From Linguifex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Sanakas" Upā-a pid âdi-ra???
Created byIustinus
Setting(Unnamed conworld)
EthnicityCaryates (and subject/influenced peoples)
  • Samasian
    • Bataeo-Caryatic
      • "Caryatic"
Early form

Caryatic was dreamed up by Iustinus in between taking notes for Andrew Sihler's "Comparative Grammar: Indo-European Phonology," in fall of 1997. It was first committed to computer on Dec. 11 of that year. Work continued on and off until late 2003. The language remained largely dormant until 2013, when work resumed, albeit at an absurdly glacial pace. There was recently an uncharacteristic burst of activity for Lexember 2016.

The language was never fully complete, and much has been lost. As a result, much of this article will be necessarily vague or uncertain.


The original inspiration was to "reverse engineer" the reconstruction of Indo-European from its daughter languages—which felt like an amazing new idea at the time, but which I now know as one of the most common sorts of conlang. I had actually attempted this a couple times before (ðɛ̃ʃwa ɛ̃nɛ̃nõta, "Indo-Tonal), but never with the depth of knowledge I had acquired from my graduate-level Historical Linguistics classes.

Like most of my conlangs, it draws much inspiration from the classical languages, but has broader influence from the rest of the Indo-European family. The declension system was clearly modeled on Gothic, and the three-vowel system was at least partially influenced by Sanskrit's propensity for the phoneme /a/. The lack of voiced stops, on the other hand, was apparently inspired by Etruscan.

Involvement of other conlangers

Among other conlangers, the following have been involved in some way:

  • Eric Christopherson was probably the first conlanger ever to see the language. He received a letter (snail-mail, if I remember right) containing a number of my language files with a cover-letter describing them all. This seems to have been around fall 1998. He quickly became a big fan of my work, often liking my languages more than I myself did, and after various system upgrades and harddrive crashes resulted in barely legible files he even created his own version of the Caryatic file, which corrects some errors and gathers some materials that I had missed.
  • David Salo was another early fan and critic of the language, and, furthermore, enjoyed proposing material for it. He submitted two proposals for the writing system, and at least one map (these would have been ca. 2000—2002). None of these ever became official, though I had intended to use them as a basis for whatever did.
  • Nicomega probably first learned of the language in the mid 20-aughts, but never got to see all the materials. He was enjoying trying to piece things together from the fragments I gave him, and as of April 2014 was even working on a "Caryatic Report," writing up a description of the language, like some sort of scholar working from limited ancient evidence. He therefore is simultaneously excited and disappointed to see me posting a fullish description here.


Tai Kāriātās τὰς Καρυάτιδας sasaihant-ra?

Caryatic is a deliberate break from my previous conlanging work. Seeking to go in the opposite direction, I gave it a small phonetic inventory, few cases, and a name right from the start.

In the real world, the name "Caryatic" was certainly inspired by the word caryatid, but its in-story etymology is unclear. The speakers of the language are sometimes referred to by the Pseudo-Latin name "Caryates" (implying Caryatic *Kāriātas). It is likely that caryatids exist in-story, and quite plausible that they were invented by the Caryates. Perhaps this is a coincidence. (Note as well that the Greek word contains plain stops, while the name of Caryatic uses aspirated ones.)


Unlike many conlangers, I do not like to revise my languages. So if there are problems, I tend to be stuck with them. Here are some issues with Caryatic:

  • I may have overdone the small case system.
  • The tense/aspect system is a bit confused.
  • A lot of the sound changes seem wildly implausible.
    • In particular, while "sigmatization" seemed like a cool idea at the time, it now strikes me as confusing and generally a pain.
    • The treatment of laryngeals is also a little too creative.
  • A phonemic bilabial~labiovelar contrast? Seriously??
  • I was not very careful about the ordering of the soundlaws, resulting in many contradictions.
  • David Salo has suggested that it is unrealistic that the stops are never voiced under any conditions. (Perhaps I should make a rule that the unaspirated stops retain voicing when adjacent to a sonorant? In any case this is not the rule as things stand.)
  • It's one thing to change to postpositions, but having the Indo-European prepositions simply "reverse polarity" and go after the noun phrases they used to go before seems a bit unlikely.


