Early Hick Syntax

Property Words and Modification

Early Hick uses property roots and ka- derived describing words in three main ways:

1. As Adjectives (modifying nouns)

   • ka- derived forms come before the noun they modify

2. As Predicate Adjectives (with verb marking)

3. As Adverbs (modifying verbs)

   • Stand near the verb they modify
   • Postverbal position is common and clear in simple clauses
   • Preverbal position can mark focus, rhythm, or a tighter link to the action
   • Usually take the similarity prefix ka-

   wen'altanes 'irek'er ka'irek
   woman.MED.DIR.ANIM-ABS stand-VRB ADJ-firm
   "She stands firmly" (like English "-ly" adverbs)
   
   wen'altanes ka'irek 'irek'er
   woman.MED.DIR.ANIM-ABS ADJ-firm stand-VRB
   "She firmly stands"

This pattern means that word order shows whether a ka- describing form is acting like an adjective (before nouns) or an adverbial action modifier near a verb. In complex clauses, action modifiers normally remain inside the clause or verb phrase they modify so that their scope stays clear. Bare property roots before the subject are noted only as a possible colloquial or poetic shortening and are not treated as settled canonical Early Hick.

Clause Structure and Word Order

1. Basic Patterns

   • Core arguments marked by case, allowing flexible word order
   • Ergative (-el) marks agent of transitive verbs
   • Absolutive (-es) marks patient of transitive & sole argument of intransitive
   • Word order signals pragmatic functions rather than grammatical roles

2. Information Structure

   • Initial position: topic/focus or temporal frame

   • Final position: new information or emphasis

   • Examples:

     branum bramisimris kethes
     past    river-ELL    sea-ABS
     "In the past, the river flowed to the sea" (temporal frame first)
     
     kethes bramisimris branum
     sea-ABS river-ELL    past
     "The river flowed to the sea, in the past" (neutral statement)

3. Verb Position and Aspect

   • Verbs can occur in different positions based on aspect:

     materok-el rismater-es ward tel
     handler-ERG reed.boat-ABS guide COMPL
     "The handler has guided the reed boat" (completed action)
     
     rismater-es ward kethes
     reed.boat-ABS guide sea-ABS
     "The reed boat guides to sea" (general statement)

   • Directional constructions allow goal prominence:

4. Temporal Reference

   • Time words can float freely but tend toward:

     • Initial: setting temporal frame for discourse
     • Pre-verbal: marking temporal contrast
     • Final: neutral narrative position

   • Examples:

     branum materok-el ward-ʔer  # Frame-setting
     past    handler-ERG guide-VRB
     "In the past, the handler guided"
     
     materok-el branum ward-ʔer  # Temporal contrast
     handler-ERG past    guide-ACT
     "The handler USED TO guide"
     
     materok-el ward-ʔer branum  # Neutral narrative
     handler-ERG guide-ACT past
     "The handler guided, in the past"

See: Tense and Aspect for a complete description of:

• Past reference markers (branum, branrum)
• Future reference (mulsum)
• Completive aspect (tel)
• Position effects on temporal interpretation

Comitative Construction

Early Hick marks accompaniment through the particle ewes, which precedes an absolutive-marked participant:

The primary participant takes ergative case while the accompanying participant is marked absolutive. See also: Conjunctions for coordinated usage of ewes.

Object Control Constructions

Early Hick has two primary strategies for expressing object control (“X tells Y to do Z”):

Primary Construction: Causative-like Formation

Uses the adjectival prefix ka- with translative -sim to show caused state (See: Adjectival Marking):

The construction maintains ergative-absolutive alignment, with the causer marked ergative and the causee marked absolutive.

ma'altanel 'al'ises 'ilisimris'er [katagsim wen'er wenel]
PL.person.MED.ERG person.PROX.ABS teach.VRB [ADJ.give.TRANS bloom.VRB flower.ERG]
"They taught us to make flowers bloom"

'al'isel altanes 'ilisimris'er [katagsim sul'er aiel]
person.PROX.ERG person.MED.ABS teach.VRB [ADJ.give.TRANS flow.VRB water.ERG]
"I taught them to make the water flow"

The embedded causative maintains its fixed [AUX VERB SUBJ] order even with multiple verbs, while the matrix clause remains flexible:

This construction differs from case-lexicalized directional stems such as taglas “take, receive” or thralas “divine revelation, sacred illumination.” The katagsim construction profiles an overt caused event with an auxiliary and an embedded predicate. Case-lexicalized stems instead fossilize an older spatial-case phrase into a new lexical item. They can carry causative or middle-like meanings through their directional metaphor, but they are not object-control clauses.

