Corrádi

Introduction

It has long been assumed that Minhay had been settled during nomadic tribes during the Ice Ages, part of the general migrations that eventually peopled Siberia, the Americas, and Ainushir. Traditional accounts claim that three ethnic groups, the Golahats, the Peshpegs, and the Minhast came to Minhay at around the same time, but eventually the Minhast eventually dominated the island. During the mid 1950's, foreign archaeologists from the West were finally allowed to enter Minhay, and their preliminary excavations came up with puzzling results. The closest relatives of the Minhast are believed to be the Ainu of neighboring Kar-put-ya-Moshir (Sakhalin), Hokkay and Honesh-Pet (formerly known as Honshu before the partition of the Japanese Empire by the Kingdom of Koguryeo and the Ainu Federation). But the Ainu, or their putative ancestors, the Jōmon, are known to have occupied the region as early 14,500 BCE. The earliest artifacts found in Minhay that could be definitively attributed to the Minhast are flint arrows and iron swords dated as recent as 300 CE. Golahat and Peshpeg artifacts are far rarer, but the earliest of those artifacts date to circa 130 CE. This indicates that the Minhast, Golahats, and Peshpegs came much later, several millenia after the great Paleosiberian migrations that led to the peopling of northeast Siberia and the Americas.

So it was a groundbreaking discovery, and shock to many, when in the late 70's the Kūtan excavations in south-central Minhay uncovered artifacts from an unknown civilization that dated around 1500 BCE. These artifacts included bronze tools and weapons, glazed pottery, lifelike statues and figurines, and the remnants of large stone buildings suggestive of palaces or temples. Moreover, the remnants of several parchment scrolls written in an unknown script and language were found. Less than a decade later, in March 12, 1985, several scrolls, in the same script as the ones found in Kūtan, were discovered in an inconspicuous cave in Mt. Irraħma. Unlike the scrolls discovered in Kūtan, the ones found in Mt. Irraħma were dated as late as the 1700's. These scrolls were written in the same language as Kūtan , but also included transcripts in the Minhast script, along with a dictionary and grammar, providing the Rosetta Stone to the Corrádi language.

The texts mentioned a city called Vórina which lay 50km south of the capital, Aškuan. In fact, the author had written precise directions where to find the lost city. Archaeologists went to where the purported Vórina was located, in an extensive hardwood forest that reached the edge of Minhay's southern coast. A few days before the archaeologists arrived, lidar imagery was taken of the area and revealed several large mounds underneath the canopy. Excavations began, and soon a treasure trove of artifacts were unearthed. Pillars and the remnants of buildings were found bearing a script very similar to the Irraħma scrolls engraved into the stone. Another surprise: in the lower strata were sedimentary deposits clearly indicating the city at one time was on the coastline. It was in this same strata that there were indications that a major earthquake had struck the area, and a thin layer of what could only be marine sediment - which could have been deposited there by a tsunami. And one more disturbing discovery. Flint arrowheads and signs of fire damage abound in this layer. The flint arrowheads were the hattīya, bearing the same design used by the Horse Speakers of the Central Plateau.

The scrolls reveal that the Corrádi language is unrelated to any northeastern Asian language. Possible relationships with Austronesian and other southeast Asian languages have been conclusively ruled out. Other hypotheses have been presented, but none have succeeded in establishing a relationship with other language families. Therefore, Corrádi has been classified as a language isolate.

Morphology

Nouns

Core: varso, varso-n Genitive: varso-s, varso-nis Obl: varso-n, varso-ne

It looks simple, but the rules for its usage is complicated when it's integrated into a long NP chain. Here's a quote of some of the rules of its usage: -- "Varsoncáris" ("In the village") --> "Varso-n=cár-(i)s" --> village-OBL=LOC-GEN

