Before we get into the morphology, I think now is a good time to talk some about my morphological visions for the 1a and 1b language lineages. We’ve already established protolanguage 1 as an agglutinative, heavily inflected language. The 1b lineage slowly shifts towards simpler inflectional morphology – while it still relies on the direct-inverse system and polypersonal agreement, many other inflections are replaced by periphrastic constructions. We’ve already seen this at work as the aspect system in protolanguage 1 replaces the tense system in language 1b, meaning that perfect and prospective meanings will have to be created with adverbs, time clauses, or some other construction that is yet to be determined. Language 1a, on the other hand, will not only keep much of the morphological complexity of the protolanguage but also develop new morphology.
We’ve already discussed how the affixation of light verb constructions led to the development of aspect morphology in protolanguage 1. However, we’ve only scratched the surface of what this process could do. Protolanguage 1 could have developed other aspectual affixes, and even modal ones – affixes that would be lost entirely in language 1b, but retained in language 1a.
Furthermore, let’s say that this process happened a second time, after the sound changes that led to language 1a. A new set of verbs, which could themselves take the aspectual and modal prefixes of protolanguage 1, became light verbs and then prefixes on the stem. Keep in mind that these prefixes don’t take vowel harmony. In fact, they block it, transmitting their own vowel harmony to the previous prefixes. This results in two classes of aspectual/modal prefixes (harmony-blocking and non-harmony-blocking). Up to one prefix from each class can be attached, with the non-harmony-blocking prefix coming before the harmony-blocking prefix.
Now, we need to decide what these prefixes are. This was a fairly simple process. First, I came up with a list of the aspects and moods I wanted to be conveyed this way. Then, I divided them up in a way that maximized the utility of the potential combos. Here’s what I came up with:
|
Harmony-affected Preverbs |
|
| Function | Original Verb Meaning |
| Perfect | have |
| Prospective | go |
| Permissive | get |
| Obligative |
owe |
|
Harmony-blocking Preverbs |
|
| Function | Original Verb Meaning |
| Durative | remain |
| Iterative | return |
| Inchoative | start |
| Cessative | stop |
| Abilitive/Potential | know |
| Desiderative | love |
I’m calling these affixes preverbs for now, although I’m not particularly happy about it. “Preverb” isn’t a widely accepted linguistic term, and although it is discussed in the context of Caucasian and Algonquinian languages (two major inspirations for this language), it’s used there primarily for location/direction meanings, with the aspectual & modal information that they could convey being secondary. However, I’m calling them preverbs until I can think of something better, because “Harmony-blocking and Non-harmony-blocking modal and aspectual prefixes” was proving far too clunky.
So that’s the preverbs done! This isn’t the end of verb inflection, but the conlang is slowly forging ahead. I haven’t done any further reading recommendations in a while, so now might be a good time to mention the World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. It’s available online, and is an excellent resource for anyone interested in conlanging. It gives a list of common lexical sources for grammatical meanings, as well as the ways that grammatical meanings can change over time. It’s fairly comprehensive, and has a handy glossary at the beginning.