Caryatic is from a thus-far still unnamed conworld, based loosely on the ancient Mediterranean. The premise is that this world has the same language families as earth, but different daughter languages. The following languages are known to exist:

  • Indo-European
    • Samasian
      • Bataeo-Caryatic
        • Caryatic (Detailed)
        • Bataic (sketched)
      • Aduro-Melavian
        • Aduric (roughly sketched)
        • Melavian (roughly sketched)
    • Eleraean
  • Afro-Asiatic
    • Semitic
      • Safuntic (named only)
    • Timuric (pretty much identical to Ancient Egyptian, since reconstructing the vowels makes it something of a conlang in itself)

In the context of this world, Caryatic roughly takes the place of Greek and Latin, Elerain that of Latin and Germanic. Safuntic takes the place of Phoenician, Timuric that of Egyptian.

the Samasian language family

The branch of Indo-European to which Caryatic belongs is called "Samasian." Three other Samasian languages have been named and loosely sketched: Aduric, Melavian, and Bataic. Here are some select isoglosses:

Caryatic Aduric Melavian Bataic
Sheep āvis u[w]is ûïs awis
Dog kū, kun- punas pû, pun- kwan
Horse ākus ipas ipus akwar
Clan gānās jinas, jinis- dinus, dinis- ganar
Darkness rābs ribas ribus ravar
Main article: Bataic

Of the three non-Caryatic Samasian languages, the only one described in any detail was Bataic, Caryatic's nearest relative. Bataic is the native language of the Alfagīnakā[1] region, which has been under Caryatic rule for "nearly 200 years." The capital of Alfagīnakā, from which Bataic gets its name, is Bātavaiks (Bataic Ɛbatawækar), in turn named after its patron goddess Bātā (Ɛbata).

Most Bataic speakers also speak Caryatic, though not all of them speak it well. Bataean Caryatic is mockingly refered to as Bātavāps, a play both on Bātavaiks, and on the fact that Bataeans tend to use vāps "voice," to mean "language," on analogy to its Bataic cognate waps.

the Caryatic pantheon

The following deities are known:

  • Gaus, Gaupitār,[2] king of the Gods.
  • Bātā, an unpredictable goddess, with a cult center at Bātavaiks.
  • Vitravān, god (or, more likely, demigod) of war.
  • Pārsavaka, goddess of agriculture.
  • Dinas Glānaras the twin sons of Gaus.


The setting, like the Mediterranean it is based on features three continents: Arūvā, Asūyā,[3] and Labūyā. Some geographical names that have been specified include:

  • Arūvā
    • Vātillā
    • Trasin
    • Lābusās
    • Āmbiās -ām (gentilic)
    • Sakarās -am (gentilic)
    • Alfagīnakā (province)
      • Bātavaiks (provincial capital)
        • Dīvakunis
    • (Other Caryatic cities, whose province has not been specified)
      • Lākas (imperial capital)
      • Turukaims[4]
      • Nuvilih
      • Ayurīgas -am
      • Dub[n]asrutā
      • Tassansrutā
  • Asūyā
    • Tivisā, Tivis
    • Timilās
    • Vilisā, Vilās
    • Suardā
    • Mādapīsāyā
    • Īriā
  • Labūyā
    • Sahhurmā
    • Labu
    • Kimis
    • Timuris
    • Kāsapa (Asis?)
    • Tanhās



Caryatic is believed to be written in an alphabetical system, which indicates vowel quantities. Two proposals for this system were submitted by David Salo, but both have been lost. There is some hope they might some day be recovered (perhaps with the proposed maps he drew).

