Kämpya

Kämpya is spoken is my far-future Antarctican conworld, where runaway global warming has melted the icecaps and made the continent habitable (while rendering most of the rest of the world uninhabitable).

It originated from the area around Ross Island, one of the first large-scale colonies on Antarctica. Many of the founders were from a number of East Asian countries, and used English as a common language while bringing their own languages with them. However the community was isolated, and within a few generations their English had developed into a creole, influenced by a number of languages, especially Burmese, Minnan Chinese, and Japanese (spoken in countries where many of them fled from). Most notably, the language became postpositional (English prepositions were replaced with Burmese postpositions). A wave of Spanish speaking migrants also heavily affected the language.

It then diverged into a number of widely divergent dialects (technology regressed, and groups of speakers were cut off from one another), followed by another period of koineisation when enough technology was re-invented for speakers of different dialects to be able to contact one other again. This koine was called Kämpya, and spread to many other parts of the continent, aided by the growth of a religion called Laikyâr (although not all Kämpya speakers follow the Laikyâr religion, and not all Laikyâr believers speak Kämpya). Indeed there is a special register of the language that is only used in religious contexts. There are also a number of regional dialects. However, this page describes what could be termed the "standard" dialect.

Brief Description

Kämpya has topic comment syntax with isolating morphology. The morphosyntactic alignment is basically ergative, except that there is a tripartite system on pronouns. However, genitive (alienable) and ergative pronouns are identical. Possessors are marked for alienability [1] using tone, and come before the nouns they modify. Kämpya (at least in the standard dialect) uses postpositions rather than prepositions, and adjectives can come either before or after the nouns they modify if they are restrictive or non-restrictive respectively [2].

Verbs do not inflect for agreement, tense or aspect, however there is an elaborate system of particles that indicate mood / evidentiality.

In terms of phonology, the most notable thing is a 3-way vowel phonation contrast on stressed syllables (which is not present on unstressed syllables). Kämpya distinguishes words with harsh voice (marked with a tilde e.g. /a̰/), from breathy voice (marked with a pair of dots either above or below the vowel e.g. /a̤/ or /ä/), from glottalisation (marked with a glottal stop after the vowel e.g. /aʔ/.

There are many minimal pairs of words that only contrast phonation e.g. /kʰà̤ɾ/ - "plaster cast", /kʰâ̰ɾ/ - "card", /kʰáʔɾ/ - "a cart" (the differences in tone can be predicted from the phonation).

In addition to this, there is also a tone contrast, but this is only used for grammatical purposes (e.g. to change between different parts of speech, or to mark alienable / inalienable possession), never for lexical purposes. For example, from the noun /áˈlâṵn/ - "that which is alone", which has High Tone on the first syllable and Falling Tone on the second (with harsh voice), we can derive the non-restrictive adjective /àˈláṵn/ - "by itself / solitary", which has Low Tone on the first syllable and High Tone on the second (with harsh voice).

Typological Influences

The contrast between alienable and inalienable possession was not present in any of the major languages of the initial settlers. However it has developed into an areal feature and is now found in most of the languages on the continent.

A similar situation happened with evidentiality, although its spread is much more restricted, only being found in the languages spoken along the Ross Sea coast. In this area, high mountains and long fjords meant that people lived in small, isolated communities. In such communities, where everyone knew one another, gossip could be highly destructive. This context favoured the development of evidentiality.

The lack of marking for number and tense / aspect is common in Antarctican languages from areas where a large portion of the founding population spoke Mainland East / SE Asian languages (which lack these features).

Topic-comment and wh-in-situ word order came into Kämpya through similar means (it is very common in East and SE Asia).

Ergativity came into Antarctica from speakers of Austronesian languages from Eastern Indonesia, the Pacific and the Philippines, three areas which were among the first to be severely affected by climate change, and therefore among the first migrants to the south. some degree of ergativity is a continent-wide areal feature. In the case of Kämpya, the English possessive 's began to be used to mark ergative subjects. By analogy, possessive pronouns then began to be used as ergative pronouns e.g. /jó/ - 2PS.ERG from English "your". Later, a different suffix /ji/ began to be used to mark possession.

Clusivity also spread throughout Antarctica by similar means, although many languages (including Kämpya) ended up conflating the first person singular and the first person exclusive plural.

Applicative constructions also entered Kämpya through influence from Austronesian languages such as Tagalog. However they did not spread as widely throughout the continent.

Marking pronouns with pre-verbal clitics originated in Spanish (indeed Kämpya's accusative pronouns are borrowed from Spanish). This has spread across Antarctica as an areal feature (except that in some languages, they are prefixes rather than clitics).

The vast majority of the founders spoke pro-drop languages (Burmese, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese etc.) so it is perhaps no surprise that Kämpya has become pro-drop (apart from the pre-verbal clitics).

Kämpya borrowed a number of its postpositions from Burmese e.g. locative /ka/. Other postpositions were originally English prepositions, but switched to be postpositions under the influence of languages such as Burmese and Japanese.

Placing postpositional phrases before the verb was borrowed from Chinese (perhaps also helped by the fact that many other founders spoke verb-final languages such as Burmese and Japanese).

Anti-logophoricity is an areal feature that developed along the Ross Sea coast after settlement.

Marking restrictiveness on adjectives by word order originated in Spanish, but became more extensive after settlement. Marking restrictiveness on adjectives (in some way, not necessarily by word order) is an Antarctic areal feature.

The complicated demonstrative system (depending on whether the object is uphill or downhill from the speaker) is an areal feature of the Ross Sea coast. Like most of the areas where such a system has developed, this area is very mountainous.

Using a separate verb for locational predication (in the case of Kämpya /éʔ/, which is cognate to English "at") is an areal feature of East and SE Asia.

Using a postposition to form a comparative construction is another areal feature of Asia which has found its way into Kämpya.

Phonology

Vowels

The vowel system is quite simple, with 5 monophthongs and 4 diphthongs.

Monophthongs

	Front	Central	Back
High	/i/		/u/
Mid	/e/		/o/
Low		/a/

Diphthongs

The following diphthongs are found /ai/, /au/, /ei/ and /ou/.

Consonants

	Labial	Dental	Alveolar	Lateral	Palatal	Velar	Glottal
Stop	pʰ p b		tʰ t d			kʰ k g
Nasal	m̥ m		n̥ n			ŋ
Fricative		θ ð	sʰ s z	(ɬ)	(ç)		h
Semivowel	(ʍ) w				j
Other Sonorants	ⱱ~ʋ		ɾ	l

1. /b/, /d/ and /g/ are often pronounced as slightly implosive.
2. [ɬ] is underlyingly /hl/.
3. [ç] is underlyingly /hj/.
4. [ʍ] is underlyingly /hw/.
5. [ⱱ] and [ʋ] are in free variation.

Phonotactics

In the standard dialect, only syllables of the form (C) (C) V (C) are permitted.

Initial consonant clusters can consist of any non-semivowel consonant followed by /w/ or /j/, except that /ŋj/ syllable onsets are forbidden.

In writing and formal speech, syllables can also begin with /pʰl/, /pl/, /bl/, /kʰl/, /kl/ and /gl/ (i.e. any non-alveolar stop + /l/). But outside formal speech, the /l/ is usually replaced with /j/.

Clusters of /hl/, /hj/ and /hw/ are permitted, but these are pronounced [ɬ], [ç] and [ʍ] respectively.

In unstressed syllables, the coda consonant can only be a stop or a nasal.

In stressed syllables, codas can also be /ⱱ/, /ɾ/ or /h/, as long as the vowel is a monophthong and not a diphthong.

/ŋ/ cannot occur word-initially.

Consonant Neutralisations

In colloquial speech, stops in the codas of unstressed syllables are debuccalised to glottal stops e.g. the city named /ˈkʰóʔnàt/ is often pronounced [ˈkʰóʔnàʔ], /ˈpʰḛ̂jòd/ - "fjord" is pronounced [ˈpʰḛ̂ːjòʔ].

If a nasal coda occurs before /h/, an approximant, or at the end of a word, it is often pronounced as nasalisation of the preceding vowel e.g. /nâḭm/ - "name" is pronounced [nâḭⁿ]. But likewise it is still present underlyingly, as can be seen when combined with the alienable genitive clitic /jì/ to form /nâḭm=jì/ - "of the name", which is pronounced [nâḭmjì].

