Andronian

Classification and Dialects
Andronian is the official language in Andronistan (in Andronian : Andronorage). Andronian is a Finno-Ugric language. It shares some common basic vocabulary with the Finno-Ugric sister languages like Finnish and Estonian, e.g. : house : tele (Andronian) - talo (Finnish); ten : küme (Andronian) - kymmenen (Finnish) - kümme (Estonian).

Through historical contact with the Early Teutonic Order, Andronian is highly influenced by Middle Low German in terms of grammar and vocabulary, e.g. : kitchen : küčne (Andronian) - kooke (Middle Low German); doctor : hilarö (Andronian) - heelen (Middle Low German, but note that it actually means : to heal).

The language absorbed also a significant number of Slavic words due to its exposure to Early East Slavic, e.g. : to eat : jästan (Andronian) - есть (Russian - yest').

Consonants
Every consonant can be softly palatalized (how the palatalization is represented in the written language, will be analysed later on). So, there are sounds like /sj/, except /l/ and /n/ palatalize to /ʎ/ and /ɲ/. Depending of the dialect of the speaker, the sounds /t/ and /d/ may palatalize softly to /tj/ or /dj/, or they can be pronounced as /c/ and /ɟ/.

Writing System
The Andronian writing system is very German-Czech centred, because when in the 1850's the government decided to switch from the Old Andronian alphabet to the Latin script (because the Old Andronian alphabet was too charged with archaisms and heavily inconsistent writing - a big problem for the alphabetization program decided by the government), the Andronian scholars went to Austria-Hungary to study, how to adapt the Latin script to the Andronian phonology.

Palatalization is done by the letter j following a consonant, e.g. : sjemä (=seven) /sjɛmɛ/. Palatalization may also be done by the letter e following a consonant, e.g. : čeaj (=tee) /tʃjaj/ (although in some dialects and very conservative speech, the /ɛ/ is still pronounced, e.g. /tʃɛaj/).

The letter ä is an archaism. In the 1850's as it was introduces, it represented the vowel /e/. But already during the 1920's, /e/ merged to /ɛ/. So today, the usage of the letter ä is unpredictable and has to be learnt by heart.

In some dialects, syllables, which are stressed in the standard language and in the majority of dialects, get lengthened, e.g. : sjemä / sjɛ mɛ/ (in standard language and most dialects) ~ / sjɛ: mɛ/ (in some dialects).

In Andronian, voiced consonants at the end of words become voiceless (influence from Old East Slavic - the voiced counterpart is still written out due to convention from the Old Andronian alphabet, where those words were also written with a voiced consonant letter), e.g. : ojid (=you all are) /ɔjit/.

Base grammar
The first and most essential part of the Andronian grammar is the so called "base grammar" (Bazigramatike), which dictates the fundaments of the declensions, verbal systems and syntax. The "Bazigramatike" contains following topics : noun declension, simple negation, definitness, verbs (in the infinitive present and indicative present), modal verbs, telicity and perfectivity.

Noun declension
Nouns in Andronian end in a vowel, may it be : a, e, i, o, u, ä, ö, ü, e.g. : küh ä (=a woman). Nouns may also end with the semi-vowel j. The stem of a word is then the word without its final vowel, e.g. küh-. A noun in Andronian can be put in the singular or the plural. The noun declension go as follows : If the case ending begins with an -i- or an -e-, the preceeding consonant must be leminated as follows : Following this set of rules : kühä (NOM.SG) - küej (VOC.SG) - kü h on (ACC.SG)
 * b --> v
 * d --> ď
 * g --> ď
 * h --> /
 * k --> g
 * l --> ľ
 * n --> ň
 * s --> z
 * t --> ť

Andronian cases may have a lot of different functions in a sentence, but for a first glance the primary functions of the cases will be analyzed : Since in Andronian there is no verb expressing "to be", the copula verb is conventionally replaced in the written language by a hyphen (although the hyphen doesn't contribute to any phonological change in the spoken language - the hyphen is a eurocentric convention, as most European languages, especially German and Czech, express the copula verb). The attribute of the subject is put in the nominative case, e.g. : Mi - inžinera. (=I am an engineer.)
 * Nominative : expresses the subject
 * Vocative : expresses an exclamation
 * Accusative : expresses the complete direct object
 * Dative : expresses the indirect object
 * Genitive : expresses the possession
 * Partitive : expresses the incomplete direct object
 * Comitative : expresses the instrumental object
 * Ergative : expresses ergativity (note that accusative and ergative don't exclude each other, because Andronian has split ergativity)
 * Locative : expresses location
 * Ablative : expresses the motion from
 * Allative : expresses the motion to
 * Translative : expresses the motion through