The standard transcription works as follows:

Transcription IPA
a [a]
ā, â [ɑː]
b [p]
d [t]
f [f ~ v]
g [k]
h [x ~ ɣ]
i [i], [j]
ī, î [iː]
k [kʰ]
l [ɫ]
m [m]
n [n]
p [pʰ]
r [rʲ], [ʀʲ]
s [s ~ z]
t [tʰ]
u [u], [w]
ū, û [uː]
v, ϕ [ϕ ~ β]
y [j]


Bilabial Labiodental Alveolar Palatal Velar
Stops p [pʰ]
b [p]
t [tʰ]
d [t]
k [kʰ]
g [k]
Fricatives v, ϕ [ϕ ~ β] f [f ~ v] s [s ~ z] h [x ~ ɣ]
Nasal m [m] n [n]
Approximant u [w] r [rʲ ~ ʀʲ], l [ɫ] i, y [j]

Allophonic variation

  • Voicing:
    1. Vowels are always voiced. Stops are always voiceless. Resonants default to voiced, and fricatives to voiceless.
    2. Resonants lose their voicing when adjacent to stops.
    3. Fricatives are voiced between voiced sounds.
  • S-Assimilation:
    • Alveolars and nasals are dropped before an /s/, usually without compensatory lengthening. Note, however, that when an s is removed [see Sigmatization below] these segments normally reappear.
  • Sigmatization:
    • An aspirate stop preceded by an /s/ deaspirates, and the /s/ drops with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. (The transcription sometimes—albeit inconsistently—marks this by using a circumflex instead of a macron on the lengthened vowel. However, more often than not, circumflex is used ubiquitously)
    • While this process does occur across word boundaries, note that if a word begins with /s/ followed immediately by a stop, it is often lexicalized in the asigmatic form, and compensatory lengthening is unlikely to occur. Furthermore, the dropping of the s at the end of a word often allows elements which had dropped [i.e. alveolars and nasals] to reassert themselves.
  • Nasal assimilation: [Note that these sound laws are, for the most part, not reflected in the standard orthography]
    1. Nasals drop before homoörganic sounds, with nasalization of the previous vowel. (For the purpose of this rule, /n/ counts as homoörganic to both alveolar and velar sounds)
    2. Nasals assimilate to the place of the following sound.


  Front Near- front Central Near- back Back
Blank vowel trapezoid.svg
Front Central Back
High ī, î [iː]
i [i]
ū, û [uː]
u [u]
Low ā, â [ɑː]
a [a]

Allophonic variation

  • Hiatus
    • Two vowels in hiatus (i.e. ones that are adjacent, but do not form a diphthong) are separated by an epenthetic [ɦ]. This is not reflected in the standard orthography.


The accent is probably pitch-based, rather than stress-based, but this is uncertain.[5] It is assigned as follows:

  1. Accent falls on the long vowel nearest the beginning of the word (not counting clitics).
  2. If there are no long vowels, accent falls on the first syllable.



Nouns have three cases: nominative, genitive, and accusative (or, more accurately, "oblique.) In addition to the radical reduction of cases, case endings tend to undergo irregular sound changes that greatly shorten them. This causes nouns to behave in a fairly unpredictable manner—it can be very difficult indeed to guess a noun's declension class from the nominative alone, far more so than in, say, Latin.


This is the most common declension class.

"winged creature"
Singular Nominative ups ākus anitus nis pātās
Genitive upah ākuah anitlah nisdah pātnah
Oblique up āku anitu nisd pātna
Plural Nominative upās ākuās anitlās nisdās pātnās
Genitive upam ākuam anitlam nisdam pātnam
Oblique upans ākuans anitlans nisdans pātnans

The nominative singular is effectively replaced by the oblique when "sigmatization" occurs. The oblique is also used for the vocative singular.

kāras subtype

This declension is uncommon for words of native origin (e.g. kāras "horn"), but common in borrowings (e.g. urdigas "ramson," borrowed from Elerain). The a of the stem may be retained, ignored, or coalesced with a following a into ā.

