Early Hick Dialects and Development Notes

Dialects

Inland Dialect

Case Variation

Some inland dialects preserve -iter in older ellative-like or source-like forms. In standard coastal/eastern Early Hick, productive -imris takes over source, emergence, and outward motion, while -iter survives mostly in conservative, domestic, ritual, or fossilized terms. This explains forms like:

• Standard: vinuimris “to give birth” < vinu-imris “pregnancy-ELL”
• Inland: venuiter “to give birth” < venu-iter “burden-ELL.DIAL”

This dialectal variation is preserved in the formal birthday greeting:

Note: The greeting layers standard or prestige -itar with the inland fossil form venuiter, suggesting a formula that passed through more than one regional register.

Development Notes

Case Development

Illative (-las)

The productive Early Hick illative marker -las marks inward motion, entry, reception, internalization, and change into a bounded state. It is related to the older “take in, consume” semantic field, but the current reconstruction keeps the productive suffix distinct from fossil Maritime -aes forms.

1. Lexical family: *lawesu “consume, take in”
2. Branch-specific grammaticalized allomorph: *lahesu “inward, into, taking in”
3. Productive Early Hick: *lahesu > -las
   • Used for entry into places: rismater-las “into the reed boat”
   • Used for receptive/internalizing senses: pir-las “hearing”, bel-las “taste reception”
   • Used for state change and poetic internalization: kakel-las “into blue”, thral-las “into sacred light”
4. Fossil or borrowed Maritime layer: *-laes / *-aes
   • Not the ordinary productive Early Hick illative
   • Best retained for hydronyms and early coastal/exploratory names, such as Bramaes > Brams

Superessive (-itar) and Inland -iter

The productive Early Hick superessive marker -itar is best treated as a standard or prestige form from a Seneran dialect layer, probably associated with Ranterg highland or eastern-slope speech. It marks “on, upon, above” and, in motion contexts, “onto/upon.”

The related inland or fossil form -iter is the more regular inherited reflex of an older onset-bearing upper-surface marker:

1. Older form: *ʔitaru or *hitaru “upper surface, above/upon”
2. Regular reduction: > iter
3. Loss of productivity in the coastal/eastern standard where -imris became the clearer source and emergence marker
4. Survival in conservative or fossilized forms such as venuiter

By contrast, productive -itar appears to have spread from a prestige dialect rather than directly continuing the regular iter reflex. The growing ritual and political importance of Thrantorgral in the Ranterg Mountains may have helped carry this form into broader Early Hick usage.

Ellative (-imris)

The Early Hick ellative marker -imris derives from an older bound form around *ʔimer-isu or *ʔimerisu, “breath/spirit at-or-outward” or “released breath.” Its exact Proto-Hick etymology is less secure than its productive Early Hick function.

1. Older bound form: *ʔimer-isu / *ʔimerisu “released breath, outward breath/spirit”
2. Regular development: > imeris
3. High-frequency bound-morphology reduction: imeris > imris
4. Grammaticalization: > -imris
   • Semantic shift from “out of, from” to source, emergence, and outward motion
   • Extension into derivational and causative-like uses: “bring out, cause to emerge”
   • Parallel development as subordinator “because”
   • Uses the locative/source-like *-isu material; *risu “reed” should not be treated as the source of the suffix

Subessive (-esp)

The Early Hick subessive marker -esp derives from a lexicalized compound around Proto-Hick *wesu “dwelling, enclosed space” and the locative/interior particle *pu “at, in, within; interior place”:

1. Initial compound: *wesu pu “within an enclosure, enclosed interior”
2. Maritime broadening: “enclosed interior” > “ship hold, lower enclosed storage”
3. Lexical relic: > wesp “cellar, basement, lower enclosed space”
4. Grammaticalization: > -esp
   • Loss of initial w in productive case use, especially after consonant-final stems
   • Semantic broadening from enclosed lower spaces to general “under, below, beneath”
   • Explains forms such as saresp “sprout” as “leaf under/covered” and aiesp “bathe” as “water-enclosed”

Sublative (-asam)

The Early Hick noun asam “rest, resting place” and the sublative marker -asam are cognate developments from Proto-Hick *xasamu “rest, repose, resting place.” The case marker does not need to derive from a live Early Hick verb asam'er; both the noun and the suffix preserve older *xasamu material.