Simple negation
The simple negation is done with the irregular modal verb "ojnin" (=to not be). For a first glance, the negative copula verb will just be discussed in the indicative present : The attribute following the negative copula must be in the partitive case (the partitive case is a noteworthy property of the negation in Andronian), e.g. : Mi ojn inžineris. (=I am not an engineer.).

The simple negation opens the discussion in the "Bazigramatike" to determine the syntax in Andronian. Although Andronian is a highly synthetic language, it inherites a very strict SVO-syntax from Middle Low German, as seen in this example : Mi (S) ojn (V) inžineris (O - attribute).

Andronian is also a pro-drop language, so that the subject may be left out, if not needed, e.g. Mi ojn inžineris. --> Ojn inžineris. ("ojn" already contains the information of "mi", the first person singular, because of its conjugation).

Definitness
The definitness can be qualified as neutral, distal and proximal. The neutral definitness is formed with the invariable definite article "en" following the noun, e.g. : Jästem en malikon en küčňesta. (=I am eating the apple in the kitchen.)

The proximal and distal definitness express a specific spatial or temporal notion implied by the speaker. The proximal definitness expresses that something is near to the speaker, while the distal definitness expresses that something is far from the speaker's perspective. Both definitnesses are marked by suffixes : -(o)v for proximity; -(o)n for distal marking (the aditional -o- occurs, when the case ending is a consonant - the distal and proximal definitness originates from the Old East Slavic demonstrative pronouns : овъ - ov' = this; онъ - on' = that), e.g. : Jästem malikonon küčňestav. (=I am eating that apple in this kitchen.)

Verbs
According to the "Bazigramatike", the verbs will here just be discussed for the infinitive present and indicative present.

Infinitive present
The infinitive present is the dictionary form of the verb and gives the stem (here, e.g. : kir-) for the indicative present, but also other tenses. The infinitive present is also called the coda of the verb, because it contains the consonant set to consider for the binyan (grammatical rule, in which the stem of the verb varies strongly following an onset of rules, but always keeping the main consonants; here, e.g. K-R).

Indicative present
Since final voiced consonants are devoiced, it may become confusing to differ between "kiret" and "kired". In the written language, the additional pronoun can easily be dropped, e.g. : Kiret en kirjis. (=He is reading the book.) - Kired en kirjis. (=You all are reading a book.), but in the spoken language, if it isn't already clear from the context, the personal pronoun must be added, e.g. : Sän kiret en kirjis. (=He is reading the book.) - Te kired en kirjis. (=You all are reading a book.).
 * The indicative present is used to describe a present action, e.g. Kirem en kirjis. (=I am reading the book.)
 * The indicative present is also used to express future actions, that will surely occur, e.g. Sjatet peana. (=It is going to rain soon.)

Modal verbs
Modal verbs describe the modality of the main verb. There are 8 modal verbs in Andronian : ojnin (~not be), vöjtin (~can), ťatin (~shall), tecin (~want), musin (~must), mäjin (~may), močin (~tharf / be allowed to) and ňuždin (~need). The pattern here is again very Germanic-like because of the Middle Low German influence. Modal verbs are all caracterized by their infinitive present ending in -in (and not in -an as for all the other verbs). All modal verbs are irregular : The main verb followed by the modal verb must be in the modal infinitive present. The modal infinitive present is simply the stem of the infinitive present of the verb, e.g. : kir an - kir. Due to the Middle Low German influence, the main verb must be put at the end of the sentence (verb-second word order), e.g. : Musim kirjonov kir. (=I must read this book.).

The verb "ojnin" is also used as the negative modal to negate the main verb. "Ojnin" doesn't require to follow the verb-second word order, but the accusative object must be put in the partitive in a negated sentence, e.g. : Ojn kir kirj is ov. (=I am not reading this book.).