Singular Nominative kāras urdigas
Genitive kārah, -aah, -āh urdigah, -aah, -āh
Oblique kāra urdiga
Plural Nominative kārās, -aās urdigās, -aās
Genitive kāram, -aam, -ām urdigam, -aam, -ām
Oblique kārans, -aans, -āns urdigas, -aans, -āns

dīus subtype

Dīus "god" declines somewhat irregularly and is marked by its genitive in -uh:

Singular Nominative dīus
Genitive dīuh
Oblique dīu
Plural Nominative dīūs
Genitive dīūm
Oblique dīvans

The neuter noun pāpu "wheel" has, for unknown reasons, the genitive pāpluh. It is unknown if it shares the other irregularities of dīus.

Singular Nominative yug miti kavi
Genitive yugah mitrah kaulah
Oblique yug miti kavi
Plural Nominative yugā mitrā kaulā
Genitive yugam mitram kaulam
Oblique yugā mitrā kaulā

consonant and i-stems

This class uses the nominative for direct address.

I have traditionally analyzed i-stems as a subclass of the consonant declension, but that may be undue influence from Greek and Latin.

Masculine and Feminine
Basic Pater-type i-stem

Singular Nominative sūr dikās patār hātmis
Genitive sūras kunas dikāntas patras hātmiās
Oblique sūra kuna dikānta patārn hātmin
Plural Nominative sūras kunas dikāntas patāras hātmias(?)
Genitive sūram kunam dikāntam patāram hātmiām
Oblique sūrans kunans dikantans patārans hātmians(?)
Basic r/n-stem mn̥-stem i-stem
"herbal infusion"
Singular Nominative gānās kār yāpi numir kanma mādi
Genitive gānāsas kidas yāpinas numanas kanmanas mādiās
Oblique gānās kār yāpi numir kanma mādi
Plural Nominative gānāsā kidā yāpinā numanā kanmanā mādiā
Genitive gānāsam kidam yāpinam numanam kanmanam mādiām
Oblique gānāsā kidā yāpinā numanā kanmanā mādiā


Masculine/Feminine Neuter
Singular Nominative sūnus turu
Genitive sūnus turus
Oblique sūnun turu
Plural Nominative sūnus turuā?
Genitive sūnum turum
Oblique sūnuns turuā?


This class, overwhelmingly feminine, is quite simple. The one complication is that a few words have a short a in the nominative as well as the oblique (a vestige of the devī-type.)

"earth, plane"
Singular Nominative bānā putavia
Genitive bānās putaviās
Oblique bāna putavia
Plural Nominative bānās putaviās?
Genitive bānām putaviām?
Oblique bānans putavians


The majority of adjectives decline like o-stems in the masculine and neuter, and like eH₂-stems in the feminine. The feminine stem is often irregular, or rather slightly different from the masculine and neuter stem. Note that even when the feminine form appears to have arisen historically from a devī-stem, the final is still long (e.g. kās, kānt, kānkā "last"—not, as one might expect, *kānkă.)

None of the adjectives in my original file appear to decline as consonant stems, or any other paradigm. It is unknown if this is a general feature of the language, or if I simply never got to designing any consonant-stem adjectives. But it seems that even nouns derived from present participles (e.g. isās, isāntah "being") decline as o-stems.


Personal pronouns

1 2 3
m n f
Singular Nominative igu is id ī
Genitive mama tava āh
Oblique ma tua i id ī
Plural Nominative yūs īas ī īas
Genitive asam usam īsam
Oblique asma usma ins ī īns

The original file gives "enclitic" forms for the first and second person pronouns, but I never decided when and how they would be used.

Demonstrative pronouns

The definite artcle and third person personal pronouns are both etymologically demonstratives, and may still be used this way.

The language presumably has other demonstratives, but they have yet to be described.


The definite article is extremely common, and is used in many cases where no article would be used in English.

m n f
Singular Nominative tād sī̆
Genitive tah tasīs
Oblique tād ti
Plural Nominative tai ti tis
Genitive taisam tisam
Oblique ns ti tins

When used tonically, the article is effectively a demonstrative: sī dimbā /siːtĩˈpɑː/ "the language," sī dimbā /ˈsiː tĩˈpɑː/ "this language."