At one time the LOC "=car=" was once a relational noun, "*ocarei" (cf "ocairth" = "place"), which degraded to a clitic (so it was originally something like this: "*varso-n ocarei-s" i.e. "the place's village"). Heads are followed by their modifiers in Old and Late Corradi, so "=car=" followed the NP it modified. Modifiers typically take the GEN, which is why you see the "-(i)s" form as seen in the previous two examples ("riélinacár-is" and "varsoncár-is"). Moreover, it is the Genitive of the **head** noun's declension class that is attached to the final element. The Oblique case is descended from the Construct State affix, which explains the reconstruction, "*varso-n ocarei-s". The reconstructed relational nouns acted as attributes (i.e. adjectively), so their case inflections mirrored that of the declension class its noun head belonged to, c.f. "varsoncáris" vs "thaenroncáros" (in the hero's person/hand/possession/etc). The clitics retained the GEN affix, a historical reminder that the clitics were once full-fledged nouns. Note that the noun head must be in the Oblique case before the adpositional clitics can be added. Things can get complicated if the head is followed by several adjectives, e.g. "varson novroth revu nistralcárins" < "varso-n novroth revu nistral-car-n-s" = "village busy beautiful large-in.the-of"("in the large, beautiful, bustling village"). Notice that the Suffixaufnahme-like process occurs only in the last element of the NP. I.e. it is the last element of the NP that receives adpositional and genitive case marking. Each element in the NP typically has scope over all elements to its left, up to the head noun. However, if an adjective or other modifier in the NP (e.g. adverbs, comparison particles, etc) has narrow scope (i.e. governs only the element to its immediate left), both elements receive Oblique marking (e.g. "varso-n revu caenridae-an thenoloc-on nistral-car-n-s" = "in the large, dark green, beautiful village" (village beautiful green dark large-in.the-of). To confuse things further, the Oblique endings are the ones that belong to the base form's declension - they do NOT take the Oblique endings of the head noun (varso-n), which is also inflected in the Oblique case. Here, the elements "caenridae-an thenoloc-on" are two adjectives, with "thenoloc-on" (dark-OBL.5DECL) having narrow scope over "caenridae-an" (green-OBL.1DECL); note that "caenridae-an" has scope over all the other elements to its left in the NP; had the element to its immediate left, "revu", been in the OBL.2DECL case, "caenridae-an" would have scope only over "revu".

Other resources

Old Corrádi: ""Rer-sem Nen-um-Thiyatsa orhad-a nen co ravín virél comái navúl." Come-[PST] Minhast burn.pillage-[3P.NOM] all thing allow stand NEG.EVID.VISUAL "I witnessed the Minhast (as they) began to burn and destroy everything, leaving nothing standing."

"Come" here is better translated as "to begin", because it's an auxiliary to the verb "orhad" (to burn, pillage, destroy, ruin). It turns out that the auxiliary verb take tense marking, and the main verb takes person marking, with the Agent argument obligatorily separating both verbs. I think either Nivkh or Chutchki (both are polysynthetic languages) does something like this, but they don't insert the Agent NP inside the verb complex between the auxiliary verb affix and the root. It'd be like saying "Want-ed John he-pet my dog". Is there an Indo-European language that marks tense in one verb and person in another verb in auxiliary_verb-to-dependent_verb structures and allows/requires the Agent to separate the two verbs? I don't know of any, but my knowledge of Indo-European morphosyntactic structures is limited to English and Spanish." --- Sketchlang of an extinct language, from a bilingual scroll in the Mount Irraħma archaeological excavations: Rer sem Minhasta orhada nen co ravín virél comái navúl. Come [pst] Minhast burn.pillage [pl] all thing allow stand not.at.all. "The Minhast came and burned everything down and left nothing standing." --- NOM: (zero) ACC: -ir GEN.ALIEN: -(e)ren GEN.INALIEN: -aptis, -apti, -atis, -ati DAT: -arha BEN: -iron ABL: -(i)c ALL: -lia LOC: -eth COM: -nor INS: -thore(n) For the Plural: NOM: -rosi ACC: -(h)aethis GEN.ALIEN: -orien GEN.INAL: -veris DAT: -canae BEN: -canae ABL: -ilar ALL: -stra LOC: -veth COM: -nor INS: -nor

I'm thinking of reducing these to three cases, NOM, ACC, and OBL, with the Oblique form used with adpositions. Also, I'll just use agglugination by tacking on "-si" before the case ending to indicate plurality, and if there are any other additional distinctions that need to be made on the noun, just add an additional suffix before or after the "-si-" affix.