Modal verbs may be accumulated. In case of a negated modal verb, the modal verb doesn't follow the verb-second word order, but the main verb does, e.g. : Ojn ňužd kirjisov kir! (=I don't need to read this book!). If all the modal verbs are in the affirmative form, the dependent modal verb is put before the main verb in the verb-second word order, e.g. : Ťam kirjonov moč kir. (=I shall/should be allowed to read this book.).

Telicity
Telicity is a key element in the distinction between the accusative and partitive case. An action is telic, if it is completed, whereas an uncompleted action is called atelic. A telic action aquires the direct object to be in the accusative case, while an atelic action demands that the direct object be put in the partitive case (telicity is a very common feature in Finno-Ugric languages, c.f. Finnish and Estonian). Let's precize : Malem en telon. (=I'm painting the house entirely. ~ the accusative marks the action will be completed at once) vs. Malem en teľis. (=I'm painting the house partly. ~ the partitive marks the action will not be completed at once).

Perfectivity
Perfectivity describes that the action of a verb is accomplished or is going to be accomplished. According to the "Bazigramatike", perfectivity will just be analyzed here for the indicative present (although perfectivity takes a greater role, when it comes to past and future tenses). Perfectivity in the present tense (of the indicative mood) implies that the action is going to be accomplished, whether the action is being done at once (telic) or has been repeatedly interrupted (atelic). It is logical that perfectivity will always imply the use of the accusative case, because the finishing of an action is always telic. Perfectivity is indicated by the suffix peal- attached to the verb, e.g. : pealkiran (=to read through), pealjästan (=to eat entirely) etc.

The suffix must be seperated from its verb and put at the end of the sentence, if the verb is conjugated (also inherited from Middle Low German), e.g. : Kirem en kirjon peal. (=I'm reading through the book.). The suffix isn't seperated, if the verb's position is modified by a modal verb, e.g. : Musim en kirjon pealkir. (=I must read through the book.).

As mentioned earlier on, perfectivity requires the telic accusative case. But, one may ask :"Why does the telic accusative not require perfectivity in the sentence " Malem en telon ." seen before?". In the present tense, the perfectivity explicitly describes the ending of an ongoing action, whether the actions has before been telic or not, e.g. : Malem en telon (=I'm painting the house entirely. ~ the agent of the action might have or not begun with the action, but what is sure : the action will be completed!) vs. Malem en telon peal. (=I'm finishing to paint the house. ~ the agent of the action has clearly begun with the action and is finishing it!). Most of the time, perfectivity and telicity (and the perfect aspect, which will be discussed later on) go together, especially in the past and future tenses.

Nominal aspect
In Andronian, linguists call the "nominal aspect" (Nominaaspektäne) the detailed analyze of the adjectival verbs and the pronouns. Even if the name "Nominaaspektäne" doesn't seem to fit, as the nouns won't be discussed at all, it makes sense to call it so, because it describes the entities describing nouns and behaving like nouns.

Adjectival verbs
A significant difference between Andronian and English is the lack of adjectives. Adjectives are expressed by verbs that are called adjectival verbs (note they do not differ morphologically at all with the "normal type" of verbs), e.g. : töžan (=to be sad).

Adjectival verbs may be used adjectivally or verbally. The verbal use of adjectival verbs is simply the conjugated verb standing for the subject and verb of the sentence, e.g. : Töžem, säst ta ojš. (=I am sad because you are not here. - verbal use). The adjectival use of that type of verbs implies that the adjectival verb cannot stand alone, so that a noun must be following it. The adjectival verb must be put between a determiner (like the invariable definite article " en " or a pronoun) and the noun, and it conjugates following the noun that it caracterizes, e.g. : Kirem en töžet kirjis. (=I'm reading the sad book [not entirely]. - the verb " töžan " is between the determiner " en " and its noun " kirja ", and must be conjugated for the 3d person singular because of " kirja " being a 3d person and being in the singular [partitive - atelic]).