1. Older base: *xasamu “rest, resting place”
2. Lexical outcome: asam “rest, resting place”
3. Case outcome: “toward rest” > “down into rest” > -asam
   • Semantic broadening from “resting place” to downward motion, lowering, or movement onto a lower/supporting surface
   • Shift from older spatial noun material to bound case marker
   • Shows common path: concrete spatial term → abstract case marker
   • Parallel development in compound vinusam “shoulder” (< *vinu xasamu “yoke rest”)
   • Forms such as asam'er, if used, are transparent verbalizations of the lexical noun rather than the historical source of the case suffix

Development of Demonstratives and Perception Verbs

Proximal Demonstrative -is and -’is

The Early Hick proximal demonstrative -is and the verb ’is “see” share a common origin in Proto-Hick *hisu “visible/in sight”:

1. Original PH *hisu had related meanings:

   • Demonstrative: “this one here (that I can see)”
   • Evidential: “visibly/apparently”
   • Sensory: “sight/vision”

2. Development paths:

   • Demonstrative: *hisu > -is (PROX.INAN)
   • Animate marker: *hi-’isu > -’is (PROX.ANIM)
   • Perception: *hisu > ’is “see”

3. Later developments:

   • Dialectal *hilis “look” borrowed to disambiguate active perception
   • Original *his reintroduced as “see” to maintain active/passive distinction
   • Demonstratives -is/-’is retained distinct functions:
     • -is: proximal inanimate (“this thing here”)
     • -’is: proximal animate (“this person/animal here”)

This explains:

• The formal similarity between demonstratives and perception verbs
• Why there are two demonstrative forms (-is/-’is) with animacy distinction
• The need for dialectal borrowing to maintain semantic distinctions
• The preservation of h- in his/hilis despite normal sound changes

Medial Direct Demonstratives -en and -tan

The medial direct demonstratives do not appear to be a simple inherited animate/inanimate pair. The inanimate or default form -en is inherited from Proto-Hick *ena “that, there in shared attention”:

*ena > -en
MED.DIR.INAN/default

The older animate counterpart was lost, merged with -en, or became too opaque to preserve the animate distinction in ordinary Early Hick. The animate medial form -tan was then renewed through Princely Channel contact:

Old Chemise tan
"sibling, comrade"
  > Princely Maritime tan
    "comrade, crewmate"
  > Early Raibonian / Maritime Lingua Franca tan
    "that known person, that fellow there"
  > Early Hick -tan
    MED.DIR.ANIM

This explains why -tan behaves as an animate direct-medial demonstrative but does not need to be reconstructed as a regular Proto-Hick suffix. It also explains forms such as tan-ul “one’s own”: tan remains available as a social/contact stem meaning “associated person, one’s own side,” while -ul is the ordinary Early Hick possessive marker.

Medial Indirect Demonstratives -eth and -thir

The medial indirect forms mark referents that are not directly in shared attention, but are still recoverable. They are used when a speaker hears, smells, feels, expects, infers, or otherwise senses the referent without being able to point to it directly.

The inanimate or default form -eth is inherited from Proto-Hick *etha, an indirect medial demonstrative:

*etha > -eth
MED.INDIR.INAN/default

The animate form -thir appears to be a native renewal from lexical thir “air, wind.” Because wind is an unseen moving force, thir was available for invisible natural forces and other agentive presences before it became a bound demonstrative:

thir
"air, wind; unseen moving force"
  > thir
    "unseen animate or agentive presence"
  > -thir
    MED.INDIR.ANIM

This explains why -thir is especially natural with voices, spirits, people heard but not seen, animals moving in cover, and natural forces treated as living or self-directed. It also explains why the ordinary lexical use of thir narrowed toward “air” while bressim became the more common word for wind as a weather event or moving gust.

Distal Demonstratives -um and -rum

The distal pair is more conservative than the medial pairs. Early Hick preserves an inherited default or inanimate distal -um and an inherited animate distal -rum:

*'uma > -um
DIST.INAN/default

*ruma > -rum
DIST.ANIM

In ordinary use, distal marking can mean physical distance, lack of direct knowledge, discourse distance, or social distance. Torum may mean “that mountain over there,” “that mountain out of the current scene,” or “some mountain like that.” ’Alrum may mean “that person over there,” but it can also mean “people like that,” especially when the speaker marks the referent as socially or morally distant.

The r- of *ruma may preserve a pre-Proto-Hick animate-deictic linker from an older combination of animacy marking with a vowel-initial distal stem. By Proto-Hick proper, however, *’uma and *ruma were already separate distal stems; Early Hick does not require a productive rule that adds r to animate demonstratives.