Stress and Phonation

One syllable in each word bears stress. Vowel phonation is phonemic on stressed syllables but not elsewhere. The phonations are harsh /a̰/ [3], breathy /a̤/ or /ä/ [4], and glottalised /aʔ/. Harsh and breathy vowels are both pronounced long, while glottalised vowels are pronounced short, and with glottalisation of the following consonant (or with a glottal stop [ʔ] in the case of word final syllables).

Allophones of /h/

Between two vowels, /h/ is voiced to [ɦ] e.g. /máháˈkáʔp/ - "eternity" is pronounced /máɦáˈkáʔp/

/h/ can occur in the coda of stressed syllables. It's realisation depends on the phonation of the previous vowel.

If the stressed vowel has breathy phonation, the /h/ manifests itself as a breathy voiced fricative [ɦ] e.g. /à̤h/ - "question" is pronounced [à̤ɦ]. Compare /gwà̤/ - "grass" which is pronounced [gwà̤].

If the stressed vowel has glottalised phonation, the /h/ manifests itself as an epiglottal stop [ʡ] e.g. /dáʔh/ - "darkness" is pronounced [dáʡ].

If /h/ occurs after vowels with harsh phonation, it is pronounced as a voiced epiglottal fricative [ʢ] e.g. /zwéˈmâ̰h/ - "to report", is pronounced [zwéˈmâ̰ʢ].

Of course, if a process such a cliticisation (e.g. with the genitive clitic /ji/), means that the /h/ is no longer in coda position, then these processes do not occur e.g.

/à̤h=jì/ - "of the question (alienable)" is pronounced [ˈà̤çì] (/hj/ assimilates to [ç]).

/dáʔh=jì/ - "of the darkness (alienable)" is pronounced [ˈdáʔçì].

Also, if a coda [ʡ] (i.e. /h/ after a glottalised stressed vowel) is followed by a consonant that can be aspirated (i.e. /p/, /t/, /k/, or /s/), there is a tendency to manifest this as aspiration on the consonant instead e.g.

/ˈbóʔhsòut/ - "bauxite", can be pronounced either [ˈbóʡsòut] or [ˈbósʰòut].

Tone Patterns

There are 4 phonemic tones: High á, Falling â, Low à and Rising ǎ. While it may seem that the pitch of each syllable is random, actually it is not. It changes regularly depending on how the word is being used in a sentence (e.g. restrictive vs. non-restrictive, alienable vs. inalienable possessor etc.), in conjuction with the phonation on the syllable (for stressed syllables) or the location of the syllable relative to the stressed syllable (for unstressed syllables).

In terms of assigning tone, there are three parts of speech:

Class 1 This is the default, catch-all class. It is used for most nouns and verbs.

Class 2 This is used for nouns in postpositional phrases, inalienable possessors, nouns used attributively, restrictive adjectives (modifying a noun), and infinitive verbs.

Class 3 This is used for adverbs and non-restrictive adjectives (modifying a noun).

Stressed Syllables

This table shows how the tone of a stressed syllable (for each of the three phonations) depends on the tone class.

	Harsh Phonation a̰	Breathy Phonation a̤	Glottalised Phonation aʔ
Class 1	(High) Falling Pitch + Harsh Voice	Low Pitch + Breathy Voice	High Pitch + Glottal Stop
Class 2	Low Pitch + Harsh Voice	Low Pitch + Breathy Voice	Low Pitch + Glottal Stop
Class 3	High Pitch + Tense Voice	Rising Pitch + Faucalised Voice	High Pitch + Glottal Stop

Unstressed Syllables

Here the situation is simpler. For unstressed syllables, the tone can only be high or low, and does not depend on the phonation of the stressed syllable.

For Class 1 words, the tone is high before the stressed syllable, and low after it.

For Class 2 words, unstressed syllables always have high tone.

For Class 3 words, unstressed syllables always have low tone.

Examples

Here is a table with examples of how roots change classes depending on what part of speech they belong to:

English Translation	Class 1	Class 2	Class 3
Kämpya	ˈkà̤mpjà	ˈkà̤mpjá	ˈkǎ̤mpjà
guardian	ˈsʰíʔtà	ˈsʰìʔtá	ˈsʰíʔtà
sister	ˈsʰì̤tà	ˈsʰì̤tá	ˈsʰǐ̤tà
alone	áˈlâṵn	áˈlàṵn	àˈláṵn
alone + Genitive clitic /ji/	áˈlâṵn=jì	áˈlàṵn=jí	àˈláṵn=jì
question	à̤h	à̤h	ǎ̤h
question + Genitive clitic /ja/	à̤h=jì	à̤h=jí	ǎ̤h=jì

Sound Correspondences with English

Phonation

Contrastive phonation developed on stressed vowels depending on the following consonants. Breathy phonation emerged via a sound change where voiceless fricatives were lost after a stressed vowel e.g. /ˈsʰì̤tà/ - "sister". Glottalised phonation developed whenever there was a voiceless stop after a stressed vowel e.g. /áʔp/ - "rise" (from English "up". In other cases (e.g. when there was a voiced stop after a stressed vowel) the syllable received harsh phonation.

Consonants

Aspiration on stops became phonemic. Stops were generally unaspirated, except word initial stops and stops beginning a stressed syllable. However, if the stop was preceded by an obstruent (usually /s/), it became unaspirated and the /s/ was deleted e.g. /tóʔp/ - "stop" vs. /tʰáp/ - "above" (from English "top")

/s/ acquired phonemic aspiration in similar situations to the above e.g. /sʰḛ̂n/ - "heaven" (from English "ascend") vs. /èˈsóʔt/ - "exotic.DESC" (the /k/ that used to precede the /s/ was lost, but not before blocking that aspiration that would otherwise have occurred on an /s/ in a stressed syllable).

Clusters of /s/ + Nasal became voiceless nasals e.g. /n̥âṵ/ - "snow", /m̥òṵ/ - "small.RESTR".

/sl/ clusters usually became /hl/, which is pronounced [ɬ] e.g. /hléʔp/ - "slap".

/ʍ/ re-emerged in English via spelling pronunciations, becoming Kämpya /hw/ (pronounced as [ʍ]) e.g. /ˈhwâ̰jù/ - "whale".

English /f/ became /pʰ/ e.g. /ˈpʰḛ̂jòd/ - "fjord". The exception to this was when it was clustered with /r/, in which case it became /hw/ e.g. /hwám/ - "from".

English /v/ became /bw/ before a vowel e.g. /ˈbwḛ̂lì/ - "valley"

English /r/ became either /w/ or /zw/ e.g. /ˈzwéʔp/ - quickly (from English "rapid"), /ˈpʰò̤wè/ - "forest".

English post-alveolar consonants became sequences of alveolar consonants + /j/ e.g. /báˈsjàʔp/- "beat" (from English "bash up")

Lenition occurred of obstruents after historically long vowels (Kämpya lost its phonemic vowel length contrast). Labial obstruents lenited to /ⱱ/ e.g. /pʰ/, /p/, /b/, /f/, /v/ became /ⱱ/ e.g. /là̤ⱱ/ - "laugh". Coronal consonants lenited to /ɾ/ e.g. /déˈpʰâ̰ɾ/ - "depart". Dorsal consonants lenited to /h/ e.g. /dáʔh/ - "darkness".

Clusters of Stop + /t/ were simplified to /t/ e.g. /ˈdóʔtà/ - "doctor".

Except in the above cases, /t/ was lost word finally e.g. /béiʔ/ - "belt".

Word final alveolar affricates became stops e.g. /ˈbwḭ̂d/ - "bridge".

/l/ was lost when not before a vowel e.g. /tʰṵ̂/ - "tool".

A version of Grassman's Law occured, deaspirating all but the last occurence of an aspirated consonant in a phonological word e.g. /káukákʰôṵlà/ - "Coca-Cola", not */kʰáukákʰôṵlà/. Voiceless sonorants and /h/ count as aspirated consonants.

