Hickic Reconstruction Notes

These are working notes for Hickic reconstruction. They are not a polished reference grammar. Use them to collect evidence, test sound-change assumptions, and separate inherited Proto-Hick material from later branch innovations.

Working Tree

The current working model treats the documented stages as historical layers rather than a single direct jump from Proto-Hick to Early Hick.

Proto-Hick
├─ Proto-Apgarian Hickic
│  ├─ Estregan
│  ├─ Anasaian
│  └─ Sanerian / Standard Apgarian
└─ Island / Seafaring Hickic
   └─ Proto-Maritime Hickic
      ├─ Maritime island branches
      ├─ later maritime pidgin and sailor lingua franca
      └─ Proto-Seneran Hickic
         └─ Pre-Early Hick
            └─ Early Hick

Each protolanguage represents both a shared ancestor and a period of shared innovation after some degree of geographic or social isolation. Proto-Apgarian may preserve older mainland features, but it is still a daughter branch with its own innovations. Proto-Maritime reflects the spread of reliable seafaring and island settlement. Proto-Seneran reflects later settlement in Senera and subsequent local development.

Method

For each reconstruction problem, collect evidence from:

1. canonical Early Hick forms used in the Seneran reference material
2. Lexurgy outputs from early-hick.lsc
3. known later Seneran or Modern Seneran survivals
4. Apgarian and Maritime cognates where available
5. semantic and morphological plausibility

Then classify each result as:

• keep: fits the sound changes, morphology, and attested descendants
• revise: useful older intuition, but likely needs better rules
• investigate: promising, but not yet supported by enough evidence
• branch-specific: valid in one branch but not necessarily Proto-Hick

Stage Checkpoints

The current early-hick.lsc file includes stage markers:

Stage 0: Proto-Hick
Stage 1: Proto-Maritime Hick
Stage 2: Proto-Seneran Hick
Stage 3: Pre-Hick
Stage 4: Early Hick

These should be treated as testable checkpoints. The stage labels may need renaming or splitting as the wider Hickic family model becomes clearer.

Calibration Form: lawesu

The root family around *lawesu is a useful test case because it touches lexical inheritance, grammaticalization, and fossilized case morphology.

Current Lexurgy Outputs

Using the current early-hick.lsc rules:

lawesu        > lawes
laʔesu        > la'es
lahesu        > las

ʔelu lawesu   > ewes
duwesu        > duwes
duhawesu      > duwes

ʔimeru lawesu > imewes
ʔimeru laʔesu > ime'es
ʔimeru lahesu > imes

bramu lawesu  > brawes
bramu laʔesu  > bra'es
bramu lahesu  > bras

Working Interpretation

Plain *lawesu currently behaves best as a lexical root: “consume, take in, use, eat.” This supports descendants such as ewes and duwes.

The form *lahesu currently produces las. This makes it a strong candidate for a later grammaticalized allomorph that became the productive Early Hick illative suffix -las.

The form *laʔesu produces apostrophe-bearing -'es shapes. This may belong with archaic or fossilized inward/receptive forms, but it should not be treated as productive Early Hick morphology.

Provisional Analysis

Proto-Hick:
*lawesu = consume, take in

Proto-Maritime or Proto-Seneran:
*lahesu = reduced or grammaticalized inward allomorph

Early Hick:
*lahesu > -las

Possible fossil layer:

Proto-Maritime or exploratory coastal usage:
*-laes / *-aes = inward, into, where something enters

The -aes layer is best treated as Proto-Maritime or early exploratory fossil material rather than productive Early Hick morphology. This especially suits hydronyms and coastal descriptions, where Maritime Hick speakers may have named features during first exploration. For example, bram-aes can be understood as an older description of a tidal river or estuary, later inherited as Bramaes > Brams.

This means the older statement *lawes > *laes > -las is too simple. The productive Early Hick -las descends from a branch-specific grammaticalized allomorph, while -aes survives as a fossilized or borrowed Maritime layer.

Calibration Form: imris

The ellative and source-causative marker -imris is another high-value calibration form because it is productive in Early Hick, but its older etymology is less secure than its synchronic function.

Current Lexurgy Outputs

Using the current early-hick.lsc rules:

ʔimeru ʔirisu  > imer'iris
ʔimeru ʔisu    > imer'is
ʔimerisu       > imeris
ʔimeru risu    > imeris

hisu           > is
hirisu         > iris
himrisu        > iris
himirisu       > imiris
himeru hisu    > imes
himeru hirisu  > imeris
himeru himrisu > imeris

ʔisu           > is
ʔirisu         > iris
risu           > ris

Working Interpretation

The transparent derivation ʔimeru ʔirisu > imris is not produced by the current rules. The closest regular output is imeris, from either ʔimerisu or ʔimeru risu.

