Proto Vauqun-Adzovъd

Summary
Descendant of Proto Csillan (kinda...but not really, I gave up on directly deriving it a long time ago the vast majority of this is a priori). Basically Csilla's equivalent of PIE. Unlike PCS, PVA was actually reconstructed. In certain places I'll use blue writing to highlight etymology information that couldn't be reconstructed yet is known to me 'cuz I made the lang :P

PVA had three major attested descendants, from east to west geographically:
 * Old Vauqun (the first VA language to be attested in writing, and also the only descendant of its branch)-abbreviated OV
 * Proto-Kfimea (which later split off into West Kfimea and East Kfimea)-abbreviated P Kf (W Kf & E Kf)
 * Proto-Adzovŭd (which features the greatest geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity of the three PVA branches)- abbrivated P Adz

Vowels
As can be inferred from the graph above, all vowel qualities distinguished length and some nasality. Though all vowel qualities are rather uncertain, the greatest debate surrounds the roundedness of the vowel , which does not seem to show any partiality to either rounded or unrounded in its descendants. The most common consensus is that the vowel  had various rounded and unrounded variants in specific phonetic, historical, situational and geographic contexts, which were stabilized by the various daughter languages. Thus, the preference over the grapheme  for this phoneme which itself is historically ambiguous to a rounded or unrounded vowel.

The stress was regularly placed on the second vowel of the root, unless that vowel was short and the following vowel was long (vowels lengthened via nasalization or other morphophonemics that were originally short do not affect this rule.)

Phonotactics
Legal Onsets: C, [+obstruent][+plosive], C[+sonorant], [+obstruent][+fricative -homorganic]

Legal Nuclei: any vowel of any quality or length

Legal Codas: [+consonant -nasal], [+sonorant]C, [+obstruent][+obstruent] and of course nothing. Codas can occasionally contain up to three obstruents, particularly in verbs in the middle voice.

Legal Middle Clusters: any coda + onset, unless it breaks the following rules: Clusters of obstruents can disagree in voice, except that a plosive cannot be followed by a fricative differing in voicedness. Therefore zevko is allowed, but togfeþk > tokfeþk
 * the only plosive + plosive combinations allowed are geminates and those beginning with a velar, otherwise the initial plosive spirantizes: /p t b d/ > /f þ v đ/
 * chains of three or more plosives or fricatives are illegal (ie *ektti is illegal, but eksti, ektsi, ekþti, ektþi, extti, etc are all allowed, likewise with *exssi)

Hiatus are usually avoided in standard productive morphology, but within roots and more often in derivation they are generally allowed.

Morphophonemics
Vowels underwent many shifts under certain conditions, with varying regularity: There were also a few grammaticalized consonant shifts which are discussed in the grammar section.
 * Certain vowels raise or front before r, w, n and m in closed syllables /y a o/ > /i e u/ -highly regular in short vowels, less common in long vowels. Word-final vowels followed by [r] occasionally and sporadically lengthen, the impetus for this is unknown. Also note u + w > ū.
 * Vowels of any length nasalize before n and m, after raising /e i u/ > /ę į ų/. This sometimes led to stem alternations, such as the noun kost ę (sword) gen sing kost ani
 * Vowels lax in syllables closed by a non-alveolar or non-dental voiceless obstruent /i e u/ > /y a o/
 *  could not be long if it was the last sound of the word or if it is the last vowel of the word and is followed only by a resonant

Masculine Declension
A-stems

O-stems

E-stems

I-stems

Y-stems

The consonant shifts are as follows: These shifts happen to the consonant right before the root vowel and they occur in every plural case except the nominative.
 * p t k b d g > f þ x v đ ğ
 * [fricative] > [fricative + geminate]
 * V(n m) > [nasal vowel] + z
 * r > ğ (sporadic)
 * [sonorant] > [sonorant] + z
 * [vowel] > [vowel] + z

Feminine Declension
Ō-stems

Ū-stems

OJ-stems

Ē/I Stems

JU-Stems

Articles
The only article reconstructable for Proto Vauqun-Adzovŭd is the definite article- or perhaps two definite articles, one for the common gender and one for the neuter.

The article seemed to have been able to be cliticized and pre/suffixed to the noun it modifies, even reduced to s-, x(n)-, or f-. The article could also be used as a personal pronoun.

Pronouns
There are also fyru (relative pronoun), sinu (distal demonstrative), sįkje (proximal demonstrative), naku (interrogative.) They decline via the following paradigm.

Adjectives
The standard declension for adjectives is based on The comparative degree is formed via the infix -įg- before the nominative singular. Most native adjectives form the superlative via the infix -ağm- before the nominative singular, whereas other adjectives (presumably those borrowed from other languages) formed it using the adverb tağmęk. Adverbs are regularly formed with the suffix -sę.

Several adjectives with a masc nom sing in -ate have an irregular neuter nom sing in -aþ, all other forms are regular (affu/affo & ēkje/ēkja, but kefyte/kefyþ).

Verbs
The above endings are added to the appropriate stem of a verb (each tense has a unique stem, given in a verb's principle parts.) Only the active voice features distinct endings for the imperfect and preterite tenses, the middle and passive voices just use one set of "past" suffixes. Note that the (j) in the imperfect active endings serves to prevent hiatus if the imperfect stem ends in a vowel, likewise the parenthetical vowels in the passive endings are present when added to a principle part ending with a consonant. For the passive second person plural, the (w) prevents hiatus while the (j) appears only after a consonant. The middle & present active systems have no inherent epenthetic vowels, the consonant cluster simply tries to adapt to be pronounceable and legal (zrēd + ks > zrēþks), but if the result was still difficult to pronounce (ie zrēd + t, vemak + ks) speakers often insterted an epenthetic  (zrēdyt, vemakyks) or simply drop the first obstruent (zrēt, vemaks) In some languages, the  became standard when the stem ends in any obstruent.