Quotative Strategy

Uses relative clause structure to frame commands as reported speech:

Key features:

• Relative clause with ’alis- as relativizer
• Imperative marked with absolutive -es
• Recipient marked with ellative -imris
• Commands treated as affecting their target (like P arguments)

Reflexive Constructions

Early Hick marks reflexive relationships primarily through case marking and demonstrative agreement:

1. Basic Reflexives With transitive verbs, the agent takes ergative case and the reflexive object takes illative:

   galtalel tallas hilis'er
   person.MED.ERG MED.ILL look.VRB
   "He looked at himself"
   
   ma'altalel matallas pak'er
   PL.person.MED.ERG PL.MED.ILL speak.VRB
   "They spoke among themselves"

2. Indirect Objects For ditransitive verbs, reflexive recipients take illative case:

   'al'isel 'islas taglas'er 'iruretiles
   person.PROX.ERG PROX.ILL give.ITER.VRB gift.ABS
   "I gave myself a gift"
   
   wen'altalel tallas paket'irur
   woman.MED.ERG MED.ILL talk.ITER
   "She told herself stories"

Key features:

• Demonstrative agreement between agent and reflexive forms
• Illative case (-las) marks reflexive targets
• Number agreement maintained in plural forms
• Regular ergative-absolutive alignment for non-reflexive arguments

1. Method/Means Expression Uses the object control construction with ka- prefix and translative -sim to express how an action is performed:

   'al'isel paketes katenwasim tenwa'er
   person.PROX.ERG speech.ABS ADJ.write.TRANS write.VRB
   "I wrote the speech through writing"
   
   materok-el rismater-es katagasim ward'er
   handler-ERG reed.boat-ABS ADJ.craft.TRANS guide.VRB
   "The handler guides the reed boat through crafting"

   The construction treats the method as a caused state change, following the same pattern as other reflexive and causative expressions in Early Hick.

Comparative Constructions

Early Hick has two primary strategies for expressing comparisons: similarity/ equivalence marking and relative degree constructions.

Similarity and Equivalence

Early Hick marks similarity through two related constructions derived from Proto-Hick *kasu “reflection”:

1. Simple Comparisons Uses the ka- prefix for straightforward comparisons with single nouns:

2. Complex Comparisons Uses kas conjunction for phrases with modifiers:

Relative Degree

Early Hick expresses relative degree through a specialized construction using spatial cases. The construction treats comparisons as stative predicates with two arguments:

1. The comparable (what’s being compared) takes absolutive case
2. The comparator (what it’s compared to) takes either superessive (-itar) or sublative (-asam) case
3. The quality being compared is expressed as a stative verb with -’er

Greater Than

Uses the superessive case (-itar “upon/above”):

tores tor'er malitar
mountain-ABS height-VRB pool-SUPE
"The mountain is taller than the pool"
(lit. "mountain heights above-pool")

'ales vinu'er 'altanitar
person-ABS birth-VRB man-SUPE
"The person is older than the man"
(lit. "person births above-man")

Less Than

Uses the sublative case (-asam “lower than/below in degree”):

males tor'er torasam
pool-ABS height-VRB mountain-SUBL
"The pool is less tall than the mountain"
(lit. "pool heights lower-than-mountain")

'altanes vinu'er 'alasam
man-ABS birth-VRB person-SUBL
"The man is younger than the person"
(lit. "man births lower-than-person")

Equality

Uses the comparative particle kas (see: Comparative Markers):

kas males tores tor'er
LIKE pool-ABS mountain-ABS height-VRB
"The pool is as tall as the mountain"
(lit. "like pool mountain heights")

Syntactic Properties

The comparative construction shows several important properties:

1. Case Alignment

   • Comparable takes absolutive case (-es)
   • Comparator takes spatial case (-itar/-asam)
   • Maintains ergative-absolutive alignment pattern

2. Word Order

   • Basic order: COMPARABLE-ABS QUALITY-VRB COMPARATOR-SUPE/SUBL
   • Follows standard clause structure flexibility

3. Multiple Comparators

   • Can be coordinated with ru:
   • Similarly for subessive comparisons:

The case marking attaches to the coordinator ru rather than to individual nouns, following Early Hick’s general coordination pattern.

