User:Nicomega/Kareyku

Kareyku is a case-heavy language with 11 cases and 6 evidentials. Here I was trying a new concept using more evidentials than verb-heavy morphology and being influenced from Japanese and Quechua, among others. It also uses some particles not unlike Chinese. Mostly the idea was to create a language where a lot of meaning could be conveyed as shortly as possible and using suffixes that convey a who-to-who relationship rather than personal suffixes.

Sample:

qappakas pilelcha

Of course I'm eating fish!

Introduction

Kareyku is a language that was long due. While I was working on some college exams I came across a very old paper with, what it seemed to be, notes on a language I had apparently abandoned. When I started looking at it I realized immediately that it was a very old jotting and that it had been discarded long ago, but as time had passed I decided I could give this language a better finale.

The notes were very inconsistent and even contradictory at times, with few examples jotted down with no translation which cannot be understood now. I tried to take as much of the original flavors of the language as I could and structure it, while giving sense and meaning to the sentences. What resulted is Kareyku.

Many years of reading about this language and that language gave me plenty of ideas I didn't have at the time I discarded it. Mostly this language consists of these new ideas rather than the original which is scarce and impossible to decipher, but not very developed.

Phonology

Kareyku uses a five vowel system similar to Latin. These are the Kareyku consonants:

Stops: p, t, k, b, d, g Palatal: ch /tʃ/, j /d͡ʒ/ Fricative:s, sh /ʃ/, h /x/ Nasals: n, m Laterals: l Liquid: r /ɾ/ Uvular: q /q͡χ/ Semi-consonants: w /w/, y /j/

These are all the sounds in Kareyku. The diphthongs being: ay, ey, oy, au, eu, ou.

An accent is used to mark where a particular word should be stressed when it is not in the second to last syllable.

Grammar

Kareyku doesn't use pronominal affixes per se. Although it does have independent pronouns the verb is inflected with what are called "transitions". The transitions indicate the "who to whom" character of the verb. There are 3 main transitions:

From 1st person to someone else From 2nd person to someone else From 3rd person to someone else

In the last two cases independent pronouns are provided to avoid confusion when needed. The logic for Kareyku speakers behind this is that you can only know your intentions. When someone has a present only the giver can know if you are going to give the present to me or to him, hence, the most complete transitions are from the first person, the one I'm sure.

Transition 1 is expressed by infix -ka Transition 2 is expressed by infix -da Transition 3 is expressed by infix -ta

This transitions are only for the Present tense. Kareyku doesn't use a negative particle, there are two different conjugations, positive and negative, for each tense. The negatives being:

Transition 1 is expressed by infix -ke Transition 2 is expressed by infix -de Transition 3 is expressed by infix -te

So, if you have the verb qappa 'to eat', qappaka means 'I eat (it)'. If you use pilé meaning 'fish' then you get qappaka pilé 'I eat fish' and the negative would be qappake pilé 'I don't eat fish'. The transitions are needed even when there is a subject present, and intransitive verbs take a transition as a subject but regardless the object. Thus, qappaka, can mean 'I eat (it)' as well as 'I am eating'.

Evidentials are used in Kareyku to mark how evident one statement is or the source of said statement. Only one evidential marker can be used each time, and they can be used either with verbs, adjectives or nouns. There are seven evidentials in Kareyku:

-s, -si Determines that the statement is fact either empiric or to the speaker. -n, -ni Determines that the speaker heard about the statement. -ch, -chi Determines that the speaker assumes the statement to be true. -l, -li Determines that the thing being referred is famous for doing what is stated.

-sha Determines that the speaker "believes" the statement to be true. -lya Determines that the thing being referred is infamous for doing what is stated. -lcha Determines that the statement is obvious.

So for instance, if we have the previous example sentence: qappaka pile 'I eat fish'. We can further develop it into:

qappakas pile. I eat fish (it's a fact, I'm doing it). qappakan pile. I eat fish (I have heard, I don't remember). qappakach pile. I eat fish (I assume, because I'm eating it). qappakal pile. I eat fish! (I'm famous for that!)

qappakasha pile. I believe I eat fish. qappakalya pile. I eat fish (I'm infamous for it, because I eat too much or I don't finish them). qappakalcha pile. I eat fish (duh! It's obvious!)

Evidentials have an active role in formality and informality contrast and in politeness vs. rudeness. For instance, it is considered in Kareyku culture that you should not always be sure of things you say, even when talking about yourself the continuous use of the "fact evidential" can result in rudeness. The rudest of them all, of course, is the "obvious evidential" which is considered very aggressive and rude, you should never point out to others they don't know something, even when you are right or even if the fact is really obvious.

The case with the "infamous evidential" is interesting. It used to be a respectful or augmentative equivalent of the "famous evidential" but as time passed it started to be felt pompous and so developed as a satirical comment, thus infamity for doing something too much.

Evidentials usage To clear up some doubts about evidentials I will clarify some with examples. For instance, how the "obvious evidential" is used. It is the equivalent to the usage we give to tone in this context, "duh!" and the like.

In a given dialogue:

- Chaman koy? - pilelcha!

This can be translated into:

- What is this? - Duh! It's a fish! or It's a fish, don't you see it?

Hence the interpretation as a rude or very informal referential. The "fact evidential" is really more neutral, but still informal. While it is common in normal speech, it can be rude using it to someone you don't know or an elder, or someone who deserves respect altogether.

Now the "infamous evidential" always marks someone for something his famous for abusing. For instance if you say qappatal can mean "he is famous for eating" as in "he enjoys it very much". But saying qappatalya will yield the sense "he is famous for eating" as in "he can't stop eating" or "he's a fat-ass". This ending used to be the much more formal, much older form of -l, used about people like the king "his majesty is most famous for defeating his enemies" and over time through popular usage it came to be pejorative but in a sense of excess.

Even if between friends you would tend to use -s the "fact evidential" it would be good to remind that when facing someone's father, for instance, it'd probably be better to use -sha "I believe". Even in the same example as before:

- Chaman koy? - What is this? - pilesha. - I believe it is fish.

While you could answer pile or piles to a friend or acquaintance. odanibeki las wile. I'm happy for being with you.