Vowels

The vowel system derives from Australian English, although in many cases spelling pronunciations are used rather than the actual Australian English pronunciation. Since colonisation of Antarctica, it has undergone a number of sound changes:

1. The vowel in TRAP and MARRY underwent a three-way split. In untressed syllables, it became /a/. In stressed syllables, it underwent the bad-lad split, with the long version becoming /ai/ and causing lenition of the following consonant e.g. /bàḭɾ/ - "bad.REST", while the short version became /e/ e.g. /éʔ/ - "to be at".
2. The vowel in BATH, PALM and START (Australian English is non-rhotic) became /a/ in unstressed syllables, and /aː/ in stressed syllables (causing lenition of the following consonant). Then these both merged into /a/ (Kämpya lost phonemic vowel length) e.g. /déˈpʰâ̰ɾ/ - "depart".
3. The vowel in NURSE merged into the above vowel e.g. /nà̤ɾ/ - "nurse".
4. The vowel in LOT, CLOTH and HOT became /a/ in unstressed syllables, and /o/ in stressed syllables e.g. /ˈóʔpà/ - "opposite". However, before /l/ it became /ou/ e.g. /bôṵ/ - "bowl".
5. The vowel in THOUGHT and NORTH became /o/ in unstressed syllables, and /oː/ in stressed syllables (causing lenition of the following consonant). Then these both merged into /o/ e.g. /pʰò̰/ - "four". However, before /u/ it became /ou/ e.g. /m̥óṵ/ - "small.DESC".
6. The vowel in KIT became /i/ e.g. /ˈbíʔ/ - "bite" (from English "bit"). However, before /l/ it became /ju/ e.g. /hjṵ̂/ - "hill".
7. The vowel in HEAT usually became /ei/ e.g. /déiʔp/ - "deeply". However, before /j/ it became /e/ e.g. /ˈpʰḛ̂jòd/ - "fjord". And before /l/, it became /i/ e.g. /pʰḭ̂lìŋ/ - "display of emotions" (from English "feeling").
8. The vowel in DRESS and MERRY normally became /e/ e.g. /ˈḛ̂nèm/ - "enemy". However, before /l/ it became /ei/ e.g. /béiʔ/ - "belt".
9. The vowel in SQUARE and MARY became /e/ in unstressed syllables, and /eː/ in stressed syllables (causing lenition of the following consonant). Then these both merged into /e/ e.g. /kʰḛ̂/ - "hospital patient" (from English "care")
10. The vowel in STRUT normally became /a/ e.g. /sʰâ̰n/ - "son". However, before /l/, it became /au/ e.g. /kâṵ/ - "skull".
11. The vowel is FOOT became /u/ e.g. /pʰúʔ/ - "foot".
12. The vowel in GOOSE became /u/ in unstressed syllables, and usually became /ei/ in stressed syllables e.g. /gèi̤/ - "goose". However, before another vowel, it became /e/ e.g. /sʰḛ̂wà/ - "sewer". In stressed syllables before /l/, it became /u/ e.g. /tʰṵ̂/ - "tool"
13. The vowel in FACE normally became /ai/ e.g. /nâḭm/ - "name". However, before /l/ it became /aju/ e.g. /ˈhwâ̰jù/ - "whale".
14. The vowel in PRICE became /ou/ in stressed syllables, and /ai/ in unstressed syllables e.g. /pʰwòṳ/ - "price", /ˈḭ̂mwài/ - "invitation" (from an initial stressed derived form of "invite"). However, before /l/ it became /oju/ in stressed syllables, and /aju/ elsewhere e.g. /tʰô̰jù/ - "tile".
15. The vowel in CHOICE became /ou/ e.g. /tʰjòi̤/ - "choice", except before /l/ when it became /oju/ e.g. /ˈbô̰jù/ - "hot spring" (from English "boil").
16. The vowel in GOAT usually became /au/ e.g. /n̥âṵ/ - "snow". However, in a stressed syllable before /l/ it became /ou/ e.g. /kʰôṵlà/ - "(Coca-)Cola".
17. The vowel in MOUTH became /ei/ in a stressed syllable, and /au/ in an unstressed syllable e.g. /mèi̤/ - "mouth".
18. The vowel in NEAR became /i/ in unstressed syllables, and /iː/ in stressed syllables (causing lenition of the following consonant). Then these both merged into /i/ e.g. /pʰì̤ɾ/ - "fierce".
19. As a very general rule, schwa became /a/, however in a lot of cases it developed into another vowel, being influenced by spelling e.g. /éˈléʔt/ - "to vote" (from English "elect").

Pronouns

Pronouns are not marked for singular or plural, but there are two words for "we" depending on whether the listener is included [5]. The pronouns that do not include the listener are also used to only talk about the speaker. Another way of looking at this is that Kämpya makes no distinction between "us not including you" and "me", but uses different forms for "us including you".

There is also a set of interrogative pronouns that can mean "who" or "what" depending on the context (Kämpya conflates the two). By adding postpostions, words meaning "how" and "why" can be formed.

Kämpya has a tripartite case marking system on pronouns [6]. However, the ergative pronouns are identical to the (alienable) genitive pronouns.

In each case, there is a different form of the word depending on whether they are immediately followed by a word beginning with a vowel. There is also an "emphatic" form, which is used to emphasise the subject. The emphatic form does not depend on whether the following word starts with a vowel or not. Each form is listed below, with the normal form listed first, the form before a vowel second, and the emphatic form last:

Intransitive Pronouns

	1st Person Exclusive	1st Person Inclusive	2nd Person	Interrogative
Before a consonant	ái	wéi	jéi	bá
Before a vowel	áj-	wéj-	jéw-	báj-
Emphatic	òṵ	wèḭ	jèḭ	bà̰

As you can see above, the emphatic forms all have Low Tone with Harsh Phonation (i.e. belong to Tone Class 2), while all the other forms have High Tone with no phonation (i.e. modal phonation).

Accusative Pronouns

	1st Person Exclusive	1st Person Inclusive	2nd Person	3PS	Reflexive	Interrogative
Before a consonant	mí	lé	té	swí	sé	ké
Before a vowel	mj-	lés-	ét-	síw-	és-	ék-
Emphatic	mḭ̀	lè̤	tḛ̀	swḭ̀	sḛ̀	kḛ̀

The emphatic forms are also used with postpositions e.g. /mḭ̀=hwám/ - "from me".

Genitive / Ergative Pronouns

Kämpya's genitive pronouns inflect for alienable vs. inalienable possession, however, in the emphatic form, these are not distinguished. The alienable (and emphatic) forms of the genitive pronouns are also used as ergative pronouns (i.e. the subjects of transitive verbs).

There is also a proximate vs. obviative distinction on 3rd person genitive pronouns. The proximate pronouns are used when the possessor was the last noun that was in the absolutive case (i.e. unmarked). The obviative pronouns are used in other cases. To mark a 3rd person subject of a transitive verb, only the obviative form is used, never the proximate.

	1PS Excl.	1PS Incl.	2PS	3PS Prox.	3PS Obv.	Interrogative
Before a consonant (Inalienable)	mái	áu	jó	ðé	ðí	héi
Before a vowel (Inalienable)	máj-	áw-	józw-	ðézw-	ðj-	héw-
Alienable / Ergative	môṵ	ˈḛ̂wà	jô̰	ðḛ̂-	ðjíʔ	hèi̤
Emphatic	mòṵ	ˈḛ̀wá	bwò̤	swḭ̀	ðjìʔ	hèi̤

Basic Syntax

Kämpya has topic comment syntax [7], and is also syntactically ergative [8] and secundative [9].

Copula

Kämpya has no verb meaning "to be" (something) [10]. Instead, the two words are simply placed side by side in the sentence. e.g.

/ˈsʰíʔtà ˈḛ̂nèm/

guardian enemy

The guardian is / was / will be the enemy.

/jéi ˈsʰíʔtà/ phonetically [jéiˈsʰíʔtà]

2PS.INTR guardian

You are / were / will be the guardian(s).

Pronouns take different forms if they are followed by a vowel e.g.

/jéw ˈḛ̂nèm/ phonetically [jéˈwḛ̂ːnèⁿ]

2PS.INTR enemy

You are / were / will be the enemy.

They also take special emphatic forms e.g.

/jèḭ ˈḛ̂nèm/ phonetically [jèḭ ˈḛ̂ːnèⁿ]

2PS.INT.EMP enemy

You are the enemy.

Intransitive Sentences

Intransitive sentences generally have free word order. If the verb is in focus [11], then it will come after the subject. If the subject is in focus, then it will come after the verb. So both of the following are grammatical:

/dô̰k áˈlâṵn/

dog alone

The dog is / was / will be alone.

as well as

/áˈlâṵn dô̰k/

alone dog

The dog is / was / will be alone.

Constituent Deletion

However, the arguments of intransitive sentences can be freely deleted, so it is perfectly possible to have one word sentences e.g.

/áˈlâṵn/

alone

He / She / It / They is / are / was / were / will be alone.