1. Negation

   • Negates the stative verb with mo-:

2. Temporal Reference

   • Takes standard temporal markers:

Tense

Clauses without explicit temporal marking in Early Hick express present tense. These unmarked clauses can indicate either simple present (“walks”) or present progressive (“is walking”) readings, with the specific interpretation determined by context and predicate semantics. For example:

Tense Markers

When temporal specification is required, Early Hick employs three temporal markers that operate at the clause level:

• branum (past)
• mulsum (future)
• branrum (far past)

Usage

In a simple clause, the temporal tense marker can be typically found in the beginning or end of the clause.

In contexts where aesthetic or poetic effect is desired, the marker can be found right before the verbal phrase.

Relative Clauses

In relative clauses where the dependent clause refers to a different time frame than the main clause, temporal markers may occur after the relativizer. See: Relative Clauses

For example:

Complex Clauses

When clauses are linked by coordinators, each clause may carry its own temporal marking to indicate different time frames:

[clause + temporal marker] coordinator [clause + temporal marker]

Note that the flexibility of the temporal marker position is still available in each clause

The Distant Past Marker branrum

Early Hick has developed a special case marker for use when referring to events that had occurred in the distant past. The marker branrum is often only ever uttered in either religious contexts or in epic poetry.

When it is used, it functions similarly to the past marker branum.

Aspect

Early Hick aspect markers are typically found following the verbalized word that they modify, however, in some aesthetic contexts, they may be placed at the end of the clause.

These aspect markers may be used in conjunction with the temporal markers to indicate different time frames.

When a clause does not carry an aspect marker, it is understood to be either in the simple or the progressive aspect.

Progressive Aspect Marker terum

In cases where the speaker wishes to emphasize ongoing or continuous states, the progressive aspect marker terum (< ter “flow” + -rum) can be used. These aspect markers may be used in conjunction with the temporal markers to indicate different time frames.

'ales      barak'er  terum
person-ABS walk-VRB flow.DIST
"The person is walking"

branum 'ales      barak'er  terum
PAST   person-ABS walk-VRB flow.DIST
"The person has been walking"

Completive Aspect Marker tel

The completive aspect marker tel indicates finished actions.

'ales      barak'er  tel
person-ABS walk-VRB COMPL
"The person has walked"

branum 'ales      barak'er  tel
PAST   person-ABS walk-VRB COMPL
"The person had walked"

Iterative Aspect

The Early Hick iterative marker works differently from the other aspect markers. It instead marks on an action word and replaces the verbalizer -’er. It has three register-dependent forms, all deriving from Proto-Hick *heru-heru “motion-motion”:

1. Formal/Ritual: -’irur

2. Common: -rur

3. Colloquial: -ur

The development shows typical grammaticalization path:

1. Reduplicated noun *heru-heru > ’irur “repetition”
2. Grammaticalization to verbal suffix -’irur
3. Phonological reduction in common speech (-rur)
4. Further reduction in colloquial register (-ur)

Note: The formal register preserves the etymological form with glottal stop, while common and colloquial registers show progressive reduction typical of grammaticalized elements.

Repetitive Aspect

The repetitive aspect in Early Hick is formed by combining the iterative suffix with the completive marker tel, indicating a single instance of a repeated or cyclical action:

'ales barakrur tel
person-ABS walk.ITER COMPL
"The person walked again" (lit. "completed one cycle of repeated walking")

branum 'ilistales barakrur tel
PAST school-ABS walk.ITER COMPL
"School began again" (lit. "completed one cycle of repeated starting")

This construction differs from the simple iterative, which marks continuous repetition:

The repetitive aspect is particularly useful for marking:

• Return to previous states or activities
• Cyclic events that complete one iteration
• Repeated actions viewed as single completed instances

Mood {#syntactic-mood}

Early Hick expresses some modal meanings through syntactic constructions. For morphological mood marking, see: Verbal Mood

Imperative Construction

Early Hick imperatives are absolutive event calls. The requested action appears as an absolutive event, usually without an overt agent. This is not a full declarative clause; it is an elliptical command that calls the event into being.