Caryatic has an extensive set of postpositions. Most of these are used with the oblique case, a few take a genitive. Due to the minimal declension system, postpositions are often called to serve in the place of the cases Caryatic lacks. Here is a selection:

  • -ad, "to, towards" (sometimes used in place of the dative)
  • -anā (+ gen.), "regarding, about"
  • -an "at"
  • -a "in"
  • -sa "with" (instrumental)
  • -sānt "with" (equivalent to Latin "ablative of description")


Regular verbs have three principal parts:

  1. The present indicative stem
  2. The perfect indicative stem
  3. The perfect participle stem

Four tenses have been described at this point: the present, the imperfect the perfect and the aorist. Formally, the present and imperfect are formed off the present stem (though the imperfect has the "augment" prefix a-), and the perfect and aorist off the perfect stem. Conversely the present and perfect use the Indo-European "primary" endings, and the imperfect and aorist the "secondary" endings. Functionally, this allegedly reflects the combination of time and aspect, as follows:

Imperfective aspect Perfective aspect
Present time "Present" tense "Perfect" tense
Past time "Imperfect" tense "Aorist" tense

However, it is not clear that this theory holds up when compared to the existing corpus.

To Carry
Present stem Present Imperfect
Singular Plural Singular Plural
1 fāru fārāms afāram afārama 1
2 fārasi fāratis afāras afārata 2
3 fārī fāranti afāra afārant 3
Perfect stem Perfect Aorist
Singular Plural Singular Plural
1 fafāru fafārāms fafāram fafārama 1
2 fafārasi fafāratis fafāras fafārata 2
3 fafārī fafāranti fafāra fafārant 3
Primary endings Secondary endings

Irregular Verbs

There are two known irregular verbs, āsmi "be" and vāl(i)mi "want." In addition to being generally irregular, they share the following characteristics:

  1. They derive from Indo-European -mi paradigms.
  2. They lack the perfective/imperfective distinction, having only a "present" and "aorist" tense.
  3. The "aorist" is suppletive.
  4. They have enclitic forms in the present tense These are used in subordinate clauses, e.g.: kūs āsi-ga "you are a fish," but kūs âtti "that you are a fish."

It is not known if all Irregular verbs share all these features, nor whether there are any regular verbs that have any of them.

To Be
Present Singular Plural
Tonic Enclitic Tonic Enclitic
1 ā́smi- -āmmi ismā́s- -ānnas
2 ā́si- -ātta idā́- -ādus
3 ā́di- -ādi isā́nti- -ādi
Aorist Singular Plural
1 favam fuama
2 favas fuata
3 fava fuant

To Want
Present Singular Plural
Tonic Enclitic Tonic Enclitic
1 vā́l(i)mi- -vāmma vū́mās- -vūnnas
2 vā́l(i)si- -vālta vū́tā- -vūltus
3 vā́l(i)ti- -vālti vū́lānti- -vūti
Aorist Singular Plural
1 vākam ukama
2 vākas ukata
3 vāka ukant


Constituent order

Caryatic is strongly, nearly relentlessly, head-final. Basic word order is, therefore, SOV.

Noun phrase

Noun phrases go in the following order:

({Article}) ({Adective Phrase} or {genitive Noun Phrase}) Noun

Verb phrase

Verb phrases go in the following order

({indirect object} or {Postpositional Phrase}) ({direct object} or {dependent clause}) Verb

Sentence phrase

Kūs āsi-ra?
Kūs āsi-ra?

Main clauses end in sentence determiner, of which the following are known:

-ga declarative
-ra interrogative
-ya imperative
-dā exclamative


  • Kūs āsi-ga "You are a fish."
  • Kūs āsi-ra? "Are you a fish?"
  • Kūs āsi-ya! "Be a fish!"
  • Kūs āsi-dā! "You are a fish!"

There appears to be a particle -an for hypotheticals, but its usage is at present unclear.

