong1 nouns use the strong declension for genitive singular and generic
>plural.
>Strong2 nouns use the strong declension for the vocative singular and
>ingeminate singular.
>Strong3 nouns always use the strong declension.
>Weak nouns always use the weak declension.
So, essentially Strong1 and Strong2 represent mixes between the Strong3 and
the weak declension. Have they earlier been more "independent" declensions
with forms of their own? Is there a tendency for Strong1 and Strong2 words
to migrate to the weak declension, seeing that they share most of their
forms with them (excpet for Strong1 generics, that is - prehaps these tend
to become Strong3?)? Especially non-generic Strong1 nouns seem vulnerable to
this, since they only differ from weak nouns in the genitive singular!

>Below, -:a means add -a and lengthen the preceding vowel (if immediately
>preceding or separated by a consonant).  Similarly, '-a means stress the
>penultimate then add -a.  Strong declensions are on the left, weak on the
>right.
>
>--- Singular
>vocative  -:a/-a
>nominative  -
>accusative  -n/-un
>genitive  -tia/-ia
>ingeminate  -:es/-es
>dative  -'pta/-'apta
>
>--- Generic Plural
>vocative  (no generic vocative)
>nominative  -ti/-i
>accusative  -tin/-in
>genitive  -titia/-itia
>ingeminate  -teis/-eis
>dative  -'tipta/-'ipta
>
>--- Earthly Plural
>vocative  -nta/-ana
>nominative  -'nta/-an
>accusative  -ntun/-anun
>genitive  -ntia/-antia
>ingeminate  -ntes/-anes
>dative  -'ntapta/-'anapta
>
>--- Alive Plural
>vocative  -ra/-ora
>nominative  -r/-or
>accusative  -run/-orun
>genitive  -rtia/-ortia
>ingeminate  -res/-ores
>dative  -'rapta/-'orapta
>
>--- Divine Plural
>vocative  -la/-ila
>nominative  -'la/-ila
>accusative  -lun/-ilun
>genitive  -ltia/-iltia
>ingeminate  -les/-iles
>dative  -'lapta/-'ilapta
>
>For example, ánapka "word" is in the alive gender, weak declension.  Its
>root form is anapk-, used in all but the nominative singular.
>
>--- singular
>anapka
>ánapka
>anapkun
>anapkia
>anapkes
>anápkapta
>
>--- plural
>anapkora
>anapkor
>anapkorun
>anapkortia
>anapkores
>anápkorapta
Is the extra /a/ in the nom sg just there to prevent a final /-pk/, or has
it some other justification?

The genitive marker appears to be "-tia" everywhere except in the weak
singular, where it's simply "-ia". Any explanation for this?

The generic and Earthly strong plurals all show an extra /t/ inserted into
the endings; do this have any special significance or explanation?

>Verbs
>------
>
>--- Conjugation ---
>Verbs are divided up into similar categories as nouns.
>Strong1 and 2 use the strong conjugation for the indicative future.
>Strong3 are always strong.
>Weak verbs are always weak.
What's the difference between Strong1 and Strong2?
>
>--- Indicative
>present  -
>past  -teir/-etei
>future  -:da/-äda
>
>--- Subjunctive
>present  -n/-an
>past  -nteir/-anteir
>future  -nda/-anada
>
>--- Necessitative
>present  -il
>past  -ilteir
>future  -iläda
What 's the function of the Necessitative mood? I take it that weak and
strong verbs take the same endings for it?

>Adjectives
>----------
>Adjectives take similar endings to nouns to indicate what case and gender
>they are in.  I'm still figuring out all of the adjective endings.
>
>
>That's about it for now.  I don't have any specific questions for you, just
>interested in what you guys think about this language.
                                                   Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Reply