The current working model is:

Proto-Hick or early branch material:
*ʔimer-isu / *ʔimerisu = breath/soul at-or-outward, released breath

Regular development:
*ʔimerisu > imeris

Pre-Hick to Early Hick productive morphology:
imeris > imris

The final imeris > imris reduction should be treated as a special reduction in high-frequency bound morphology, not as a general sound law. The productive Early Hick marker then extends from physical/source ellative use into derivational and clause-linking functions:

out of, from
> arising from
> caused by, because of
> cause to emerge or bring out

The *risu root is attested as “reed”, so it should not be repurposed as the source of -imris. The *-isu suffix is documented as locative “at, in”; its exterior/outward use should remain a branch-specific or contextual development unless stronger comparative evidence is found.

The Early Hick word kiris should not currently be used as firm evidence that *isu originally meant “out”. Its etymology may need reanalysis or may represent folk etymology.

Candidate Reanalysis: kiris

The current Early Hick lexicon derives kiris from *kiru-ʔisu “body-out”, but the current Lexurgy rules produce kir'is, not kiris. The cleaner sound-change path is:

*kiru-risu > kiris

Since *risu is independently attested as “reed”, this gives a literal sense “reed body”. That phrase can remain available as a botanical description of the body or stalk of a reed, while also developing a socially marked sense through contact with plantlike fey:

reed body
> reed-bodied being
> plantlike fey, especially wetland or reedbed spirits
> fey outsider, strange non-human person

This development fits a Maritime or Seneran setting better than an inherited Proto-Hick exterior case etymology. Raibon Island and Senera both have strong later traditions of fey contact, wetland crossings, and bog-associated magical beings, so kiris may reflect a branch-specific folk or contact term rather than a general Proto-Hick derivation from *-isu.

Calibration Form: itaru

The superessive marker -itar and the inland/fossil form -iter need to be kept separate in synchronic Early Hick description, even if they may be historically related.

Current Lexurgy Outputs

Using the current early-hick.lsc rules:

ʔitaru > iter
hitaru > iter

The regular sound-change path is:

*ʔitaru
> *ʔi.ta.ru
> *'ʔi.tə.rə
> *'i.tə.rə
> *'i.trə
> iter

Bare itaru is not a valid Proto-Hick input under the current syllable model, because vowel-initial forms require an onset repair. The roots.wli file may contain generated phonotactic test words, so its *-itaru-like outputs should be treated as sound-change feasibility rather than canonical lexical attestation.

Working Interpretation

The current working model is that -iter is the regular inherited reflex of an older onset-bearing superessive or upper-surface marker, while -itar is the productive Early Hick superessive that spread from a separate Seneran dialect layer.

regular inherited reflex:
*ʔitaru / *hitaru > -iter

prestige or restored dialect form:
*-itaru > -itar

In the coastal and eastern trade standard, the productive ellative -imris became the clearer marker for source, emergence, and outward motion. This likely caused inherited -iter to lose productivity where it overlapped with ellative meanings. It survived mostly in inland, conservative, domestic, or ritual vocabulary, such as venuiter and related forms.

The productive superessive -itar is best placed in Ranterg highland or eastern-slope prestige speech. During the middle Early Hick period, the growing ritual and political importance of Thrantorgral in the Ranterg Mountains may have carried this highland form into broader Early Hick usage. Its meaning remained comparatively clear: “on, upon, atop, supported by; onto/upon with motion verbs.”

Regional Model

The resulting Early Hick standard is not purely coastal. It is a layered contact variety:

Eastern/coastal trade speech:
  -imris becomes the productive ellative

Western inland and agricultural speech:
  -iter survives in older fossilized forms

Ranterg highland prestige speech:
  -itar spreads as the productive superessive

Coastal Early Hick became the practical base of the standard because eastern and coastal communities controlled the trade routes to the wider Beteran community. Ranterg speech then contributed prestige religious or political forms after Thrantorgral gained importance.

The strongest dialectal drift should be expected in the most isolated Seneran regions. The Maltreks, especially the remote northwestern highlands, are the best candidate for the most conservative or divergent local speech. They likely remained marginal to island-wide standardization until rare minerals made the region economically important late in the Early Hick period or later. Northeastern Senera is a likely secondary isolation zone, because colder and less productive conditions would have limited settlement density, trade intensity, and regular contact with the coastal standard. This northeastern or Skelmark zone likely had little island-wide influence during the Early Hick period. Its larger influence begins in Middle Hick, after the Iutlandish landing made it a base for inland expansion. The inland Western Lowlands and eastern Rannek may also preserve local features because of distance from the eastern maritime network, but their agricultural importance likely created more regular trade contact. They should therefore be treated as conservative contact zones rather than fully isolated dialect pockets. These regions may preserve older reflexes or develop stronger local innovations than the eastern trade coast or the Ranterg prestige corridor.

One small confirmed Maltreks or upper Malter Valley split is the regional earthworm form grapal, especially plural grapales, beside standard Early Hick grapar/grapares. This should be treated as a local lexical variant, not as a general Early Hick liquid sound law. The form likely reflects local liquid leveling in a familiar inherited compound:

standard lexicalized compound:
gral-par > grapar "earthworm"

regional leveling:
grapar(es) > grapal(es)

The split fits the broader expectation that isolated western and mountain regions preserve local reductions, but it should not be projected onto all r/l environments without further evidence.