When two main clauses occur in a row that should take the same sentence determiner, the first one may be replaced by -pā, which effectively means "and," e.g. Kūs āsi-pā pātas sāhasi-ra? "Are you a fish, and do you have feet?"

Dependent clauses

Dependent clauses do not use sentence determiners, and are marked by the clitic form of the verb, if it has one.

Example texts

Letter to The Salos

Sent to David and Dorothea Salo, this letter is actually a slightly modified version[6] of one originally written for Andrew Sihler. Both versions were likely sent in early January 1998.

Yūdīs Masfīus[SIC][7] tās Salūnas-ad
Ti taisam Kaimānam Pirâda-an āsmi. Sas vaiks anāï “Hell” nāma-sānt ādi-ga. Au sī pirâdā a “upānā” au kavānā âdi-ga. Ti mama dimba-sa garfu-ga. Tād āh nāma “Kāriātikā” âdi-ga. Igu tua ī-sa, tāssānt ī “Indaurupayā” âdi, garfu-ga. Tū pid hāsi-ra? Tū tī dimba gankasi-ra?
Justin Mansfield to the Salos
I am in the Cayman Islands. There is a town here named "Hell." But this island is not infernal but heavenly. I am writing you in my language. Its name is "Caryatic." I am writing you in it, because it is Indo-European. What do you think? Do you understand this language?


Yūdīs Masfīus[7] tās Salūnas-ad
[ˈjuːtiːz masˈfiːws[7] tʰɑːssaˈɫuːnazat]
Ti taisam Kaimānam Pirâda-an āsmi.
[tʰitʰajzãŋ̊kʰajˈmɑːnã pʰiˈrʲɑːtaɦan ˈazmika]
Sas vaiks anāï “Hell" nāma-sānt âdi-ga.
[sas ϕajkʰs aˈnɑːɦi] “Hell” [ˈnɑːmazɑ̃ːt ˈɑːtika]
Sā tisam taisam Kaimānam Pirādām vaiks, Hell nāma-sānt.
Au sī pirâdā a “upānā” au kavānā âdi-ga.
[aw ˈziː pʰiˈrʲɑːta ɦa ɦuˈpʰɑːnaː ɦaw kʰaˈβɑːnɑː ˈɦɑːtika]
Ti mama dimba-sa garfu-ga.
[tʰiˈmama ˈtĩpaza ˈkarʲvuka]
Tād āh nāma “Kāriātikā” âdi-ga.
[tʰɑːˈtɑːɣ ˈnɑːma ˈkʰɑːrʲjɑːtʰiˌkʰɑː ˈɦɑːtika]
Igu tua ī-sa, tāssānt ī “Indaurupayā” âdi, garfu-ga.
[ˈiku tʰwa ˈɦiːza tʰɑːssɑ̃t iː ɦĩtawrʲupʰaˈjɑːɦaːti ˈkarʲvuka]
Tū pid hāsi-ra?
[tʰuː pʰit ˈxɑːzirʲa]
Tū tī dimba gankasi-ra?
[tʰuː tʰiː ˈtĩpa ˈkãkʰazirʲa]

The above text, read by David Salo: File:David Salo reads the Epistle to Sihler.wav

On Dragons

The original file notes that this is "[f]rom a manuscript found in the Dîvakunis Archives at Bâtavaiks," which implies that this is an elementary text for Bataic speakers learning Caryatic. This may explain the inconsistent marking of sigmatization.