Note that the impersonal present can also serve as a gerund belonging to the athematic declension.

First Principle Part
The first principle part is usually the base root of the verb + the 1st person singular ending -ru. Exceptions to this include impersonal verbs (such as, where the first principle part is the present impersonal, and verbs were the base root is preteriteic in nature and the present is formed via derivation (usually the inchoative suffix -đē), such as enweþk (I knew) pres 1s enweđēru.

The first principle part is the source of all finite present forms of the verb and both active, the mediopassive participles of all tenses (note that the participle tenses differ from the finite verb tenses), and the supines

Second Principle Part
The second principle part gives the finite preterite forms for all voices. In verbs that feature reduplication, the second principle part is formed by lengthening the stem vowel (riaru (I live) > riāþk (I lived), voru (I go) > vōþk (I went)). In most other verbs, it's formed with the suffix -fe added to the root stem (togru (I say) > tokfeþk (I said)). This occasionally eats the last vowel before the 1st person singular (aneru (I travel) > ęfeþk (I traveled)) The most common exception to this rule, naturally, is preterite-root verbs, which lack any explicit morpheme for the preterite tense. Some verbs, though, form the 2nd pp via the prefix ki- (this usually appears in semantically passive verbs, such as sxenoru (ì sleep) kisxenoþk (I slept), but not all; dvatyru (I sit) > dvatfeþk (I sat). Furthermore, verbs with the prefix v/u-, replace this prefix with fe- instead of adding -fe- before the personal ending, and verbs with the prefix z(u)- transform into fj(u)-

Third Principle Part
The third principle part is only found in some archaic verbs, where it is formed via reduplication (ie riaru (to live) > reriajēk (I was living), voru (to go), vawojēk (I was going)). This root gives the imperfect forms of the verb. In every other verb the imperfect tense uses the 1st pp.

Subjunctive Mood
The subjunctive mood has reconstructed uses entailing desired, theoretical and possible actions. As far as subordination goes, the subjunctive was only used in conditional clauses, other secondary clauses were usually reserved for non-finite forms or the optative mood.

In archaic or "reduplicating" verbs (discussed above), the subjunctive in all tenses is formed through a non-productive ablaut: riat (I live) > riot (I should live). Standard verbs take an infix -wy- before the personal ending in the present: ōğot (I converse) > ōğowyt (I should converse). Root-preterite verbs take this infix in the preterite tense, since for those verbs that tense is the most basic form. The preterite and imperfect subjunctives are regularly formed via the prefix vo-. Note that this takes the place of any other tense marker: ęfeþk (I traveled) > voaneþk (if I traveled) (the -fe- infix was removed), same with kiōttiþk (I witnessed) > voōttiþk (I should have witnessed). Note that hiatus is not blocked in this prefix, even when the vowels are identical. This and the regularity of both of these morphemes suggest that the subjunctive mood (outside of reduplicating verbs, at least) was a recent innovation at the time of late PVA.

Optative Mood
The optative mood is usually used in subordinate clauses of desire, command, purpose, etc. As a finite verb it functions similar to an imperative, which is otherwise lacking (or perhaps unreconstructable) in PVA.

It is regularly formed (yes, even in reduplicating verbs) by combining the appropriate participle with a clitcized auxiliary (which is only conjugated in the present active, thus the tense and voice is only marked on the participle. Note that this results in the optative mood having a different tense distinction from other moods.) The auxiliary's conjugation is given below. The optative participle is translated as "wanting to verb"

Compound Tenses
The future and perfect tenses had a variety of periphrastic constructions to convey them, based on context, dialect and individual preference. I'm far too lazy to exhaustively list each construction, but fortunately they follow some pretty general patterns: the future indicative was formed with a construction such as a verb of going or having + the supine, or the future participle plus the verb to be (ajru, ājþk, eajjēk). Even with these constructions, the future optative was simply a more common and unmarked way to express future events that in some dialects it replaced the future indicative.

The perfect was ubiquitously formed via the periphrasis verb of having + past participle, but don't be fooled; the perfect tense was not formed regularly, as there were a number of ways to express having. Typically, a verb such as "veryru" or "kuru," whose root meanings are closer to "hold" and "grab" respectively, was used. There was also a construction similar to those present in some modern day Slavic languages (although in Slavic languages the construction is not used to indicate perfect tense, just possession), with the subject in the locative case and the "possessed" (ie the verb's direct object) in the nominative case. In standard possessive clauses, the participle would agree with the object. Thus if one wanted to say "I have a visible animal" they would say "kēro ottysiwte vari (as)" (animal.nom.s see-past.pass.part.nom.s me.loc.s be.3s), where ottysiwte agrees with kēro. But if one wanted to say "I have seen an animal" they would say "vari kēro ottysiwtag (as)" (me.loc.s animal.nom.s see-past.pass.part.loc.s be.3s), note that the copula is optional in both circumstances. This particular periphrasis was standardized in OV and its descendants but is marginally attested elsewhere, with a few E. Kf languages being the most significant exception.

Syntax
SOV, postpositions, possessor-genitive, postposed adjectives, either pre or postposed articles, noun-numeral. Yes, this is hilariously underdeveloped and simplified, but for a proto lang I scarcely have the motivation to do more :P

Lexicon
On google drive

Diachronics
PVA to OV

PVA to P Kf

PVA to P Adz