With Postpositional Phrases

If we include a postpositional phrase in the sentence, it must come immediately before the verb (except for any pronouns) e.g. with the postpositional phrase /ˈbwḛ̀lí=hwám/ - "from the valley", the verb /déˈpʰâ̰ɾ/ - "to set off" and the noun /ˈḛ̂nèm/ - "enemy", we can say:

/ˈbwḛ̀lí=hwám déˈpʰáʔɾ ˈḛ̂nèm/

valley=from depart enemy

The enemy departs from the valley.

or

/ˈḛ̂nèm ˈbwḛ̀lí=hwám déˈpʰáʔɾ/

enemy valley=from depart

The enemy departs from the valley.

To say "A is located at / in / on etc. B", Kämpya uses the verb /éʔ/ and the locative clitic /ká/ e.g.

/ˈḛ̂nèm ˈbwḛ̀lí=ká éʔ/

enemy valley=LOC be.at

The enemy is at the valley.

Note that /éʔ/ cannot be used as a copula (to say something is something else). As discussed previously, in such a case, no verb is used at all.

With Adverbs

Unlike adverbs of place and other postpositional phrases which precede the verb, adverbs of manner and time follow it (and are placed in Tone Class 3) e.g.

/déˈpʰáʔɾ zwéʔp ˈjě̤tài ˈḛ̂nèm/

depart fast yesterday enemy

The enemy departed quickly yesterday.

With Pronouns

The same subject pronouns as before are also used for intransitive sentences e.g.

/jéi déˈpʰáʔɾ/

2PS depart

You are setting off.

However, the pronoun must immediately precede the verb so */déˈpʰâ̰ɾ jéi/ is ungrammatical. And postpositional phrases cannot intervene between the pronoun and the verb, so */jéi ˈkʰóʔnàt=hwám déˈpʰâ̰ɾ/ is ungrammatical. They must come before the pronoun, so it is only grammatical to say:

/ˈbwḛ̀lí=hwám jéi déˈpʰáʔɾ/

valley=from 2PS depart

You are setting off from the valley.

Transitive Sentences

In transitive sentences without pronouns, the basic word order is SVO, with the subject marked with the ergative clitic /-zu/ e.g.

/dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG bite lizard

It was the dog that bit the lizard.

However, immediately after a monophthong with breathy or harsh voice (and thus necessarily a stressed vowel), the ergative clitic has the allomorph /-ɾu/ e.g.

/kʰjâṵ=ɾù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

cow=ERG bite lizard

It was the cow that bit the lizard.

With Postpositional Phrases

The come after the ergative noun, but before the verb (or any pronouns) e.g.

/dô̰k=zù pʰò̤wé=ká ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG forest=LOC bite lizard

It was the dog that bit the lizard in the forest.

Topicalisation

However, Kämpya speakers very often topicalise either the subject or the object. The object is topicalised by moving it in front of the subject (i.e. making the sentence OSV) e.g.

/ˈlḭ̂zàd dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ/

lizard dog=ERG bite

The lizard was bitten by the dog.

The subject of a transitive sentence is topicalised by deleting the ergative marker e.g.

/dô̰k ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog bite lizard

The dog bit the lizard.

The difference between this and /dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ lḭ̂zàd/ (i.e. with the case marker), is that, in the sentence with the case marker, the "new information" being presented to the listener is that it was the dog that did the biting. Without the case marker, it is a sentence describing the dog, and the new information is that it bit the lizard. This is analagous to the difference between "ga" and "wa" in Japanese.

Also note that topicalising both the subject and object is ungrammatical i.e. we cannot say */lḭ̂zàd dô̰k ˈbíʔ/ or anything like that.

With Pronouns

The (alienable) genitive pronouns discussed earlier can also be the subject of transitive verbs e.g.

/jô̰ ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

2PS.ERG bite lizard

You are biting the lizard.

As before, the object can be fronted as a topic e.g.

/ˈlḭ̂zàd jô̰ ˈbíʔ/

lizard 2PS.ERG bite

You are biting the lizard.

However, the subject pronoun still come immediately before the verb, so sentences like */jô̰ gáʔɾ káiʔk/ are ungrammatical.

Prepositional phrases must come before the subject pronoun e.g.

/pʰò̤wé=ká jô̰ ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

forest=LOC 2PS.ERG bite lizard

You bit the lizard in the forest.

When a verb takes an accusative pronoun as its object, it becomes intransitive i.e. the subject will be unmarked (in the absolutive case) and can come either before or after the verb e.g.

/dô̰k té=ˈbíʔ/

dog 2PS.ACC=bite

The dog will bite you.

or

/té=ˈbíʔ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite dog

You will be bitten by the dog.

Using the ergative form /dô̰k=zù/ is ungrammatical here.

When both the subject and the object of a verb are pronouns, the subject comes first and is in the intransitive case e.g.

/jéi=swí=ˈbíʔ/

2PS.INTR=3PS.ACC=bite

You are biting him.

It would be ungrammatical to say */jô̰ swí=bíʔ/.

Reciprocal Voice

This takes a transitive verb and turns it into an intransitive verb meaning "do ... to each other / one another". It is formed by reduplicating the first syllable of the verb, and putting it as a particle in the object pronoun "slot" e.g. /ˈbíʔ/ - "to bite" -> /bíˈbíʔ/ - "to bite each other". However coda consonants and the second elements of diphthongs are deleted e.g. /péiʔk/ - "to speak" -> /péiˈpéiʔk/ - "to speak to each other".

Also if the onset of the first syllable contains an aspirated consonant, the aspiration is lost in the reduplication e.g. /pʰṵ̂/ - "to pull" -> /púˈpʰṵ̂/ - "to pull each other".

If the onset of the first syllable contains a voiceless nasal, the it becomes voiced in the reduplication e.g. - /ˈm̥ô̰jù/ "to entertain" -> /móˈm̥ô̰jù/ - "to entertain each other". Likewise, if the onset of the first syllable contains /h/, it is lost in the reduplication e.g. /hléʔp/ - "to slap" -> /léˈhléʔp/ - "to slap each other".

Subject Deletion

It is perfectly acceptable to delete the subject of a transitive sentence e.g.

/ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

bite lizard

He / She / It / They bit the lizard.

/ˈlḭ̂zàd ˈbíʔ/

lizard bite

The lizard was bitten.

This carries no ambiguity, because the word for lizard is always in the absolutive case.

Antipassive Voice

To delete the object of a transitive sentence, the antipassive voice is used [12]. This is done with the clitic /θu-/. It goes in the same syntactic "slot" as an object pronoun would e.g.

/dô̰k θú=ˈbíʔ/

dog ANTIP=bite

The dog bit (someone / something).

However, if followed by a vowel, the form of the clitic is /θw-/ e.g.

/dô̰k θw=álâṵn/

dog ANTIP=abandon

The dog abandoned (someone / something).

The deleted object can be re-introduced using the dative postposition, /-gó/ (which changes the noun into Tone Class 2). These nouns are re-introduced into the same syntactic "slot" as postpositional objects e.g.

/dô̰k ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ /

dog lizard=DAT ANTIP=bite

The dog bit the lizard.

At first glance, this may seem pointless, as we could have quite easily have said:

/dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG bite lizard

It was the dog that bit the lizard.

However, the difference is that Kämpya has ergative syntax. Whatever argument of the verb is in the absolutive case is the syntactic pivot [13]. In a normal transitive sentence, this is the object of the verb. But, by using the antipassive voice, the subject of the transitive verb becomes the syntactic pivot. If we combine the two sentences above with the verb /áˈwâḭ/ - "to flee", the meaning becomes very different:

/dô̰k ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ áˈwâḭ/

dog lizard=DAT ANTIP=bite flee

The dog bit the lizard and (the dog) ran away.

vs.

/dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd áˈwâḭ/

dog=ERG bite lizard flee

The dog bit the lizard and the lizard ran away.

Ditransitive Sentences

For verbs such as "give", "sell", "send" etc. [14], the normal situation is to have the donor marked in the ergative case in the usual position (i.e before the verb and any postpositional phrases), the theme (whatever is being given / sold etc. to someone) directly after it, and marked with the secundative postposition /-ta/, and the recipient in the absolutive case either after the verb or topicalised at the beginning of the sentence e.g.

/ˈsʰíʔtà=zù bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/

guardian=ERG bone=SEC give dog

It was the guardian that gave the bone to the dog.

or

/dô̰k ˈsʰíʔtà=zù tí=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p/

dog guardian=ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give

The dog was given a bone by the guardian.