  1. Ti taisâm tâmasram dikântam gânâsâ pâmpâ isânti-ga.
    [tʰitʰajzɑːn̥tʰɑːmazrʲan̥ tiˈkʰɑ̃ːtʰaŋ̊ ˈkɑːnɑːzɑː ˈpʰɑ̃ːpʰɑː ɦiˈzɑ̃ːtʰika]
  2. Sâ âlfs dikâs[SIC] ti snaiva-a dâmâî-ga.
    [sɑːˈɦɑːɫfs tiˈkʰɑ̃ː[8] tiˈznajβaɦa ˈtɑːmɑːɦiːka]
  3. Sâ âh anitus[SIC] pâtâkâ praûs âdi-ga.
    [sɑːˈɦɑːɣ ˈanitʰuː ˈpɑːtʰɑːkʰɑː pʰr̥ʲaˈɦuːz ˈɑːtika]
  4. Sâ nâks dikâs[SIC] tis guarkan bântias-a raudî-ga,
    [sɑːˈnɑːkʰs tiˈkʰɑ̃ː tisˈkwar̥ʲkam ˈpɑːn̥tʰjaza rʲawˈtiːka]
  5. Is sama siyinkâ akuarin âghârfî-pâ, [............] pâpi-ga.
    [is sama zijĩ'kʰɑː ˈɦakʰwarʲin ˈɑːkxɑːrʲviːpɑː] ...... [ˈpʰɑːpʰika]
  6. Â, Tâ dârva-ân dâmâî dikânta, tâ hâl dikânta pîrîbâkyu-ya!
    [ɑː tʰɑːˈtɑːrʲβaɦɑ̃ː ˈtɑːmɑːɦiː tiˈkʰɑ̃ːtʰa tʰɑːˈɣɑːɫ̥ tiˈkʰɑ̃ːtʰa ˈpʰiːrʲiːpɑːkʰjuja]
  7. Sâ âh anitû di-ta numanâ, tân-da âpa bâaisî.
    [sɑːˈɦaːɣ aniˈtʰuː titʰa numaˈnɑː tɑ̃ːta 'ɦɑːpʰa 'pɑːɦajziː]
  8. Au sâ flaus dikâs[SIC] tis savas sinktuas[SIC] tâtikas-ân dâmâî-ga.
    [aw zɑː'vlaws tikɑ̃ː tisˈsaβas 'sĩkʰtʰwɑː 'tʰɑːtʰikʰazɑ̃ː 'tɑːmɑːɦiːka]
  9. ...............................
Au sā raus dikās Gambria-a dāmāī-ga!
On Dragons
  1. There are five kinds of evil dragons.
  2. The white dragon lives in the snow
  3. Its breath is deadly frost.
  4. The black dragon lurks in muddy swamps.
  5. It spits out a slick black acid, and eats [............].
  6. Beware the dragon that lives in the forest, the green dragon!
  7. Its breath burns the eyes and the lungs.
  8. But the blue dragon dwells in the hot sandy deserts.
  9. [It shoots a bolt of lightning from its mouth.]

Other resources

External Links


  1. ^ My notes on Bataic are, unfortunately, incomplete. In particular, they predate whatever I decided the outcomes of the syllabic resonants would be. As a result, the file lists the Bataic name for Alfagīnakā as "ælfag?næka." Thing is, I would have expected that /g/ to lenite to zero, *Ælfa?næka. I'm not sure if I'm right now or was right then.
  2. ^ This is how it is written in my notes, but the regular outcome would be *Gaupatār.
  3. ^ At least one early document that survives gives the first two continents as Airūsā and Āluyā respectively.
  4. ^ The name Turukaims has the unusual honor of being accepted in the canon, despite being coined by David Salo rather than myself. It appeared on one of his proposals for a Caryatic alphabet, which was supposedly based on the "Turukaims Stele."
  5. ^ In fact, this idea is very recent, and is based mainly on the fact that when David Salo attempted to read Caryatic outloud (December 2013—January 2014) he sounded much more convincing using a pitch accent than a stress accent.
  6. ^ In fact, they vary only in their salutation: the original reads Yūdīs Masfīus Andrayā Sīlir-ad.
  7. ^ a b c It really should be "Yūdīs Masfīld dās Salūnas-ad" [ˈjuːtiːz masˈfiːł̥t tɑːssaˈłuːnazat]. The error results from blindly changing the name of the addressee in the salutation, without paying attention to how this changes the phonetic environment. I have however kept this in the phonetic description, as that is how it is read in the soundfile.
  8. ^ I'm not certain if this should be dikâ di or dikānt di—I can think of arguments for both.