l_pie01_01

Description: The first document of notes over the constructed language "l_pie01" a.k.a. "Eudasian". This document includes an extensive dictionary between Eudasian and English.

Basic Declension:

To do – D	Singular	Dual	Plural
First Person	dam	dem	dim
Second Person	dat	det	dit
Third Person	dath (s)	deth (s)	dith (s)

From this basic chart, all other constructs concerning verbs and nouns are created.

For example, we have the Gerund case, which is the mere inclusion of the construct “n” and “d” between the affected verb and the grammatical person ending. The Gerund form of the verb “d”, often listed in its third-person singular form “dath”, would thus have an “n” and “d” construct between its consonant, “d”, and whatever number and grammatical person marker are specified. If extrapolated through the various possible combinations of number and grammatical person, the Gerund form of “d” would look like the following:

To be doing – Danid	Singular	Dual	Plural
First Person	danidam	danidem	danidim
Second Person	danidat	danidet	danidit
Third Person	danidath	danideth	danidith

As you can see, there is not much use writing out full tables of such constructs, because they follow the forms in the first chart. Instead, one can readily formulate what constructs will look like by logically inserting the altering element and then adjusting the ending in accordance with person and number, shown in the first table.

It is interesting to note that the joint “n” and “d” construct illustrates the proto-form of the Indo-European participle, seen in modern forms as the German “nd” and the Latin “nt”. In the reconstruction, the “n” and “d” construct denotes a specific instance of the action in question, being performed in the instance referred to by the speaker. This does not imply that the action is either finite or infinite, only that it is current. This illustration of a proto-form serves the hypothesis that the Indo-European participle was in fact a merger of two roots, “n” and “d”, which became purely phonemic during the late development of the PIE language and lost its outside context, that is, its context outside of its inclusion as a participle marker. In its proto-form, the elements “n” and “d” still retained their previous meanings, “n” being the accusatory or otherwise dynamically dative marker (marking something like the English words “to”, “towards”, “at”, “in”, “into”), and “d” being the marker for the verb-idea “to do” as seen above in its extrapolation. One could therefore postulate that if the construct were to undergo the later developments of the PIE language, the previous chart would become something like this:

To be doing – Dant	Singular	Dual	Plural
First Person	dantam	dantem	dantim
Second Person	dantat	dantet	dantit
Third Person	dantath	danteth	dantith

It is easily seen why a people would have simply omitted the sound, what may be conceived of as a thematic vowel, for its unnecessary presence in deciphering the meaning of the element, in turn rendering a new root or construct. But it shows the first advances towards a linguistic development based on reduction and phonemic elements, which may lack meaning when not adjoined to a secondary root, rather than from semantic roots, and therefore this reconstruction will try to be faithful in rendering these kinds of vowels. It is possible to pronounce them very unemphatically, thereby removing much of the extra stress that their inclusion gives pronunciation.

These forms, however, are only those which mark the existence of a being that typifies or manifests these actions. In modern grammar this is equivalent to the grammatical person, but in the grammar of the reconstruction it means something much more essential. These are literally called “existential markers”, because they do not so much mark a relative “who” for the verb’s perpitrator, but actually mark the existence of whatever the verb of predicate is manifested through. One could therefore say that the grammatical person is the most important element in the reconstruction, and that all other elements are merely describors for it. “Me” literally means the speaker or observer, “Te” means anything being addressed, and “The” means anything else outside of the observer. These listed constructs denote the respective being susbisting in the present time of the constructs’ expression. A perfective form, which does not restrict its meaning to the present instance in time, renders them as “M”, “T”, and “Th”, which are hardly pronounceable on their own, and which have no need to be, because to express them by themselves does not mean anything more than stating them, without any other meaning. However, when they are appended with descriptors, they suddenly state not only the existence of the being in question, but such a being that does so-and-so as the descriptors announce. For example, to say “dam” is to literally state the existence of an “I” that “does”, and therefore means “I do”. However, this existential affirmation of the “I” denotes a more typical nature of the “I”, as in denoting that the “I” does something over a period of time, most like when the English speaker says “I do this and that, and sometimes I do nothing”. It is not so much a statement of the present, but a statement of general being, describing some facet of the self by expressing the existential marker “I” with an appended descriptor. This process works with the mose causally affected element going first, with the ultimate origin being last, which in this case is the “I”, while the element that is “affected” by the “I” is the idea of “doing”, which the “I” performs or puts into action. It is therefore used in the reconstruction not only as a statement of a general nature of being, but also as a statement of a general action that was performed in the past, and stated for the purposes of implying an instance after which the rest of the clauses or story follow in cause and effect. Various other practices are used to mark concrete instances of past and future, what in Latin and English would be called the “imperfective” as opposed to the “perfective”, and these will be gone over later, irrelevant as they are for this elementary section.

In order to denote an instance in the present, the three existential markers take on their forms as things subsisting in the present instance of the constructs’ expression, “Me”, “Te”, and “The”. Therefore, to say “dame” is to literally affirm the existence of a presently subsisting “I” that puts into affect from itself whatever descriptors are appended. In English, this tense would be equivalent to the one used in phrases like “I’m making a sandwitch” or “I’m going home”.  