The ergative argument can be topicalised in the same way e.g.

/ˈsʰíʔtà tí=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/

guardian INDEF=bone=SEC give dog

The guardian gave the bone to the dog.

It is also perfectly possible to put a ditransitive sentence in the antipassive voice e.g.

/ˈsʰíʔtà bàṵn=tá dò̰k=gó θú=gḭ̂p/

guardian bone=SEC dog=DAT ANTIP=give

The guardian gave the bone to the dog.

With Postpositional Phrases

Postpositional phrases usually come after the theme (i.e. whatever takes the secundative case) e.g.

/ˈsʰíʔtà=zù bàṵn=tá pʰò̤wé=ká gḭ̂p dô̰k/

guardian=ERG bone=SEC forest=LOC give dog

It was the guardian that gave the bone to the dog in the forest.

Allomorphy

Clitics beginning with /t/ and /p/

Immediately after a monophthong with breathy voice (and thus necessarily a vowel in an open syllable that has stress), an inital /t/ in clitics lenites to /ɾ/. For example, the secundative clitic /ta/ becomes /ɾa/ e.g.

/ˈsʰíʔtà gwà̤=ɾá gḭ̂p dô̰k/

guardian grass=SEC give dog

The guardian gave the grass to the dog.

Immediately after a monophthong with harsh voice, /t/ also lenites to /ɾ/. However, it also triggers a phonation shift on the vowel from harsh to glottalised e.g. the noun meaning "snare" is /n̥ḛ̀/ in Tone Class 2. It normally has harsh voice, but it combines with the secundative clitic to form /n̥èʔ=ɾá/, as in:

/ˈsʰíʔtà n̥ḛ̀=ɾá dò̰k=gó θú=gḭ̂p/

guardian snare=SEC dog=DAT ANTIP=give

Literally "the guardian gave the snare to the dog", but "give a snare" could also be translated as "use a snare to catch".

In similar situations, /p/ lenites to /ⱱ/. For example, the instrumental postposition /piŋ/ likewise becomes /ⱱiŋ/ e.g. /pèiʔk/ - "words" becomes /ˈpèiʔk=píŋ/ - "using words", but /gwà̤/ - "grass" becomes /gwà̤=ⱱíŋ/ - "using grass", and words with harsh voice on the final vowel such as /n̥ḛ̀/ - "snare", become /n̥èʔ=ⱱíŋ/ - "using a snare".

Clitics beginning with /d/, /z/ and /b/

Immediately after a monophthong with harsh or breathy voice, /d/, /z/ also lenite to /ɾ/ (as we have seen with the ergative clitic /-zu/). /b/ also lenites to /ⱱ/. But they do not trigger any phonation changes on the vowel.

Clitics beginning with /g/

Immediately after a monophthong with harsh or breathy voice, /g/ is lenited to /h/. However this triggers deaspiration in the word it attaches to (in a similar fashion to Grassman's law in Indo-European languages). Aspirated consonants lose their aspiration, /h/ is deleted, and voiceless nasals become voiced e.g. with the postposition /-gei/ - "since the time of"

Gloss	Base Form	Form with /-gei/
class	kʰlà̤	klà̤=héi
snare	n̥ḛ̀	nḛ̀=héi
mother	múˈhḛ̀	múˈḛ̀=héi (more commonly /ˈmwḛ̀=héi/)

Clitics beginning with /k/

The /k/ here lenits to /h/ and triggers deaspiration in exactly the same way as /g/. However, if the monophthong had harsh voice, it changes to be glottalised e.g. from /n̥ḛ̀/ - "snare", if we add the locative clitic /-ka/, the result is /nèʔ=há/ - "at the snare".

With Pronouns

Ergative Pronouns

These can come in their usual position immediately before the verb e.g.

/bàṵn=tá pʰò̤wé=ká jô̰ gḭ̂p dô̰k/

bone=SEC forest=LOC 2PS.ERG give dog

You gave the bone to the dog in the forest.

Or they can come before the noun in the secundative case e.g.

/jô̰ bàṵn=tá pʰò̤wé=ká gḭ̂p dô̰k/

2PS.ERG bone=SEC forest=LOC give dog

You gave the bone to the dog in the forest.

This creates a small amount of amiguity, since /jô̰ bàṵn=tá/ can also be read as "your bone (alienable)". Thus the above sentence could also be read as "your bone (alienable) was given to the dog in the forest".

With Postpositions

The emphatic forms of the accusative pronouns are used with a postposition (e.g. the secundative /tá/). However, these pronouns trigger the same sandhi rules discussed before (changing the phonation on the vowel to glottalised), and leniting the postposition to. Here is a list of the pronouns when used with the secundative postposition:

1st Person Exclusive - /mìʔ=ɾá/

1st Person Inclusive - /lè̤=ɾá/

2nd Person - /tèʔ=ɾá/

3rd Person - /swìʔ=ɾá/

Reflexive - /sèʔ=ɾá/

Applicative Voice

To topicalise a noun in a postpositional phrase, Kämpya uses applicative constructions [15]. These are formed by first shifting the noun in the absolutive case to the postpositonal object "slot" in the sentence (and marking it with the dative clitic /=gó/). In turn, the noun that the postposition was attached to goes into the absolutive case (and changes to Tone Class 1), and the postposition is placed after the verb as a clitic e.g. from the sentence:

/ˈdô̰k=zù pʰò̤wé=ká ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG forest=LOC bite lizard

It was the dog that bit the lizard in the forest.

we can apply an applicative transformation to get:

/pʰò̤wè ˈdô̰k=zù lḭ̀zád=góˈbíʔ=kà/

forest dog=ERG lizard=DAT bite=LOC

In the forest, the dog bit the lizard.

As another example, the sentence

/ˈḛ̂nèm ˈbwḛ̀lí=hwám déˈpʰáʔɾ/

enemy valley=from depart

The enemy departed from the valley.

becomes the following:

/ˈbwḛ̂lì ˈè̤ném=gó déˈpáʔɾ=hwàm/

valley enemy=DAT depart=from

From the valley, the enemy departed.

Note here the tone change from /ˈkʰòʔnát/ (in a postpositional phrase and thus Tone Class 2) to /ˈkʰóʔnàt/ (in Tone Class 1 like most nouns). The same thing happened with the word for "forest" changing from /pʰò̤wé/ to /pʰò̤wè/.

Likewise, in ditransitive sentences, the theme (i.e. whatever is given by the donor to the recipient) can also be topicalised by the same process e.g.

/dô̰k ˈsʰíʔtà=zù tí=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p/

dog guardian=ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give

The dog was given a bone by the guardian.

becomes

/bâṵn ˈsʰíʔtà=zù dò̰k=góˈgḭ̂p=tá/

bone guardian=ERG dog=DAT give=SEC

The bone was given to the dog by the guardian.

When a pronoun is the object of the verb to be put into the applicative voice, the subject is put into the dative case instead e.g. when we apply the applicative voice to

/dô̰k pʰò̤wé=ká té=ˈbíʔ/

dog forest=LOC 2PS.ACC=bite

The dog bit you in the forest.

we get

/pʰò̤wè dò̰k=gó té=ˈbíʔ=kà/

forest dog=DAT 2PS.ACC=bite=LOC

In the forest, the dog bit you.

Notice that when the postpositions /hwam/, /ka/ and /ti/ attach to a noun, they have High Tone, since postpositional phrases are in Tone Class 2. However, when they attach to a verb, they have has Low Tone, since verbs are in Tone Class 1.

This is clearly a cliticisation process, since adverbs can come before the particle but after the verb e.g.

/pʰò̤wè ˈdô̰k=zù lḭ̀zád=gó bíʔ ˈˈjě̤tài=kà/

forest dog=ERG lizard=DAT bite yesterday.ADV=LOC

In the forest, the dog bit the lizard.

Noun Phrases

The basic order in noun phrases is: Demonstrative - Numeral - Restrictive Adjective - Noun - Non Restrictive Adjective

Restrictiveness in Adjectives

When an adjective modifies a noun, Kämpya makes a distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive (descriptive) adjectives [16]. It does this by putting restrictive adjectives in Tone Class 2, and placing them before the noun they modify e.g.

/ˈzwèʔp dô̰k/

fast.REST dog

The fast dog(s) (choosing one or more fast dogs out of a group of other dogs).