============

Classical Corrádi

============

Rer-sem Nen-um-Thiyatsa orhad-a nen co ravín virél comái navúl." Come-[PST] Minhast burn.pillage-[3P.NOM] all thing allow stand NEG.EVID.VISUAL

Nouns

==============================================================================================================

[

  NOTES: 
  1) "-i-" is the usual epenthentic vowel
  2) The Oblique case, when paired with the Allative affix, can be fronted.  When done so it serves as a Partitive-Accusative

]

---

1st Declension "mard-" ("iron") --------------- "Anisan(u)nan(u)nesne"

Sg Pl

---

Core: mard-an mard-na Genitive: mard-is mard-nes Obl: mard-an mard-ne

Core: -an, -na Genitive: -is, -nes Obl: -an, -ne

---

2nd Declension "sirthe-" ("flower") --------------- "Sin(u)nans(u)ne Declension"

Sg Pl

---

Core: sirthe-0 sirthe-na Genitive: sirthe-s sirthe-ns Obl: sirth-in sirth-ne

Core: -0, -na Genitive: -s, -ns Obl: -n, -ne

---

3rd Declension "varso-" ("village") -------- "S(u)n(u)n(u)nisne Declension"

Sg Pl

---

Core: varso-0 varso-n Genitive: varso-s varso-nis Obl: varso-n varso-ne

Core: -0, -n Genitive: -(i)s, -nis Obl: -(i)n, -ne

(Simple possessive phrases) "Thaenr-on varso-s" (The hero of the village) "Varso-n thaenr-os" (The village of the hero)

(Example of something like "Suffixaufnahme"; occurs in "riél-") (Note: "riél-" is 4th Decl, but notice it takes the 3rd Declension Genitive ending, which matches that of "varso") "Várasem rion ceilára varso thaenron vístelos riélinacáris." --> "He killed the great (mighty) hero of the village in a wood." --> "Vára-sem rion ceilár-a varso-n thaenr-on vistel-os riél-in=a(r)=car-s"

** Note: NPs bracket-delineated ** --> "Vára-sem [rion] ceilár-a [varso-n [thaenr-on vistel-os]] [riél-n=a(r)=car-s]" --> do-PST 3S kill-3S village strength-CORE mighty-GEN wood-EPEN-OBL=INDEF=LOC-EPEN-GEN

"Varsoncáris" ("In the village") --> "Varso-n=cár-(i)s" --> village-OBL=LOC-GEN

-- Discussion -- At one time the LOC "=car=" was once a relational noun, "*ocarei" (cf "ocairth" = "place"), which degraded to a clitic (so it was originally something like this: "*varso-n ocarei-s" i.e. "the place's village"). Heads are followed by their modifiers in Old and Late Corrádi, so "=car=" followed the NP it modified. Modifiers typically take the GEN, which is why you see the "-(i)s" form as seen in the previous two examples ("riélinacár-is" and "varsoncár-is"). Moreover, it is the Genitive of the **head** noun's declension class that is attached to the final element.

The Oblique case is descended from the Construct State affix, which explains the reconstruction, "*varso-n ocarei-s".

The relational nouns acted as attributes (i.e. adjectively), so their case inflections mirrored that of the declension class its noun head belonged to, c.f. "varsoncáris" vs "thaenroncáros" (in the hero's person/hand/possession/etc). The clitics retained the GEN affix, a historical reminder that the clitics were once full-fledged nouns.

Note that the noun head must be in the Oblique case before the adpositional clitics can be added.

Things can get complicated if the head is followed by several adjectives, e.g. "varson novroth revu nistralcárins" < "varso-n novroth revu nistral-car-n-s" = "village busy beautiful large-in.the-of"("in the large, beautiful, bustling village"). Notice that the Suffixaufnahme-like process occurs only in the last element of the NP. I.e. it is the last element of the NP that receives adpositional and genitive case marking.

Each element in the NP typically has scope over all elements to its left, up to the head noun. However, if an adjective or other modifier in the NP (e.g. adverbs, comparison particles, etc) has narrow scope (i.e. governs only the element to its immediate left), both elements receive Oblique marking (e.g. "varso-n revu caenridae-an thenoloc-on nistral-car-n-s" = "in the large, dark green, beautiful village" (village beautiful green dark large-in.the-of). To confuse things further, the Oblique endings are the ones that belong to the base form's declension - they do NOT take the Oblique endings of the head noun (varso-n), which is also inflected in the Oblique case.