When it comes to number, the existential marker for the plural first person is usually marked with an “e” or “i” between itself and its describers: however, by itself, and sometimes when being described, it defines itself as an “I” that belongs to or is affected by an outer being, giving rise to the construct of adjoining “m” and “d”, which appears as “mith”, for plural, and “meth”, for dual. Notice that, while it does in fact quantify the self as being part of many, it also describes the dual and plural first person forms of the verb listed as “math”, which means “thinks”, “wills”, or “feels”. Just as the verb “d”, itself being identical to the existential marker “Th”, takes on the verbal form “dath”, meaning “it does”, the existential marker “M” takes on the verbal form “math”, signifying the expression of the “I” or the observer within an outside object. When used with itself, “mam” could very well mean the same thing as purely stating “M”, denoting the self’s or the observer’s internal process. Because the end of the clause is what is given the most emphasis and causal importance, the “m” included in this verb does not actually refer to the speaker when it is expressed, but to the “I” of the outside being that is described. In this sense, “m” comes to denote all internal psychological activity, pertaining to the mind, feeling, willing, and so on. Because no describor is posited between the two existential markers, “m” is allowed to hold a subordinate meaning to the described being, no longer referring to the speaker. The same is true for the marker “th”, which takes the form “d” when it takes this subordinate role, which allows phrases like “dam”, as well as the seemingly redundant “dath”, redundant only in the sense that we now know “th” and “d” are practically identical. Is is their order as descriptors and described beings that alter their meaning, as well as the definition of the relationship between them.

The two words “math” and “dam” could, therefore, be conceived of as existential reciprocals. As said before, as there is no descriptor defined between the two markers, there seems to be a “pure” connection between the two, between the “I” and the “outside” or the “observer” and the “world”. With “dam”, it is the observer which affects the outside, logically prescribing the relative causation in order from “m” to “d”. With “math”, conversely, it is the outside that affects the observer, prescribing causation from “d” to “m”. One could also say, because of the subordinating quality described in the last paragraph, that in “math” is actually just an internal process completely, and that it is the self that keeps affecting the observer, as implied in “mam”, and is just extended in meaning to an outside being. One could say that “dath”, then, is in fact just the outside world affecting itself, but that does not account for the fact that there might be different instances of “d” in the external world, rather than just referring to the whole of it as one things, as individual things are sought to be referred to. Therefore “dath”, in most cases, continues to mean one thing affecting another, because “th” refers to any instance outside of the obersver, while “mam” can more easily mean the observer affecting him or herself, because, in the philosophy of the reconstruction, there is only one “observer” or “I” for every speaker. Any extension of “I” is formed through the previously discussed plural forms, and this stands regardless of whether the “I” is subordinate or superior in causal or categorical relationship to the outside mass referred to.

**Note that “to be doing” does not have the same implications in the reconstruction as it does within the English language, within which this phrase is frequently used to verbally describe a continuous, current action. This semantic meaning is expressed through another construct in the reconstruction. “Danidath” means, literally, “doing”, and is used more for an adjectical purpose such as a participle. Its use as part of a verbal construct, such as in English “I am doing”, is only valid when the action in question is an instance within a continuum, and when the emphasis is placed either on what in English would be the “auxilliary” verb, such as the “am” in “I am doing”, or on the object, whatever is being affected by the verb.

Past Tense Marker “D”

The consonant “d” and its extrapolated, “existential-marked” forms are also used as a marker for the simple past tense, which is expressed solely because it is more concrete than the existential statements “M”, “T”, and “Th” in expressing a specifically single instance of the past. Instead, “d” along with the “existential” tenses like “M” denote that the actor in question is in a state of having “done” whatever the describor is, and since “doing”, in the sense of “d”, an action can usually only be done once and not continuously, it lends the meaning of having fixed an instance of that action in the past.

This method of marking the instance of an action in the past is only used with verbs that are otherwise not usually expressed in what are noun-like forms. For example, “m” paired with the consonant “d” already gives rise to the word “Modath”, meaning “that which is thought” or “thought”, and so it cannot really use the “d” to mark a simple past instance the way that it can with other words. However, one may use the Gerund form of a word to express the past tense, albeit in a continuous and most likely interrupted or “subjunctive” form, still keeping the ending consonant plain and unaltered.

Preceding word, like veri, is actually significant of the action itself, such as that veridath is “that which fixes that action or its protuct/effect to reality, or makes it real”, therefore veri takes the role of a verbal object. Planidath, then… Plantath, I mean. Is Skau the right word? Or is it just truly Skaun? or Skauan?

Future Tense Marker “B”

On the other hand, the use of “b” in the same way denotes the future tense of an action. It literally means “becoming” or “growing”, and implies that the actor is in the state of performing the mentioned action when the actor has “become” into its performing state. The use of the concept “become” to imply the future tense is not foreign to European languages, as many languages still use it. For example, “werden” means both the auxilliary particle “will” or “shall” as well as “to become” in German. “B” was used in the same way in the PIE language, as in the attested root “bhu”, and its descendent in the Latin element “b” as in “portabo”, meaning “I will carry”, from “porto”, meaning “I carry”.