Descriptive (non-restrictive) adjectives are in Tone Class 3 and follow the noun they modify e.g.

/dô̰k ˈzwéʔp/

dog fast.DESC

The fast dog(s).

or

/sôṵlà àˈwá̰/

sun yellow.DESC

The yellow sun.

In the last case, it would never make any sense to say /áˈwà̰ sôṵlà/, unless for some reason we were disambiguating between multiple suns.

Articles

There are no definite articles, but there is an indefinite article clitic. It occupies the demonstrative syntactic "slot" and has the allomorphs /tí-/ before a consonant and /ít-/ before a vowel e.g.

/tí=dô̰k/

INDEF=dog

a dog

/ít=ˈḛ̂nèm/

INDEF=enemy

an enemy

Kämpya nouns are not inflected for singular or plural, but when they take the indefinite article, they are only ever singular, so the above examples could never mean "some dogs" or "some enemies".

It is important to distinguish the indefinite article from the word for one /tìʔ/. The indefinite article is a clitic, which has no stress and is phonologically part of whatever word follows it i.e. it will have plain High Pitch no matter whether it is followed by a noun or (restrictive) adjective. On the other hand, the numeral /tìʔ/ - "one" is phonologically a separate word. In terms of the tonal morphology, it (like all other numerals) belongs to category 2, and is thus pronounced with Low Pitch.

Compare:

/tí=dô̰k/

INDEF=dog

a dog

with

/tìʔ dô̰k/

one dog

one dog

The numeral for "one" (or any other numerals) cannot be used with the indefinite article, so */tí=tìʔ dô̰k/ is ungrammatical.

However, (restrictive) adjectives can intervene between the indefinite article and the noun e.g.

/ít=áˈwà̰ dô̰k/

INDEF=yellow.REST dog

a yellow dog

Demonstratives

Kämpya's system of demonstratives is more complex than English. Unlike English which only makes a two-way distinction between "this" and "that", Kämpya makes a five-way contrast between "this" (on the same level as the speaker), "this" (above / uphill from the speaker), "this" (below / downhill from the speaker), "that" (far from the speaker but still visible) and "that" (invisible to the speaker). The distinction between uphill and downhill objects is particularly relevant for most Kämpya speakers, since they mostly live along a mountainous coastline. Dialects spoken in flatter areas tend to simplify the system.

It also uses tone to distinguish pronominal demonstratives (e.g. in the sentence "This is a cat") from adnominal demonstratives (e.g. in the sentence "This cat is here"). It also uses tone to make a further distinction in adnominal demonstratives depending on whether they are describing a place (in which case they are clitics), or something else.

For example "this mountain" is /dá=ˈméiʔnàn/, since a mountain is a place. But "this dog" is /dà̰ dô̰k/, since a dog is not a place.

Here is a table of the demonstratives:

	This (same level)	This (higher / uphill)	This (below / downhill)	That (visible)	That (invisible)
Pronominal	dâ̰	tʰéʔk	áuʔk	hôṵ	hlà̤n
Adnominal (Places)	dá	*t(ʰ)ék	áuk	*(h)óu	*hlàn
Adnominal (Other cases)	dà̰	tʰèʔk	àuʔk	hòṵ	hlà̤n

• /hóu-/ has the allomorph /*hów-/ before a vowel. Before a word containing an aspirated consonant, a voiceless nasal or another /h/, the initial /h/ is dropped e.g. /óu=pʰò̤wè/ - "that forest", not */hóu=pʰò̤wè/. Under similar conditions, the initial /h/ in /hlàn/ is lost, as well as the aspiration in /t(ʰ)ék/.

Possession

Kämpya distinguishes alienable and inalienable possession. In both cases, possessors are marked with the cliticised case marker /ja/, and come before the noun they possess. But inalienable possessors are in Tone Class 2 e.g.

/dò̰k=jí bâṵn/

dog=GEN.INALIENABLE bone

The dog's bone (i.e. in it's body).

While alienable possessors are in Tone Class 1 e.g.

/dô̰k=jì bâṵn/

dog=GEN.ALIENABLE bone

The dog's bone (i.e. that it is chewing on / has buried etc.)

Unlike in English, there are no restrictions on possessing a noun modified by a demonstrative or an article. So it is perfectly grammatical to say the following:

/dô̰k=jì dà̰ bâṵn/

dog=GEN.ALIENABLE this bone

This bone of the dog's (literally "the dog's this bone").

Relative Clauses

In the same way as with adjectives, Kämpya places relative clauses before the head noun if they are restrictive, and after the noun if they are non-restrictive e.g.

/ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù bíʔ dô̰k áˈwâḭ/

lizard=ERG bite dog flee

The dog that the lizard had bitten fled.

Or, using a non-restrictive relative clause:

/dô̰k ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù bíʔ áˈwâḭ/

dog lizard=ERG bite flee

The dog, which the lizard had bitten, fled.

However, in Kämpya and unlike in English, the accessibility hierarchy is very important [17]. In every case, the head noun must be the absolutive argument of the verb in the relative clause. If it would not normally be so, then it must be put into the absolutive case by strategies such as antipassivisation on the verb e.g.

/θú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd áˈwâḭ/

ANTIP=bite lizard flee

The lizard that had bitten it fled.

Or in a non-restrictive relative clause:

/ˈlḭ̂zàd θú=bíʔ áˈwâḭ/

lizard ANTIP=bite flee

The lizard, which had bitten it, fled.

Or an applicative construction can be used e.g.

/ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù bíʔ=kà pʰò̤wè m̥ôṵ/

lizard=ERG bite=LOC forest small

The forest that the lizard bit it in is small.

And in a non-restrictive relative clause:

/pʰò̤wè ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù bíʔ=kà m̥ôṵ/

forest lizard=ERG bite=LOC small

The forest, which the lizard bit it in, is small.

Mood/Evidentiality

While Kämpya does not mark tense or aspect, mood / evidentiality is very important (the grammar conflates the two). They are marked with a proclitic, that usually comes immediately before the verb, but can occur in many other positions.

Negative Mood

The basic way to negate something is to place the clitic /na/ immediately before it e.g. from the sentence

/té=bíʔ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite dog.

You were bitten by the dog.

We can say

/té=ná=bíʔ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=NEG=bite dog

You weren't bitten by the dog.

as well as

/ná=té=bíʔ dô̰k/

NEG=2PS.ACC=bite dog

You weren't bitten by the dog. / It's not you that was bitten by the dog.

and

/té=bíʔ ná=dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite NEG=dog

You weren't bitten by the dog. / It wasn't the dog that bit you.

However, when a noun is topicalised, it cannot be attached to /na/. So */ná́=dô̰g té=bíʔ/ is ungrammatical.

As we can see, /na/ can attach to either nouns or verbs. It can also attach to adjectives e.g.

/té=bíʔ ná=m̥ôṵ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite NEG=small.REST dog

You weren't bitten by the small dog (i.e. you were bitten by the big one)

And adverbs e.g.

/té=bíʔ nà=déiʔp dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite NEG=deep.ADV dog

You weren't bitten deeply by the dog.

However, if the word after /na/ begins with a vowel, an epenthetic /w/ is inserted e.g.

/té=náw=áˈlâṵn dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=NEG=abandon dog

You weren't abandoned by the dog.

Necessitative Mood

This is used to indicate that something ought to / is required to happen. It is indicated using the proclitic /ga/, or /gat/ before a vowel (from English "gotta") e.g.

/ái=gá=déˈpʰáʔɾ/

1PS.EXCL=NEC=depart

I / we (not including you) need to depart.

When attached to a 1st person inclusive pronoun, it often functions similarly to English "let's" e.g.

/wéi=gá=déˈpʰáʔɾ/

1PS.INCL=NEC=depart

Let's depart / We (including you) need to depart

When attached to a 2nd person pronoun, it often functions like an imperative e.g.

/jéi=gá=déˈpʰáʔɾ/

2PS=NEC=depart

Depart / You need to depart

Like other mood particles, /ga/ does not need to attach to a verb. It can attach to other parts of speech depending on the focus of the speaker e.g.

/jéi=déˈpʰáʔɾ gà=ˈzwéʔp/

2PS=depart NEC=fast

You need to depart quickly (in this case, it is already assumed that the listener is departing, and the speaker wishes to emphasise that it should happen quickly).