The ordinary imperative uses the action stem with absolutive -es:

The verbalizer -’er can be retained before -es to make the command more explicit, forceful, or corrective:

With roots that are also nouns, context distinguishes the event call from a plain noun phrase. The imperative force comes from intonation, context, and the lack of a following predicate. If ambiguity matters, retain -’er before -es to make the action explicit.

The construction shows distinct word order and case marking from declarative sentences:

# Declarative
'al'isel tor ward'er
person.ERG mountain guide.VRB
"The person guides the mountain"

# Imperative event call
tor 'il wardes!
mountain good guide.IMP.ABS
"guide the mountain well!"

Key features:

1. Object appears first and unmarked for case
2. Modifiers directly precede the verb
3. The action or verbalized action takes absolutive marking
4. No overt ergative agent

This construction represents one context where Early Hick deviates from its ergative-absolutive alignment, showing split ergativity typical of command forms. When the addressee or another referent must be named, that referent can follow in ergative case as the responsible agent:

vinud-es, 'al'tan-el!
build-ABS person.MED.ERG
"Build, you!"

vinud-es, Aigral-el!
build-ABS Aigral-ERG
"Build, Aigral!"

The verbalized targeted form is more authoritative, common from supervisors, elders, captains, ritual officiants, teachers, or parents:

Examples with different modifiers:

mes   kathral    threnes!
heart ADJ-sacred watch.IMP.ABS
"watch the heart sacredly!"
materok ka'il    wardes!
boat    ADJ.good guide.IMP.ABS
"guide the boat carefully!"

The pattern appears in both formal and informal contexts, including ritual expressions:

Requests, Hortatives, and Prohibitives

Requests use the same absolutive event frame as imperatives, but add a predicate or modal element that supplies willingness, obligation, or negation.

1. Hortative / collective invitation

   A ma- prefixed action stem with -es! marks a shared event and functions as a common hortative:

   The plural prefix makes the action collective. The construction invites participation rather than assigning a single responsible agent.

2. Volitional request

   Nater “desire, intended course” can predicate willingness over an absolutive action:

   This remains relatively transparent: the addressee is being asked about willingness or intended course.

3. Soft requestive

   Naterlas (< nater-las “toward willingness”) is a grammaticalized polite requestive:

   This construction softens the command by inviting the addressee toward willingness rather than bluntly asserting desire. It is distinct from the verbal desiderative suffix -nat, which marks desire on the verb itself.

4. Normative or obligation request

   Ignar’er “be fitting, accord with the proper pattern” can make obligation or advice:

   This is not a bare command. It frames the action as correct, proper, or socially expected for the named agent.

5. Prohibitives

   Early Hick has several prohibitive strategies:

   This is the direct negative imperative.

   This is a colloquial action-focused prohibitive, useful for scolding, quick correction, or signs.

   This is the more explicit or formal prohibitive, with the responsible agent named.

6. Beneficiary through possession

   Early Hick does not need a separate benefactive request construction. If the beneficiary matters, the requested object can be marked with possessive -ul:

   vinud'er-es naterlas 'al'tan-el 'al-ul vinud
   build-VRB-ABS REQ person.MED.ERG person-POSS dwelling
   "Please build my dwelling."
   
   vinud'er-es naterlas 'al'tan-el tan-ul vinud
   build-VRB-ABS REQ person.MED.ERG self/own-POSS dwelling
   "Please build your own dwelling."

   The requestive stays naterlas; possession supplies the beneficiary or intended recipient.

Exclamative Construction

Early Hick marks exclamations through single-word utterances:

1. For actions/verbs, the regular verb form is used:

   imris'er!
   flee.VRB!
   "(they're) fleeing!"
   
   ward'er!
   guide.VRB!
   "(they're) guiding!"