Phonetic Evolution

A variety of sound changes stylize the PIE roots into the words listed here, and some history should be given to account for why things are the way they are. For example, the Dual form was originally fitted with the ending “ai”, instead of “e” followed by whatever grammatical person marker is specified. Secondly, the Plural form for the grammatical first person first followed the prescriptions of the current PIE attestations, that is, the form “emos”, which in the style of the reconstruction would be rendered as “amith”. This is still a viable option to use, as it conveys the same thing, but in the spirit of the reconstruction the double instance of a grammatical person marker comes across as being erroneous or redundant, if not only for the sake of a Plural marker. If this was the way that the PIE people pluralized the grammatical first and second person, as the attestation “estos” also says, then perhaps it is the right way after all. There is another possibility that the PIE people lost the single instance First and Second Person Plural endings and resorted to using this double instance, and we say this because the attestations of nouns still retain a single instance Plural ending, while verbs do not.

Passive Voice Marker “N”

As mentioned in the section explaning the uses of “d” for the past tense, there is a class of words where the “d” is given precidence for use as a sort of passive word marker. Consider “Modath”, “that which is thought”, and “Kelidath”, “things to be cut”.

[Insert]

This construct does not actually make the “passive voice”, per se, but denotes the object or thing that actually receives the foremost of the effects from the action, which in turn can be used in the manner of the passive voice. However, the consonant “n” is what truly makes the passive voice. Etymologically it is cognate to the Latin ending –inus, the Germanic ending –inaz (whence English flaxen, wooden), as well as the general accusative marker “-om”, and its prepositional form “an”. It therefore has many opportunities for specific application. The consonant “n” is given, first of all, precedence as a preposition-like marker, marking that the action described is directed at or towards it, which can have a different meaning from the action affecting it. An example is the verb “Lei”, meaning “to pour”, where the direct object (appended to the verb) will mean whatever is poured while the indirect object (occupying a place before the verb, or another place in the sentence) is whatever is being poured upon. In this way, the traditional accusative marker of PIE is given the inverse meaning of the dative case, while compounded objects are given the direct accusative case. However, some verbs do not differentiate between the two, for which “n” marks a locative kind of case. If even location is irrelevant to the verb, then it simply arbitrarily marks the object.

When “n” is appended between a root and its ending, it brings it into the passive voice of having been affected. For example, “Leinath” would mean “poured (thing)”. This practice is different from the above separation of the indirect object from its affecting construct, in the fact that in that case the separated part does not receive another ending, merely ending in “n”. Passive-voiced words always receive their customary existential ending, because they are not being separated in the same manner (as they are actually sovereign constructions surrounding an analogous creature). Examples that were featured in the early version of this paper were “Madurath Audanath”, or “perceived mother”, and “Madurath Stelanath”, meaning “stood/placed/settled mother”. The example “Madurath Stelidath” means “Mother who is stood”, meaning essentially the same thing, though a bit ambiguous as to who is the affector or the affected. One infers only through the absence of any accusative object that it is herself that the mother places (if she is the affector at all). One can see its cognate in the word “stolid”, meaning “immovable”.

As one has seen before, the “n” when paired with “d” switches the described being back to the status of the affector. This construct actually describes an instance of that action, without any inference as to its continuous or discontinuous nature or anything outside of that moment, which the described being manifests as. As a chart, an example of all three of these constructs when used would look like the following:

	M	To feel
“d”	Med	What is felt
“n”	Men	To be felt
“n” “d”	Menid	To be feeling

“N” is used to denote the infinitive of a verb when such an action is made. For example, “audaniame” means “I’m going to see”, from the verb “Aud”, meaning “see”, and “Iame”, meaning “I’m going or I initiating”. As described before, one may separate the two, rendering the same sentence as “Iame audan”.

The Continuous Quintessential Action Marker “R”

Just as “n” and “d” mark the instance of an action, “r” marks the continuous performance of that action, due to the nature of the described being. This “r” takes on the vocalic allophone quality, becoming a vowel-like sound, and is usually appended in the typographical form “ur” to express this. An example of this comes from the root that means wet, “wed”, and that is “wodur”, meaning “the thing whose nature it is to be wet”. Otherwise known as water. Another example comes from “steranidurath”, meaning “strander” or “one whose nature it is to statically stretch”, which is used to refer to any stretch of land as one finds along the ocean or a shore or bank, while its other form “steranidath” can mean any stretch of land or material.

Several important words are marked with “r”, and mostly in conjunction with “d” which takes the lead. The “d” and “r” construct is cognate with the Latin ending “-ter” or “-tor”, and with the English ending “-er”. “Madurath” and “Padurath” are mother and father. “Asidurath” is star, or “one whose nature it is to burn or glow”. That being said, the assignment of these names to these objects is not exclusive, and, for example, the term “Asidurath” could be applied to an ember or spark as well.