Prohibitive Forms

Kämpya has a special pattern to say that something is forbidden. This is to use the necessitative mood, and also change the verb from Tone Class 1 (the normal class for verbs) to Tone Class 2 (for infinitives). It is then followed by the verb /nâ̰/ e.g.

/jéi=gát=áˈlàṵn nâ̰/

2PS.INTR=NEC=alone.INF PROH

Don't be alone.

This pattern can also be used for transitive verbs

/jô̰ gá=bìʔ nâ̰ dô̰k/

2PS.ERG NEC=bite.INF PROH dog

Don't you bite the dog.

It is also perfectly possible to front the argument of /nâ̰/ e.g.

/dô̰k jô̰ gá=bìʔ nâ̰/

dog 2PS.ERG NEC=bite.INF PROH

The dog must not be bitten (by you).

Other nouns can be used apart from the 2nd person pronouns e.g.

/ˈsʰíʔtà=zù gá=bìʔ nâ̰ dô̰k/

guardian=ERG NEC=bite.INF PROH dog

The guardian must not bite the dog.

Optative Mood

This is used for things that the speaker hopes will happen / have happened. It is formed with the proclitic /wana/ (or /wan/ before a vowel) e.g.

/ái=wáná=déˈpʰáʔɾ/

1PS.EXCL.INTR=OPT=depart

I / we (not including you) want to depart.

/té=wáná=bíʔ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=OPT=bite dog

I want you to be bitten by the dog.

/té=bíʔ wáná=dô̰k/

2PS.ACC bite OPT=dog

I want you to be bitten by the dog (and not another animal).

/té=bíʔ wáná=m̥ôṵ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC bite OPT=small.REST dog

I want you to be bitten by the small dog (and not a big one).

Conditional Mood

This is used for situations which may not necessarily come true / have true, but are dependent on something else. It is marked with the proclitic /kau/ (or /kaw- before a vowel). The origin of this proclitic is the Thai particle /kɔ̂ː/ e.g.

/ái=káu=déˈpʰáʔɾ/

1PS.EXCL.INTR=COND=depart

I / we (not including you) would depart (if something else happens).

/ái=déˈpʰáʔɾ kò=ˈzwéʔpìd/

1PS.EXCL.INTR depart COND=fast

I/ we (not including you) would depart quickly (but unless some other event happens, it will be slow)

Sentences in the conditional mood can occur after sentences with another mood. In this case, the event described in the conditional mood only happens if the preceding sentence comes true e.g.

/jéi=wáná=déˈpʰáʔɾ ái=káw=áˈlâṵn/

2PS.INTR=OPT=depart COND=1PS.EXCL=alone

I want you to leave so I / we (not including you) can be alone.

Hypothetical Mood

The proclitic /pʰí/ (/ípʰ/ before a vowel) is used for hypothetical and counterfactual situations. It often corresponds to cases where English would use "if" (which it is indeed cognate to) e.g.

/jéi=pí=déˈpʰáʔɾ/

2PS.INTR=HYP=depart

If you depart ...

A clause in the hypothetical mood is very often followed up with a clause in the conditional mood e.g.

/jéi=pí=déˈpʰáʔɾ ái=káw=áˈlâṵn/

2PS.INTR=HYP=depart COND=1PS.EXCL=alone

If you leave, I / we (not including you) will be alone.

Notice in both of the above sentences, Grassman's law has resulted in a loss of aspiration on the prefix, so /pʰí/ becomes /pí/

Direct Evidential

If a speaker is reporting something that they have experienced, then no clitic is used e.g.

/dô̰k áˈlâṵn/

dog alone

The dog is alone (maybe the speaker can see it)

Reportative Evidential

If the speaker is reporting information that someone else told them, the proclitic /sʰái/ (/sʰáj/ before a vowel) is used. This is etymologically related to English "say" e.g.

/dô̰k sʰáj=áˈlâṵn/

dog REP=alone

I've been told that the dog is alone.

/áˈlâṵn sʰái=dô̰k/

alone REP=dog

I've been told that it is the dog that is alone.

Inferential Evidential

If the speaker is arriving at a judgment based on some kind of direct physical evidence, then the proclitic /ge/ is used (/ges/ before a vowel). This is etymologically related to English "guess" e.g.

/dô̰k gés=áˈlâṵn/

dog INFR=alone

The dog must be alone (maybe the speaker sees only a single set of dog footprints)

Assumptive Mood

This is used when the speaker is making an assertion based on their experience with similar situations, or when (at least in their judgement), the situation is general knowledge. It uses the proclitic /mat/ (/mats/ before a vowel). This is etymologically related to English "does" e.g.

/sôṵlà máts=áʔp/

sun ASS=rise

The sun rises (the speaker is referring to a well known fact).

Compare the above sentence to one without an evidential particle e.g.

/sôṵlà áʔp/

sun rise

The sun has risen (the speaker has seen it).

Interrogative Mood

This is used for polar questions (those expecting a yes/no answer). It is formed with the clitic /dú/ (etymologically related to English "do") e.g.

/té=dú=bíʔ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=POLQ=bite dog

Were you bitten by the dog?

as well as

/dú=té=bíʔ dô̰k/

POLQ=2PS.ACC=bite dog

Were you weren't bitten by the dog? / Was it you that was bitten by the dog?

and

/té=bíʔ dú=dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite POLQ=dog

Were you bitten by the dog? Was it the dog that bit you?

Like with /na/, /du/ can also attach to adjectives e.g.

/té=bíʔ dú=m̥òṵ dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite POLQ=small.REST dog

Were you bitten by the small dog? / Was it the small dog that bit you?? (or were you bitten by the big dog?)

And adverbs e.g.

/té=bíʔ dù=déiʔp dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=bite POLQ=deep.ADV dog

Were you bitten deeply by the dog? (or was it a shallow bite?)

However, if the word after /du/ begins with a vowel, an epenthetic /w/ is inserted e.g.

/té=dúw=áˈlâṵn dô̰k/

2PS.ACC=POLQ=abandon dog

You weren't abandoned by the dog.

Responses to Polar Questions

To answer a polar question in the negative, the particle /nâ̰/ is used e.g.

A) /dô̰k dú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog POLQ=bite lizard

Did the dog bite the lizard?

B) /nâ̰/

no

No

Answering a polar question in the affirmative is more complicated. There is no single word corresponding to English "yes". The answer depends on why the speaker believes the answer to be true.

If the speaker has seen or participated in the action, then they simply repeat whatever came after /du/ in the question e.g.

A) /dô̰k dú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog POLQ=bite lizard

Did the dog bite the lizard?

B) /bíʔ/

bite

Yes (I saw it)

But in other cases, there are special particles (related to the evidential/mood clitics). If the speaker believes the answer to be yes because someone told them so, then the particle /hḭ̂/ is used e.g.

A) /dô̰k dú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog POLQ=bite lizard

Did the dog bite the lizard?

B) /hḭ̂/

REP

Yes / I've heard so.

If the speaker believes the answer to be yes because there is direct physical evidence, they use the particle /gè̤/ e.g.

A) /dô̰k dú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog POLQ=bite lizard

Did the dog bite the lizard?

B) /gè̤/

INFR

Yes / It looks like it (maybe there is a bite mark on the lizard)

If the speaker believes the answer to be yes because of their experience with similar situations, or because it is general knowledge, they use the particle /mà̤t/ e.g.

A) /dô̰k dú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog POLQ=bite lizard

Did the dog bite the lizard?

B) /mà̤t/

ASS

Yes / I believe so (maybe because the dog regularly bites the lizard)

If the question entails an assumption that the speaker wishes to deny the truth of, then a special particle /pàṳ/ is used e.g.

A) /jó=wòṳ jô̰ báˈsjàʔp dú=tóʔp/

2PS.GEN=wife 2PS.ERG beat.INF POLQ=stop

Have you stopped beating your wife?

B) /pàṳ/

CHALLENGE.PRESUPPOSITION

I wasn't beating my wife.

If the speaker doesn't know the answer to a question, they can answer with the particle /dṵ̂/ e.g.

A) /dô̰k dú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog POLQ=bite lizard

Did the dog bite the lizard?

B) /dṵ̂/

POLQ

I don't know either.

Wh-Questions

These are formed by using interrogative pronouns. There is no distinction between "who" and "what" e.g.

/báj=ˈḛ̂nèm/

Q.INTR=enemy

Who / What is the enemy?

or

/ˈbwḛ̀lí=hwám bá=ˈdéˈpʰáʔɾ/

Hkonat=from Q.INTR=depart

Who / What departed from the valley?