This explains mixed formal expressions such as:

'ilitar venuiteres
good-SUPE birth-ELL.DIAL-ABS
"blessings upon your birth"

Here, 'ilitar uses the standard or prestige superessive, while venuiter preserves an older inland/fossil birth term.

Working Form: esp

The direct reconstruction *espu > -esp is currently weak. It produces the desired Early Hick shape, but it looks more like a placeholder than a motivated Proto-Hick form.

A better working model derives -esp from a grammaticalized compound around *wesu and a probable root *pu:

*wesu pu
> wesp
> -esp

The likely older senses are:

*pu = hole, hollow, burrow
*wesu = dwelling, enclosed space
     > enclosure
     > cover, enclose

The independent Early Hick root wes preserves the later lexical sense “cover, enclose.” The compound *wesu pu preserves a more spatial use: “enclosed hole, covered hollow, burrow-dwelling.” The important semantic development is:

burrow-dwelling, covered hollow
> under-cover place, beneath a surface, under the ground
> subessive -esp "under, below, beneath"

This should not be treated as a fully formed Proto-Hick subessive. The best chronology is:

Proto-Hick:
  *wesu pu = enclosed hole, burrow-dwelling

Maritime / Proto-Seneran:
  burrow sense weakens or broadens in island and maritime settings
  > covered hollow, ship hold, enclosed lower storage space,
    under-cover place

Pre-Hick:
  wesp = covered/beneath-place

Early Hick:
  root-wesp > root-esp
  -esp becomes the productive subessive case marker

This path fits the current Early Hick lexicon better than bare *espu. It also explains why wesp could survive as a separate lexical relic: Maritime Hick could shift the older burrow or covered-hole sense toward ship holds and enclosed lower storage spaces, while Early Hick later generalizes the independent word to “cellar”, “basement”, or “lower enclosed space.” It explains saresp “sprout” as “leaf under/covered,” with growth understood as emergence from concealment or from beneath the ground. It also gives aiesp “bathe” a more concrete source: “water covering/enclosing the body,” rather than only abstract “water under.”

Lexurgy currently gives:

*wesu pu > wesp
*brisu-wesu-pu > brisesp

The second form is important because the current compound rules already allow w to disappear after sibilants at a compound boundary. The phonotactics also do not allow general Cw onset clusters. Once wesp was reanalyzed as a bound suffix, forms like *imer-wesp, *sar-wesp, or *gral-wesp were therefore prone to repair as imer-esp, sar-esp, and gral-esp. This makes wesp > esp plausible as a common-use reduction of a very frequent grammatical suffix: sibilant-final compounds could surface with -esp, and consonant-final stems would independently favor loss of the weak initial w. Speakers then generalized -esp as the productive subessive.

This should be treated as a common-use reduction and analogical leveling, not as a global sound change deleting all w before e.

Calibration Form: asam

The asam family is best treated as a shared-base reconstruction problem, not as a strictly sequential derivation from a live Early Hick verb.

Working Interpretation

The current Early Hick material supports three related but distinct outcomes:

Proto-Hick:
*xasamu = rest, repose, resting place

Early Hick lexical noun:
asam = rest, resting place

Early Hick case marker:
-asam = sublative, downward / onto a lower surface

The most economical analysis is that the noun and the case marker are cognate developments from the same older base. The case marker does not need to be synchronically derived from a live finite verb such as asam'er. Instead, the grammaticalization path is better understood as:

rest, resting place
> toward rest
> down into rest
> onto a lower or supporting surface
> sublative -asam

This fits the Early Hick lexical evidence better than a model where speakers first derive a verb “to go to rest” and only later turn that verb into a case marker. If asam'er is later normalized or explicitly documented, it can be treated as a transparent finite verbalization of the lexical base asam, not as the historical source that speakers must reconstruct in order to understand -asam.

Synchrony vs. History

Synchronically in Early Hick:

• asam is a lexical noun
• -asam is a productive grammatical case suffix
• forms such as asamasam and asamitar show later lexicalized derivations built from the noun-plus-case family

Historically:

• the noun and suffix are related
• but they should be treated as parallel outcomes of older *xasamu material, not as a simple live chain asam > asam'er > -asam

Open Questions

• Does Apgarian preserve a form closer to *lawesu?
• Does Maritime preserve *lahesu, *laʔesu, or a separate inward marker behind fossil -aes?
• Does Apgarian or Maritime preserve an imeris-like form before the productive Early Hick reduction to imris?
• Is the exterior/source sense of *-isu inherited from Proto-Hick, or is it a Proto-Maritime/Proto-Seneran contextual development?
• Does Early Hick kiris come from *kiru-risu “reed body”, and did that meaning develop through plantlike fey contact?
• Is -itar specifically a Ranterg highland prestige form, or did the same restored superessive survive in multiple Seneran regions?
• Which stage first developed productive spatial case suffixes?
• Are duwes, ewes, and -las part of one derivational family, or do they reflect separate lexical and grammaticalized branches?
• Does *pu survive elsewhere with the sense “hole, hollow, burrow”, or only in the bridge form wesp?