Fossilized Comitative-Instrumental *ʔelu

Proto-Hick also preserves an older comitative-instrumental particle *ʔelu “with, together with, by joint action.” This particle did not become the productive ergative marker; instead, it survives in fossilized compounds and coordinators:

1. Sound Changes:

   • *ʔelu > el in compound-initial position
   • *ʔelu lawesu > ewes “together with”
   • *ʔelu-taku > eltek “compacted, shaped from loose material”

2. Functional Development:

   • Original meaning: comitative/instrumental “with, by joint action”
   • Preserved in lexicalized expressions where participants or materials act together
   • Distinct from the ergative -el, which derives from *mela “definite, known, salient”

Development of the Imperative Construction

The Early Hick imperative likely developed from fuller command and reported-speech constructions with embedded event clauses:

1. Original Construction:

2. Modern Imperative:

This development explains several features of the modern construction:

• Absolutive marking on the verb (-es) preserves the original nominalized action’s case
• Unmarked object reflects its position in the original embedded clause
• Word order maintains the original embedded clause structure
• Later targeted commands can add an ergative agent after the event call: vinud-es, Aigral-el! “Build, Aigral!”
• Retaining -’er before -es intensifies or clarifies the event as explicit action: vinud’er-es! “Do the building!”

The pattern parallels the preserved quotative construction (see: Quotative Strategy), suggesting a common origin for different command expressions in Early Hick.

These constructions should not be projected directly into Proto-Hick with the same case morphology. Most Early Hick case marking is later Seneran development. What may be older is the discourse habit of treating a requested action as a named event, then adding particles or referents to mark desire, correctness, negation, or responsibility. Early Hick expresses that inherited pattern through its own absolutive, ergative, allative, and possessive suffixes.

The requestive naterlas is therefore best understood as an Early Hick grammaticalization from transparent nater-las “toward willingness.” It rests on older roots and discourse patterns, but the requestive form itself depends on the later Seneran spatial case system.

Modal Construction Development

Early Hick shows evidence of modal expressions developing from embedded clause constructions, with register distinctions preserving both older and grammaticalized forms. These formal variants make extensive use of relative clauses (see: Relative Clauses):

Commands

Formal/Literary:

Colloquial:

Desires

Formal/Literary:

Colloquial:

This pattern of preserving older relative clause constructions in formal registers while using grammaticalized forms in colloquial speech appears to be a regular feature of Early Hick’s historical development. The use of ’alis- as a relativizer in these formal constructions follows the standard relative clause pattern.

Development of Comparative Markers

Proto-Hick *kasu “reflection (on water/mirror surface) “ developed into two distinct but related markers in Early Hick, with one further developing into the general adjective marker.

kas (Comparative Conjunction)

• Direct development from *kasu

• Retains original sense of “mirror/reflection”

• Grammaticalized as comparative conjunction “like/as”

• Used with complex noun phrases: kas [NP] VERB

• Maintains clear scope over entire phrases

• Examples:

ka- Development Path

1. Early Stage: Comparative Prefix

   • Developed from kas through fusion

   • Used in simple noun comparisons

   • No scope beyond single noun

   • Examples:

2. Middle Stage: Similarity Marker

   • Semantic broadening from “like X” to “X-like”

   • Used to mark general similarity

   • Examples:

3. Late Stage: Adjective Marker

   • Further grammaticalization into general adjective prefix

   • Marks derived adjectives from nouns

   • Most common use in modern Early Hick

   • Original comparative meaning still visible in some constructions

   • Examples:

Development of the possession marker -ul

The Early Hick possessive suffix -ul shows a complex development path from Proto-Hick *ʔulu:

1. Original Proto-Hick (~800 PF):

   • *ʔulu had three related meanings:
     • “thumb” (concrete body part)
     • “grasp” (physical action)
     • “possession” (abstract relation)

2. Late Proto-Hick (~400 PF):

   • Semantic split occurs:
     • Bare form ulu: “thumb, possession”
     • Locative form ulisu: “grasp” (from *ʔulu-isu)
   • Shows common pattern of using locative case to specify action meanings

3. Early Hick (~100 PF):

   • Further specialization:
     • ul: “thumb” (noun)
     • -ul: possessive marker (grammaticalized from possession meaning)
     • us: “grasp, possession” (from ulisu)

This development explains:

• Why the possessive marker is phonologically identical to “thumb”
• The relationship between ul and us
• The preservation of both concrete and abstract meanings
• The parallel development of possession marking in compounds

The pattern parallels other Early Hick grammaticalizations where concrete lexical material develops into grammatical markers, such as -el ergative from *mela “definite, known, salient.”