The Potential Marker “K”

The Shadow Marker “Sk”

Endings:

Iskath   Characteristic of, typical of, pertaining to, belonging to; beginning to, entering

Ikath    in the manner of, pertaining to; being, having, doing (of a verb or nature)

Implications of Causal Word Order

As we put actions to affect starting with the self to the outside, explanation or communication is a reversal of this process, beginning with explanation of the least familiar elements to the most familiar, which can be guessed.

Word order is built on the logical succession of causality, beginning with the most causally affected to the least, which is presumed to be important in the sentence. If not, then the passive voice is used. In this way, what develops is an Object-Verb-Subject word order, a kind of word order that is very rare in natural languages. However, the evolution of PIE into its daughter languages shows the general shift from postpositions to prepositions, and the ultimate status of the daughter languages as Subject-Verb-Object languages, which we knew were not so in previous times, as attested in ancient Indo-European languages, which were usually Subject-Object-Verb. This reconstruction takes that one step further in hypothesizing a total reversal of the modern word order, revealed by the presence of the existential marker as the very last element in the SOV order.

This is not actually such a radical idea, as we see the OVS order in Latin many times, albeit hidden. Consider the clause “Puellam amo”. The mention of the subject as a separate word is unnecessary because we know that it is the speaker, from the speaker’s existential marker “o”. We therefore achieve the following gloss, “Girl – love – I”. Therefore, knowing that the nature of the existential-marked being can be described through appending various elements, we know that the first person marker is only a step away from becoming a more described word occupying the end of a sentence. Therefore what word is affected by the verb, or the object, is placed before and appended to the verb. The verb is appended before the subject, which occupies the last place in the sentence. As an example, “Eivirith” would mean “men are”, coming from “Virith” meaning “men” and “Ei” meaning the action “to be”. However, the copula is not very active in the reconstruction, since the existential marker takes care of this purpose (and therefore occupies always the last place of a word).

You would not use sverath and sveridath in the same sentence, as in “to swing a sword” – you would simply refer to the sword cutting the person, and not “cutting the person with a sword”. The “sveridath” is seen as a manifestation of the person’s will, and one could even use “sverath” for lunging any object, and sveridath itself for lunging such a thing at a person. One could even use sveridath, in reference to what is being lunged, and sveridam, to show one’s ownership over the direction of the weapon. This would also exemplify the dual noun-verb form that it has.

Reganidath – straightening, ordering; Reganath – to calculate???, no, the ordered

Regath – to straighten, righten, mostly oneself; rule, king (regidur – “rector”, king), also regant, reganidath

Regidath – straightened, upright, adjective, to be ruled, straightened

An example for how the existential statement is significant of both the described being and its action, the following dialog has been produced. Two speaker walk up to a balcony and, seeing a man in great robes on a far off parapet, one of them points and asks, while the other one answers him.

Regath ka?
A, regath omnilanidas.

Which means,

Is he the king?
Yes, the king of all the land.

Or

He’s ruling?

Yes, he rules all the land.

Eurodasian converts these two iterations to one sentence.

Compounds with “Vir”

Regivirath – the man rules; the ruling man.

Sveridovir – swordsman

Vlkivir – Werewolf

Note that “vlk” is used as a describor or affected because the term describes, chiefly a form of man, because the speaker himself is most likely a man as well. If a wolf were to use this term, conversely, they would probably say “virivlk”, holding the “vlk” in precidence, to which “vir” is just an affected description.

Use of Consonant Roots as Preposition-like Postpositions

Path also used as *Hepo, “Up, away from”, from PIE – as suffix. So Vodurapath, -a- is used to signify similarity with –an, but –ap, with the proper ending, -ath, which consequently is –path, which even then is the correct one to use, as it is not the water that enacts “path”, but a yet-unnamed thing which, enacting “path”, causes “path” to be enacted on the water, which means to pan from the water. Yes, so “vodurapath” would mean “from, of, or away from the water”. “Voduriperath” would mean “before the water”. “Vodurigath” would mean “from or out of the water”, literally meaning “it leaves the water”, ascendant of Latin “ex”. “Vodurinidath” means “under the water”. Nidath – being underneath. Aukedapath – from the visor, from behind the visor. Aukediniath, meaning the same thing, but behind, explicitly.

Table of Nokidath based on PIE Noun Declensions

Nokidath – night. Nokide – pair of nights. Nokidith – nights.

Nokidei – to the night

Ablative and Genitive are still Nokidath, except they receive ablaut (o to e in this case)

Locative is Nokidi.Instrumental is Nokida. Plural is… Nokidobith?

Night – nokidath	Singular	Dual	Plural
Actor (Active)	Nokidath	Nokide	Nokidith
Acted Upon (Passive)	Nokidan	Nokidane	Nokidanith
Instrumental (Using)	Nokida	-	Nokidobith
Dative (For)	Nokidei	-	Nokidanith
Ablative, Genetive (-)	Nokidath, -as	Nokide	Nokidith
Locative (ea?)(Iath?)	Nokidathi	-	Nokidithi

Maybe… there’s not even a need for a definite –an accusative case. Base dat/ab off of this!

One Example of how Word Order would work:

Te Kelisveridobam – I will kill you with a sword.