Adjectival verbs in Andronian can be graduated by the means of suffixes. There are following graduations : Here again the syntax and the difference between adjectival or verbal use play a significant role. The comparative of inferiority and of equality respect verb-second word order by seperating their suffix from the verb, if the adjectival verb is used verbally, e.g. : Töžem jämen tak. (=I'm as sad as before. - the suffix " ne(j)- " is put at the end of the sentence); but take care : Jökem takseabet telon jämen. (=I see an as beautiful house as before. - here the suffix cannot be separated from the verb because the adjectival verb is used adjectivally).
 * Comparative of inferiority : expresses that something is less valent and takes the suffix "ne(j)-", e.g. : neseabet tele (=a less beautiful house)
 * Comparative of equality : expresses that something is as valent as something else and takes the suffix "tak-", e.g. : takseabet tele (=an as beautiful house)
 * Comparative of superiority : expresses that something is more valent and takes the suffix "mäg-", e.g. : mägseabet tele (=a more beautiful house)
 * Superlative of inferiority : expresses that something is the least valent and takes the suffix "nek-", e.g. : en nekseabet tele (=the least beautiful house)
 * Superlative of superiority : expresses that something is the most valent and takes the suffix "hüe-", e.g. : en hüeseabet tele (=the most beautiful house)

The comparative and superlative of superiority are called the "Real Comparative and Superlative" (Idinänek Komparativäne a Superlativäne) by Andronian grammarians, because the suffix of both forms is unseparable from the adjectival verb, e.g. : Hüeseabem. (=I am very beautiful. - verbal use), and : Jökem en hüeseabet čevojon teľestav. (=I see the most beautiful girl in this house. - adjectival use).

The superlative of inferiority agrees syntactically like the comparative of inferiority and equality, but, once the suffix separated from its verb, it adds the suffix "hüe-" of the superlative of superiority, e.g. : Hüeseabeš nek. (=You are not beautiful at all. - verbal use); but : Jökem en nekseabet čevojon teľestav. (=I see the least beautiful girl in this house. - adjectival use).

The comparison is done by the adjectival verb being in a comparative form and the compared noun being in the genitive case, e.g. : Telev mägseabet  teľenon. (=This house is more beautiful  than that house.).

Numerals
Numerals in Andronian fall into one of those following categories : cardinal, ordinal, distributive and adverbial.

The first category are the cardinal numeral, which are invariable. The set of the numerals is very straight forward : from 1 to 10, there are the root numbers from Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finnic origin. From 11 to 19, addition will be applied as follows, e.g. : "eleven" would be "ten-and-one". The multiple of ten are simply expressed by any number preceeding the number 10, e.g. : "twenty" would be "two-ten" and "twenty nine" would be "two-ten-and-nine". 100 and 1000 are again numbers from Proto-Uralic origin. The ordinal numerals are used to express a classement, a date or an hour. There are formed by adding the suffix -(e)či to the cardinal numeral, but they do behave nominally, i.d. they do follow the declension of the noun they're describing, e.g. : Jökem en ekenečon seašton. (=I see the first/eldest sister. - the ordinal " ekeneči " is in the accusative case because the noun " seašta ", which it describes, is in the accusative). In case of a temporal meaning, the noun and its ordinal must be put in the translative case, e.g. : En fejsäčölä künölä musin en šjulton maťad. (=In the fifth month [of the year], we must pay [back] the debt.) or : Muš kadačölä pjercölä tol. (=You must come at eight o'clock.).

The distributive numeral expresses the distribution of each noun X to a noun Y. The distributive numeral requires the suffix -(i)ni added to the cardinal number and are invariable, e.g. : Jämtem kölmeni keksonet en ľepeť. (=I'm giving the children three cookies each. - the difference between the distributive and the cardinal number might seem unsignificant, but consider following sentence : Jämtem kölme keksonet en ľepeť. [=I'm giving the children three cookies.] - here the children get three cookies and not every single child gets three cookies). If placed after the noun, the distributive acquires the meaning of the ordinal, e.g. : Jökem en seašton ekenini. (=I see the first/eldest sister. - equivalent to : Jökem en ekenečon seašton. - with an ordinal). Allthough the grammar precizes that both possibilities are completely equivalent, the use of the cardinal is prefered in the written language, while the use of the distributive is more dominant in the spoken language.