/hwéi=ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

Q.ERG=bite lizard

Who / What bit the lizard?

/ké=ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

Q.ACC=bite lizard

Who / What did the lizard bite? (because the verb takes a pronoun, the word for lizard does not take the ergative case)

/ˈsʰíʔtà ˈkèʔ=ɾí dò̰k=gó θú=gḭ̂p/

guardian Q.ACC=SEC dog=DAT ANTIP=give

Who / What did the guardian give to the dog?

When English would use a word such as "where" or "when", Kämpya instead uses /kḛ̀/ (the accusative emphatic interrogative pronoun) with a postposition e.g.

/ˈḛ̂nèm ˈkḛ̀=hwám déˈpʰáʔɾ/

enemy Q.ACC=from depart

Where did the enemy depart from?

/dô̰k=zù ˈkḛ̀=wé ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG Q.ACC=TEM bite lizard

When did the dog bite the lizard?

/dô̰k=zù ˈkèʔ=ⱱíŋ ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG Q.ACC=INS bite lizard

How did the dog bite the lizard?

/dô̰k=zù ˈkèʔ=há ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG Q.ACC=LOC bite lizard

Where did the dog bite the lizard?

Asking about Possessors

Kämpya has no word meaning "whose". Instead it is necessary to ask "Who has ...?", combined with a relative clause e.g.

/dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd éi=ˈhḛ̂b/

dog=ERG bite lizard Q.ERG=have

Whose lizard did the dog bite? (literally "Who has the lizard that the dog bit?")

or

/ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ dô̰k éi=ˈhḛ̂b/

lizard=DAT ANTIP=bite dog Q.ERG=have

Whose dog bit the lizard? (literally "Who has the dog that bit the lizard?")

Other Interrogatives that modify noun phrases

To ask questions like "Which lizard did the dog bite?", attach the clitic bá- (or báj- before a vowel) to the noun being asked about e.g.

/dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ bá=ˈlḭ̂zàd/

dog=ERG bite Q.INTR=lizard

Which lizard did the dog bite?

However, bá- can only attach to a noun in the absolutive case. To ask about the subject of a transitive verb, it is necessary to antipassivise the verb. e.g.

/ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ bá=dô̰k/

ANTIP=bite Q.INTR=dog lizard=DAT

Which dog bit the lizard?

Attaching the clitic to a noun in the ergative case is ungrammatical e.g. */bá=dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ lḭ̂zàd/. Also the clitic cannot attach to a topicalised noun e.g. */bá=dô̰k ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ/.

To ask about the object of a postposition, an applicative construction is needed e.g.

/ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù dò̰k=gó ˈbíʔ=kà bá=pʰò̤wè /

lizard=ERG dog=DAT bite=LOC which=forest

Which forest did the lizard bite the dog in?

Verb Subordination

The subordinate clause is always placed at the end of the sentence. The superordinate verb takes a pronominal prefix to mark whether the subordinate verb is the accusative, ergative or intransitive argument of the verb:

	Accusative	Ergative	Intransitive
Before a consonant	nó	njá	sí
Before a vowel	ón-	áŋ-	íts-
Emphatic	nò̰	njà̰	ì̤t

For example, from the sentence:

/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù sʰái=ˈsâ̰pè míʔnà/

mother=ERG REP=know everyone

I've heard the mother knows everyone.

We can replace the object with a pronoun to get

/múˈhḛ̂ lé=sʰái=ˈsâ̰pè/

mother 1PS.INCL.ACC=REP=know

I've heard the mother knows us (including you).

If there is a subordinate clause, then the accusative pronoun is replaced with /nó/ e.g.

/múˈhḛ̂ nó=sʰái=ˈsâ̰pè ˈdô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

mother SBRD.ACC=REP=know dog=ERG bite lizard

I've heard the mother knows the dog bit the lizard.

If the superordinate clause's absolutive argument is also the topic of the subordinate clause, then it does not need to be mentioned twice e.g.

/múˈhḛ̂ nó=sʰái=ˈsâ̰pè ˈdô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ/

mother SBRD.ACC=REP=know dog=ERG bite

I've heard the mother knows the dog bit her.

It would be redundant to say something like ?/múˈhḛ̂ nó=hí=ˈsâ̰pè ˈdô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ mùˈhḛ̂/.

And another example using a postposition:

/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾá péiʔk kʰḭ̂d ˈdô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/

mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child dog=ERG bite lizard

The mother told the child that the dog bit the lizard.

And as before, the absolutive argument of the superordinate clause can be the topic of the subordinate clause e.g.

/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾá péiʔk kʰḭ̂d wá=bàṵn=tá gá=gḭ̂p dô̰k/

mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child INDEF=bone=SEC NEC=give dog

The mother told the child that he / she (the child) must give the dog a bone.

/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=péiʔk wá=bàṵn=tá gá=gḭ̂p dô̰k/

mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT ANTIP=speak INDEF=bone=SEC NEC=give dog

The mother told the child that she (the mother) must give the dog a bone.

Note that the subordinate clause must be marked for evidentiality (always from the speaker's point of view). Compare the above sentence with:

/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=péiʔk tí=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/

mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT ANTIP=speak INDEF=bone=SEC give dog

The mother told the child that she (the mother) gave the dog a bone (the speaker saw the act of giving).

/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=péiʔk tí=bàṵn=tá sʰái=gḭ̂p dô̰k/

mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT ANTIP=speak INDEF=bone=SEC REP=give dog

The mother told the child that she (the mother) gave the dog a bone (the speaker didn't see the act of giving, but heard about it).

Anti-Logophoricity

If the subordinate clause contains a transitive verb, then the 3rd person obviative ergative pronoun ðjíʔ can be used as a kind of "anti-logophoric" pronoun [18] to indicate that subject of the subordinate clause's transitive verb is not the absolutive argument of the main clause.

So if the above 2 sentences take ðjíʔ, then they become:

/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾá péiʔk ˈkʰḭ̂d ðjíʔ tí=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/

mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child 3PS.OBV.ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give dog

The mother told the child that he / she (someone other than the child, either the mother or someone else) gave the dog a bone.

/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=ˈpéiʔkðjíʔ tí=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/

mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT ANTIP=speak 3PS.OBV.ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give dog

The mother told the child that he / she (someone other than the mother, either the child or someone else) gave the dog a bone.

Evidentials and Reported Speech

Indirect Reported Speech

In this case, when reporting what someone else has said, both clauses need to marked for evidentiality, both from the point of view of the speaker e.g.

/ˈkʰḭ̂d ˈnòʔ=ɾá mí=ˈpéiʔk ˈḛ̂nèm déˈpʰáʔɾ/

child SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak enemy depart

The child told me the enemy had departed (and I saw it happen too).

If the speaker is reporting an event that someone told them about, but that they have not seen themselves, then they need to use an evidential in the subordinate clause e.g.

/ˈkʰḭ̂d ˈnòʔ=ɾá mí=ˈpéiʔk ˈḛ̂nèm sái=déˈpʰáʔɾ/

child SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak enemy REP=depart

The child told me the enemy had departed (but I didn't see it, I just heard about it).

Direct Reported Speech

In this case, there is no superordinate verb marking. The quoted speech is places at the end of the sentence, preceded by the particle /ðéʔ/ and followed by the particle /tḛ̂/ e.g.

/ˈkʰḭ̂d mí=ˈpéiʔk ðéʔ ˈḛ̂nèm déˈpʰáʔɾ tḛ̂/

child 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak QUOTE enemy depart QUOTE

The child told me that the enemy had departed

In the above sentence, the speaker is saying the the child had used the direct evidential when reporting the enemy's departure, meaning that the speaker is reporting that the child implied that they had witnessed it themselves. This sentence conveys no information about whether or not the speaker had also seen the departure.

Compare:

/ˈkʰḭ̂d mí=ˈpéiʔk ðéʔ ˈḛ̂nèm sái=déˈpʰáʔɾ tḛ̂/

child 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak QUOTE enemy REP=depart QUOTE

The child told me that he had heard that the enemy had departed (and not witnessed it himself).

Comparative Constructions

To say "more than ...", Kämpya speakers say ... /tʰáp/, where /tʰáp/ is a postpositional clitic that also means "above" e.g.

/dô̰k ˈlḭ̀zád=tʰáp zwéʔp/

dog.TOP lizard=above fast

Dogs are faster than lizards (literally "Dogs are fast above lizards").