Literally, this is:

“You – cut down – with a sword – I”

Marking the flow of causality, this is:

“I – act on sword – acts on cutting – acts on you”

The chain of causal relationship runs in reverse, with the ending “effected” thing at the head of the sentence, with the ultimate cause stated at the end. This follows the order of basic Latin constructions (e.g. Puellam amat, Gladium habeo). The Accusative –an that was devised at the beginning is not even necessary for this. Note that not even the Instrumental case, which would have been necessary, is not even by this point. It follows the direct chain of causation from the speaker to the audience.

Now let’s try, using the instrumental case:

“Te sverida kelibam.”

It is almost the exact same. The only difference is that the word order can be changed, for example, “Te kelibam sverida”, or “Sverida te kelibam”, but this has little reason for being used at all. If we sacrifice free word-order, then there are no ambiguities. It is simply a chain from the affected to the affector. This mode of word-order is just a gigantic compound-maker.

Tekelibam, Tekelisveridam!

Sveridalath. Maybe it is dependent on instrumental case. I let using a sword. ? \/

Astoran, Asiduran, dekiteran dian veram. Monith rodith velidith, erai terai teridan,

Ishtar, star, daughter of Deus invoke I. Moons red chosen, the two worlds turn to thread.

In this case, the –an formation only has usage for talking about the action itself, and its infinitive in conjunction with another verb – which leads us to the belief that –an really just symbolizes that effect of causation or creation as in pelinath, from pelath.  What is the significance of Nath then? It is also the key to the –ntath- gerund-construct, devolving from –nidath.

Nuances of Meaning in relation to Tense

Stranidi hasidurithan audam – I saw the stars stretching. (OR: I saw the stretching stars.) My god…

The above phrase can mean both things, and does not differentiate between them. Below, however, the exact action is specified:

Stranidithan Hasidurithan audam – I saw the stretching stars; “Stars” is emphasized.

Stranidan Hasidurithan audam – I saw the stars stretching; “Stretching” is emphasized.

Strani Hasidurithan audam – I saw the stars stretch; “Stretch” is emphasized.

An so on…

Whoah whoah whoah… can you really have –Th there, as a non-nominative? Wouldn’t it rather be:

Stranidi Hasiduraina audam?

Stranidi Hasidurin audam, or Stranidi Hasiduri audam

Yes, it can be Hasidurithan, but only because it is plural, and this is not a favorable construct.

An Example of the Devolution of the Language, into commonly known forms:

Hasiduris -> Hasidurith

Asiduris -> Asidurith

Asteris -> Asteris

Astris, Steris

Staris

Stars

Bhreteros -> Bhredurath

Bhretor

Breder

Brother

Look below to all the misconceptions niaudam, iaudam can make:

Stranidihasiduraniaudam. I saw the stranding stars. My god…

Hasiduranith Stranidith audam.

Asiduranith stranidith audam. ß This is the spelling we try to retain. It drops initial H’s at starts.

Asiduranith Strantanith audam.

Asteranith Strantanith audam.

Astoranith Strantanith audam.

Astrones strantines audam. 

Is it really Astrorum strantorum audam? Hmmm…

Quon, quan date? Quon, quan danidate?

Quonath, quath dase? Quonath, quath dantase?

Canith, quid dokase? Canith, quid dokiantase?

Canis, quid fokas? Canis, quid fokiantas?

Canis, quid facis? Canis, quid facientis?

Quon, quan date? Nen, quadame?

Hwuon, hwan dat te? Nen, hwa doeime?

Huun, hva dast tu? Nen, hva doe eime?

Hund, what dost thu? Neyn, what doe ei?

Hound, what doest thou? Nay, what do I?

Quon, quadate? Dog, what are you doing (Wh d th)? Quon, quadanidate? Dog, what are you doing?

Accent is on the Date in Quadate. In Latin:

Canis, quid facis? Canis, quid facientis?

An gemi blaulaukathe. Blue light comes in.

This literally defines the object by what is seen as most important, “ath”, stating its relation to the speaker – a thing in the objective outside world. “Athe” is the present tense of being. Next, it is defined as a “blue light”, therefore a thing that acts as blue light. Then “comes”, so a thing of blue-light that comes, then finally “in”. So a blue light comes in.

Quon, quadate? This is the present instance-tense. What dost thou? Quon, quadat? Dog, what do you (usually) do? Can mean past tense, but also a continuous or stative tense (what one normally does). Quon, quadodat? Is strict past-tense.

Notice the –ni- in Quadanidate? Qua – da – ni – da – te? Ni is the dative, towards-ive.

Qui – towards what – therefore why

Donath. It is done. Dekidanath. ---???

Inkelath/Inklauth – include Surikedath

Regiaperath, Regi…for umbrella? Rain-stopper? Rain-from-coverer? Regigiakedath.

Variations on the word Ausikath

This word is meant to mirror the construct “Ushaka”, which is “ear” plus a diminutive-instrumental suffix. “Ausikath” is the basic word. “Ausilath” mirrors it better as “tiny ears”, which can be ambiguous, but Ausileth provides the correct number. Auselath is just incorrect, but sounds cute.