2. For entities/participants, absolutive marking is used:

   im'etiles!
   monster.ABS!
   "a monster!"
   
   tores!
   mountain.ABS!
   "the mountain!"

These exclamatives typically express alarm, sudden realization, or strong emotion, contrasting with regular declarative sentences which use full argument structure.

Conjunctions

Early Hick coordination separates list marking from the relationship between listed members. The particle o marks each item in a coordinated list, but it does not mean “and” or “or” by itself. The final set-level coordinator supplies that meaning: ru for additive “and,” ’a for disjunctive “or,” and ewes for shared or joint participation.

Additive Coordination

Early Hick marks coordinated elements with the particle o and joins them with the coordinator ru. The particle o is inherited from Proto-Hick *ho, while ru is a clipped additive coordinator associated with the stor “growth, addition, increment” family (< Proto-Hick *storu “grow”). Because *storu regularly yields stor, ru should be treated as a grammaticalized coordinator rather than a direct inherited sound-change reflex.

The coordinator ru can take case marking to show the role of the coordinated phrase:

• ru-el: coordinated elements as agent
• ru-es: coordinated elements as patient/subject

Demonstrative marking may also be appended to ru when the coordinated set shares a single referential frame.

compare with:

'imwentan o wenkuloktan o rues
[that witch LIST that sorceress LIST] ADD-ABS
"that witch and that (other) sorceress"

Disjunctive Coordination

Early Hick marks alternatives with the particle o and joins them with the coordinator ’a (< Proto-Hick *ʔaha “other”):

The coordinator ’a can take case marking to show the role of the coordinated phrase:

• ’a-el: coordinated elements as agent
• ’a-es: coordinated elements as patient/subject

Demonstrative marking may also be appended to ’a, if the coordinated elements share referential properties:

compare with:

'imwentan o wenkuloktan o 'aes
[that witch LIST that sorceress LIST] DISJ-ABS
"either that witch or that (other) sorceress"

The disjunctive coordinator follows the same structural patterns as the additive coordinator ru, maintaining the language’s systematic approach to coordination.

The older lexical force of ’a was “other, another; alternative.” In ordinary Early Hick, however, bare ’a is mostly grammatical: speakers hear it first as “or” rather than as a full content word. The lexical sense survives more clearly in ’atil (< ’a + ’etil “living thing, entity”), which means “other one, another thing; alternative.” A likely bridge is corrective contrast, where a speaker rejects one referent and points to a different one:

This keeps ’a as the coordinator while giving Early Hick a separate lexical form for “other” or “alternative.” It also keeps this alterity family separate from haran “divide,” ran- partitive, and telran- exclusive partitive, which belong to the semantic field of division and partition rather than choice between alternatives.

Shared Action Coordination

Early Hick can mark joint participation using ewes with the enumeration particle o:

The coordinator ewes takes case marking and treats the coordinated elements as a single unit. This construction emphasizes equal participation in the action, contrasting with the comitative construction where one participant is marked as primary. See: Comitative Construction.

Note: ewes (< Proto-Hick *ʔelu lawesu “consume/take in with”) preserves an older comitative-instrumental particle *ʔelu. This particle is separate from the ergative marker -el, which derives from the definite particle *mela.

Temporal Coordination

Temporal relationships between clauses use specialized coordinators:

• ’aterbran [ʔa.ter.bran] “before” (lit. “what-flow-dawn”)
• ’aterimris [ʔa.te.rim.ris] “after” (lit. “what-flow-from”)
• ’atertel [ʔa.ter.tel] “until” (lit. “what-flow-end”)
• ’aterter [ʔa.te.ter] “come to pass” (lit. “what-flow-time”)

Dependent clauses use nominalized verbs:

Position affects emphasis:

• Initial: sets temporal frame for discourse
• Final: neutral narrative position

Causal Subordinator

imris [im.ris] “because” < earlier *ʔimerisu / imeris “source, emergence, outward breath”