Here, the elements "caenridae-an thenoloc-on" are two adjectives, with "thenoloc-on" (dark-OBL.5DECL) having narrow scope over "caenridae-an" (green-OBL.1DECL); note that "caenridae-an" has scope over all the other elements to its left in the NP; had the element to its immediate left, "revu", been in the OBL.2DECL case, "caenridae-an" would have scope only over "revu".

---

4th Declension "rion-" ("mountain") --------------- "Sise Declension"

Sg Pl

---

Core: rion-0 rion-0 Genitive: rion-s rion-is Obl: rion-0 rion-e

Core: -0, -0 Genitive: -s, -is Obl: -0, -e

---

5th Declension "thaenr-" ("strength", "hero") ---"O-epenthentic declension", "Onosononensen Declension"

Sg Pl

---

Core: thaenr-on thaenor-on Genitive: thaenr-os thaenor-ens Obl: thaenr-on thaenor-en

Core: -on, [Root+epenthentic "-o-" +Root.final.consonant] -on Genitive: -os, [Root+epenthentic "-o-" +Root.final.consonant] -ens Obl: -on, [Root+epenthentic "-o-" +Root.final.consonant] -en

---

6th Declension "co" ("all") --------------- "Se Declension"

Sg Pl

---

Core: co-0 co-s Genitive: co-0 co-s Obl: co-0 co-e

Core: -0, -0 Genitive: -0, -0 Obl: -0, -e

---

Pronouns ------

3rd Person:

Core: roan roi-na Genitive: roan-s roi-ens Obl: roan roi-an

====================================================================================================

Verbs

====================================================================================================

Two "dummy" auxiliaries to host the TA markers if no other auxiliaries are available: 1) vara - for transitives 2) seda - for intransitives

AUX-TENSE Subj VERB-(Voice+GEN)-PERSON.MARKER (Obj)

Imperfect Aspect signaled by CV(C)-redup of 1st syllable of the Auxiliary verb

Passive Voice marker is descended from (passive) participle + GEN (CONN) affix.

"Rerersem Thaenron roan cavaitas" (Thaenron began to be tortured by them) re-rer-sem Thaenr-on roan cavai-at-a-s REDUP-begin-PST Thaenr-CORE 3P torture-PASS-3S.NOM-GEN (Lit: Thaenron became their tortured one)

==Syntax

---

NPs

---

N + Adj.GEN + Adv.GEN

---

Word Order

---

AuxV.SVO

============

Old Corrádi

============

1) Actual Text: "Rersem Nen-um-Thiyatsa orhada nen co ravín virél comái navúl."

2) Brackets indicate clausal/phrasal boundaries: "[[Rersem Nen-um-Thiyatsa orhada nen co] [ravín virél comái navúl]]"

3) Brackets indicate morphemes replaced by Gaps. "Rer-sem Nen-um-Thiyatsa orhad-a nen=co ravín virél-[sem] [roina] comái-[a] navúl."

4) Gloss: Come-[PST] Minhast burn.pillage-[3P.NOM] thing=all not.PST allow stand NEG.EVID.VISUAL

5) Translation: "I witnessed the Minhast (as they) began to burn and destroy everything, leaving nothing standing."

-- Discussion -- a) Why is 3P.SUBJ "roina" subjected to PRO in the second clause? - Answer: Corrádi uses a S/A Pivot. In the first clause, "Nen-um-Thiyatsa" (the Minhast) is the subject. "Roina" is dropped in the second clause because the S/A Pivot makes the Subject/Agent of the prior clause coreferent with that of the second clause. There is no danger of ambiguity, so "roina" can be dropped.

b) Why don't the verbs "virél-" and "comái-" take their usual marking (TA in the auxiliary, and person-number in the main verb)? - Answer: Unmarked auxiliaries and main verbs take TA and person-number marking from the previous clause, unless the verbs in the second clause differ from the first in the TA, person-number marking, or both. In this case, the TA and person-number marking of both clauses are identical, so only the first clause needs to be explicitly marked.

//Other Sentences "Seda-sem vriath comian-a nardel-in-vel-s." (INTRANS-PST turtle.CORE.3DECL swim-3S ice-OBL.3DECL-under-GEN.3DECL) = "The turtle swam underneath the ice.

============

Late Corrádi

============

"Yel nevratavi intuora, cintra ae”. Nothing is forever, all things end.