PROBLEMS

1. Brewing and Browing; Cannot find a word for Bread, or Eyebrow (currently Aukikedath, 5*).

Brauth… does it mean to brew, as in boil, or brow, as in eyebrow? Is it some kind of merger, from “blinker” or “twinkler”?

(K)leiath                      to lean on, lean against; lid; aukeleiath, eyelid? Aukedurath.

Useful Phrases

Quon, quadate? Ne, quadame?

Donath – It is done

Domath – It has been done, or simply, Done

Mela – Let me go! Let me! Unhand me! Relinquish me!

Preineam – I do not condone it, support it, entertain it, approve of it, promote it.

Meirath Eurneath – A wall does not contain the world, literally “a wall is not the world”

Mekela – Kill Me

Melate – you let me go

Telabam – I will let you go.

Latelabam – I will let you relinquish it.

Datelabam – I will let you do it.

Domath, as with “will” in comparison with “shall”, implicitely denotes the willed state of being, or the utterly irreversible notion of the fact, in its reference both to the self and the universal will.

General Rules for the Retention of the Language’s Development

1. Diminutive developments, such as –lo- and later –ulus, are strictly forbidden.

This is because this feature did not originally mean “small” or “diminutive”, according to this interpretation, having meant only “descended from” or “in the likeness of” which was applied only to names of living things, such as people, and rarely animals. It was never used for any other kind until a very late point in the pie-language, which this reconstruction hopes to “predate” in terms of the general spirit and psychological style of the language, markedly one that did not yet have use or demand for the notion of the “diminutive” object. Kath and Skath are the only similar endings that are allowed for the purposes of the language.

It has become clear that there is not simply an “object” end for the word, but a two-fold affected-route, being –I and then –AN, the dative ending.

Words for “Shadow”

Skath               shade, shadow, form;

Skedath                        result of a shadow, outline, contour, area under a shadow, what is shadowed

Skaudath         

Skaudikath – umbrella, device for providing shade, against either rain or sun;

                        Could it perhaps also be Skaukath (sky-device) and Skaukedath (sky-cover)?

                        Skaukedath (lit. covers the sky) could either be the firmament itself or a roof.

                        Skaukath, however, has a close similarity with Skaudikath.

We must still find a suitable word for umbrella, “rain-stopper”, and similarly “sun-stopper”.

-Gath   to go and do something. Ex, “Swananigath”, He went and sang; He went to sing.

Computer Notation:

Menikath        

“thought-thing” device for thinking, any material for expression, as a medium; recorder

Mekath – “feel thing”, no… Memonikath, “memory thing”, no… something for memories, but also processing? Ordering? A data-processing interface? Thought-alteration-interface? Truly, it is a recorder then. But also an orderer. Regikath? Mekinath?

Svenurath

            Speaker, “mouth”, either biologically or figuratively, where sound comes out.

            Svenikath – equal, vocal cords, or speaker, sound-generator, or instrument?

As a native English speaker, the etymology of the Eurasian language is not known to me by experience, but by the factors of history and development, and their laws, that we have hitherto been able to observe. Today the word in question is “Skauth”, which comes from the variety of s-mobile words, seen visibly in its cognate “Kauth”, which means to cover, or conceil. The s-mobile implies, if our theory is correct, that what is denoted by the “S-Kauth” construct is an object which not only covers, but covers “across” something and in a dynamic fashion (as another dimension of movement or action is added). Skauth originally meant the clouds, which cover or conceil the sky, and gradually came to mean the firmament itself, for “covering” the earth, irrespective of whether or not the object referred to is composed of clouds, or open air. Still, literature that speaks of “Skauanap” brings visions of thing flying through clouds, literally “up in the clouds”, though it can also refer to movement between them, or in just plain open air. This poetic speech has become a standard retainer of the older meaning, as it truly does mean some kind of covering present in the air, and means only by extension the covering that the entire sky provides over the earth.

Poetic Language

The following line is a famous verse of poetry, which typifies the spleen felt with the coming of a new, dull age. Man, the central character, asks to the dog, then realizing that he is actually talking to himself, what the point of existence is. He says,

“Quon, quadate? Nen, quadame?”

Which means,

“Dog, what dost thou? Nay, what do I?”

Another is the famous line from “Perurath”, the vassal, when he is asked about the titular Man. He simply says,

“Preineam”

Which means,

“I do not approve.”

It also means along the lines if “I do not entertain” or “I do not protect”, but it is in reference to the disposition of his fellow. He clearly does not guard or make safe his friend’s feelings, much less condone them, which serves to show the extended meaning of the word.  

A phrase from an early poet:

Meirath Eurneath

A Variety of Indo-European Phenomena Explained

“n” and “d”

“n” and “k”: the germanic “nk” (although possible a nasal intrusion in proto-Germanic, research more which roots include “nk” and which do not).

Remember: -anidath is for gerund or instance continuous. –dath and –nath are both passive? –dath is more permanent while –nath is in an instance, “having been ___ed”, ? As in “broken”, the “n”, or “gone”, the –n-. –dath is an adjective of the passive. “Modath”, thought. “Monath” may be indirectly related to Math, instead of what is directly “made” by Math, or whatever…

Also, Germanic –nk is from –anikath, from the N-construct and the Kath potential, which was later used as a diminutive of sorts, like “Ushanka”, or “Maedchen”, -icus. But it served true potential back then, and signified a specific kind of relationship.

So, is Ushanka “Ausanikith”?

Second Person Element: We can deduce that the original sound to signify the second person was a “t”, both by the pronoun “tu” and the plural form in Latin “datis”, which is very similar to “damus”, and likely differs only because of vowel harmony, changing the U to an I because of the T.

Later developments saw complete ablauts put in, such as pedai to podai.

A List of Words for which there is a need for expression:

Black (suridath?), Skeleton, Skull, Bone, Finger, Hand, Arm, Shoulder, Chest or Breast, Throat or Neck, Head, Nose, Forehead (Peri-?), Air (Anath?), Book or Record, Fire (Purath?), Fireworks (Verigipurith? Puribhledith?), House, Building or Palace, Street (Steridath? Steritath, Stretath?), “Gasse” (same thing but with Gath), Hall or Corridor (Gedath?), Glass, Cup or Container, Blood, and so much more.

Extranea

175 Words so far (not including Lauth and Laudath, that I have yet to enter).

Searching for a word for “room”

Kemath                        to arch over, cover; kemanath – chamber, shade, shelter?

Kaubath           to lay down;

Kaubanath       to be rested; a portico, vault, room, chamber, place where someone can lay down

Notice that “Durath” is a merger between “dath + urath” and “dvath + urath”, therefore containing both meanings, as a “double verb”. Indeed, “verb” and “noun” share the same meaning in this language.

The big ideas are as follows:

1.      The destruction of the boundary between the noun and the verb.

2.      The ordering of words based on the logical succession of causation, rather than typical, disjointed nominative-accusative structures. This means the total reallignment of the language into an OVS one.

3.      The total reconfiguration of the grammatical person system into a clearly defined, universal system for existential marking, signified as “M, T, TH”. This is reduced from various theories as will be gone over here.

I feel a bit like Darwin aboard the HMS Beagle, before he wrote The Origin of Species. It was not so much that I was the first person to observe this, but that I was the first to dare noting it. It began with a preliminary knowledge of the Indo-European declension systems, one of the best preserved being Latin, from which the first key observation was made. I noticed, as well as with the reconstructed declension charts for PIE, that the phonetic elements marking person closely matched those marking conjugation. One must know of the discontinuity and mixing of Indo-European sounds to appreciate this. I knew that the –um ending in Latin provided a noun-form of the Latin verb, such as in “imperium”. This “m” is no doubt the same “m” as the Latin accusative ending, as well as the German accusative ending “n” and the PIE ending of the same. So, then, what we had was a mechanism by which a verb could be treated as a noun. Where had I seen this before? In German languages, the infinitive is marked by the same suffix “n”. In Latin, such a word was treated only as an object, but in Germanic such a construct could be treated as a verb’s infinitive form as well as an object, an instance of the action or the “doing” of the verb. This was later maked with an Ablaut in German. Knowing that all of these practices stemmed from the same proto-languages, and grew to be more specified in their usage as time went on, it could be deduced that this ending of “n” or “m” was a means for transforming a verb into a state where it could be acted upon, such as in the infinitive. It marks the accusative case in both Latin and German; notes about the development of the femenine gender in PIE allowed me to realize that in the beginning, some word constructs were intended solely for being passive object to be acted upon, being “static” rather than “active”, and were therefore, in the beginning, sole features of the accusative case.

With this in mind, one easily sees how the “n”/”m” ending marks an accusative case, as well as in the case for verbs – the verb literally became an object, being acted upon. It would make little sense for the verb, in its “noun-ized” form, to take an active role; it could very well do this in its normal form, under the pretext of a defined or undefined grammatical person. What we had here, then, was a suffix that not only made verbs into accusative nouns – we had a universal accusative ending. Verbs were treated no differently.

The conception of the verb as a noun and vice-versa came from the similarity of the third-person ending with the standard nominative singular ending, creating a clear vision of how they merged in the distant past.

Latin shows a tendancy to take the PIE “t” and turn it to “s”; Veritas has the enetive form of “Veritatis”, showing that “Veritas” was in fact “Veritat”, with the “s” being a “t”. We assume here that this is standard to as to make the PIE ending itself, -os, originally with a fricative “D” sound that became “S” after much mutation. This is also supported by the personal ending –it, if they are to be matched and conjoined. 

Notes:

Since the PIE third person marker was, in fact, an “S” sound and not “T” or “D” or “Th”, and was made so only for the purposes of (I don’t know), I will secretly endeavor to create another version of this reconstruction that features these more accurately PIE-like features. I will also endeavor to detail another language, perhaps Eulasian or Eurasian, that will detail a slightly later devolved version of the language, with participles like strant etc.

Go over vocative form, the fact that “d”, the consonant itself, denotes an existential nature in the same way as the three main markers. And that the passive voice, “n”, can be declined to, as in active “Danath” from passive “Dan”. This is vital.

Note: The third person really was “s”, as evidence in “sui”, “se”.

Ausiath – causing hearing, causing perception to be sown, audible.

Get water bottle example from notebook.

1.      Use of Consonant Roots as Prepositions

2.      Table of Nokidath based on PIE Noun Declensions (Dative and Ablative Notes)

3.      One Example of how Word Order would work (Te Kelisveridobam)

4.      Nuances of Meaning in relation to Tense

5.      An Example of the Devolution of the Language, into commonly known forms (for fun)

6.      PROBLEMS

7.      Useful Phrases (Collection)

8.      General Rules for the Retention of the Language’s Development

9.      Words for “Shadow”; Computer Notation

10.  Poetic Language

11.  A Variety of Indo-European Phenomena Explained

12.  A List of Words for which there is a need for expression

13.  Extranea; Notes

Sanath – something like that (sonna), Sa + nath, also “what is seeded”, “what is placed” etc. Means the same thing in reconstruction philosophy.

-de just like in Japanese, but also –te.

-an takes precidence as to, then as accusative later on with certain applications, such as verb-wise (affecting affected, rather than performing action in a way??)

Skaukath – sheath,

Kedath – thing, like koto? Is Skaukath better for shield? What is Aukedath going to be then?

Sueridoguynys

Apath up, upon, off, out

Apurath above (stative, because of ur)

Andurath Within (stative, with dath)

Agidath Outside, Outside of, or

Agdurath Outside, Outside of

Beraiath           He would carry

Meigath            to urinate, mire, mist

Meiath             to be small

Medath                        measure, give advice, meet

Menath                        mind, to be thought, to mean

Merath             to die

Geiath              to live

Do not forget the meaning of “preiath” as “protects”.

Magidalath (usual). Madilath? Dialectical form or abbreviation of Magidilath.

Skaun – in the sky, lit. “to the sky”, to the covering, at the covering. Skauan planidath, skauanplant, skaun plant, skauplant. “Flying through the sky”. This is a valid configuration. Skauplanidath.

Keridaneam. I have no heart.

Stenath             stone; wall? also, could it just be stauth? From “stai”, “stone”

Stirath              stone, rock; ? “stiria” Stenath?

Based on Japanese:

Dehesath – exit, leave (deru, dasu)

Dekerath – to be able to do (dekiru) (dath + kerath)

Vakeridam = I have no heart.

Menath vekidath magikath = the mind is a powerul thing.  (Literally, to think is a powerful thing).

It can also be rendered as:

It thinks, it is a powerful thing.

Mentitur vocat magat.

Mens vox magicus.

Ganidam – I was going.

cede (v.)

1630s, from French céder or directly from Latin cedere "to yield, give place; to give up some right or property," originally "to go from, proceed, leave," from Proto-Italic *kesd-o- "to go away, avoid," from PIE root *ked- "to go, yield" (cf. Sanskrit sedhati "to drive; chase away;" Avestan apa-had- "turn aside, step aside;" Greek hodos "way," hodites "wanderer, wayfarer;" Old Church Slavonic chodu "a walking, going," choditi "to go"). Related: Ceded; ceding. The sense evolution in Latin is via the notion of "to go away, withdraw, give ground."

Download – delath? Upload anlath/apalath?

Also charge, for electrical device, or anything received such

Rodanath – “to redden (something”, Mlnath – “to darken, pigment, blacken”,

Mlna people “pigmented people”, as opposed to the pigmentless race, some admixture exists.

Baudath – abode, bottle, build, building, house, structure

Bau – to build, swell up, settle, dwell, causative of exist? Biath also for this purpose.

Baume, or is this Bvath? Buath? Biath? I knew it… Oh well, Bau sounds good as a causative. Does it also mean to dwell or reside, though, and not to build? Hmm.

Bausk, Bask – boscage, see here for all the meanings, used to refer to a forest.

Bauskedath – DuBois. Wood, wooded area. And this. Alternatively any shrubby growth, like a tail.

Skerath, to cut, “shear”, shears. Skerith, Skeridith, Skerikith, shears?

Mau, to push away, like Mei? To mow? Mow is Mauth, Mei is to push away, related to cut, smei.

Vlkidath – “wolfery”, savagery, Vlkidomath is rarer and more specific to wolves.

All from Vulath, to tear up, by extension to hunt or decimate.

Vlpath – fox, red fox, attested here.

Search “while” for a word for time, to pause, rest, period.

Dmam I tame

A wooden-star. A seed in space, nourished only from the light and heat of stars or gas, and by the dust of stars, it grows spherically into a giant ball of wood, like a cyst floating in the void.

Problems with Continuity

Aukaudam – Auka-Iau-Dam or Auka – Au Dam? Aukaudam

Hasiduraudam is correct. No thematic vowel should join them. Plurality may be expressed as:

Hasidurinaudam.

Vlkanith can also be used as an accusative plural, so long as it has –an in it. This was permitted in first-PIE.

Kagath = shape, outline, contour, form