• Functions as a subordinator marking causal relationships
• Grammaticalized from the ellative/source marker -imris, whose older bound form was probably *ʔimer-isu or *ʔimerisu; see the development note for -imris below
• Maintains ergative-absolutive alignment in both clauses
• Can appear clause-initially or between clauses Examples:

imris torthil, 'al'ises barak'er
CAUS haughtiness, person.PROX.ABS walk.VRB
"Because of haughtiness, I walk"

imris ['al'isel ward'er tores], 'al'ises barak'er
CAUS [person.ERG guide.VRB mountain.ABS], person.PROX.ABS walk.VRB
"Because they guide the mountain, I walk"

Concessive Subordinator

las [las] “despite/for all” < Early Hick illative case -las “into”

• Functions as a subordinator marking concessive relationships
• Grammaticalized from spatial case marking inward motion
• Can take both nominal and clausal complements
• Parallels the development of imris

Examples:

las imerlas, 'al'ises tel'es branum
CONC inspiration, person.PROX.ABS empty.ABS PAST
"Despite/For all inspiration, I was empty"

las torthil, 'al'ises barak'er
CONC haughtiness, person.PROX.ABS walk.VRB
"Despite haughtiness, I walk"

las ['al'isel ward'er tores], 'al'ises tel'es branum
CONC [person.ERG guide.VRB mountain.ABS], person.PROX.ABS empty.ABS PAST
"Despite (that) they guide the mountain, I was empty"

Position and Usage

Conjunctions interact with Early Hick’s information structure:

1. Can take case marking to show grammatical roles
2. Initial position emphasizes the relationship
3. Final position gives neutral narrative flow
4. With dependent clauses, verbs take nominal form

Examples:

imris toranes ter'er, 'ales barak'er
SUB   river-ABS flow-VRB person-ABS walk-VRB
"Because the river flows, the person walks"

'ales barak'er imris toranes ter'er
person-ABS walk-VRB SUB river-ABS flow-VRB
"The person walks because the river flows"

Both imris and las can appear clause-finally, especially in literary contexts and natural conversation:

'al'ises tel'es branum, imerlas las
person.PROX.ABS empty.ABS PAST, inspiration CONC
"I was empty, despite inspiration"

'al'ises barak'er, ['al'isel ward'er tores] imris
person.PROX.ABS walk.VRB, [person.ERG guide.VRB mountain.ABS] CAUS
"I walk, because they guide the mountain"

Note: The same form appears as the ellative case marker -imris, showing parallel grammaticalization from spatial/directional meaning to both case marking and subordination.

Interrogatives

Basic Forms

’aka [?a.ka] “what”

1. Basic Forms

   • ’aka [ʔa.ka] “what”
   • ’alis [ʔa.lis] “who” < ’aka-’al-’is (what-person-PROX.ANIM)
     • Used for visible/known referents and confirmation
   • ’atal [ʔa.tal] “where” < ’aka-tal-is (what-place-PROX.INAN)
   • ’ater [ʔa.ter] “when” < ’aka-ter-is (what-flow-PROX.INAN)
     • Shows temporal metaphor of time as flow
   • ’aker [ʔa.ker] “how” < ’aka-’er-is (what-VRB-PROX.INAN)

2. Medial Indirect Forms (Hidden, Sensed, or Inferred)

   • ’akaleth, ’aleth [ʔa.leθ] < ’aka-’al-eth “who” (indirectly sensed person)
   • ’akateth, ’ateth [ʔa.teθ] < ’aka-tal-eth “where” (indirectly known location)
   • ’akatereth, ’atereth [ʔa.te.reθ], < ’aka-ter-eth “when” (inferred or expected time)
   • ’akereth [ʔa.ke.reθ] < ’aka-’er-eth “how” (inferred manner)

3. Distal Forms (Out of Sight/Unknown)

   • ’akalum [ʔa.lum] < ’aka-’al-um “who” (unknown person)
   • ’atum [ʔa.tum] < ’aka-tal-um “where” (unknown location)
   • ’aterum [ʔa.te.rum] < ’aka-ter-um “when” (unknown time)
   • ’akerum [ʔa.ke.rum] < ’aka-’er-um “how” (unknown manner)

4. Usage Examples

   'alis-el materok-es ward-'er?
   who.PROX-ERG boat-ABS guide-VRB
   "Who (that we can see) guides the boat?"
   
   'aleth-el thral-es his-'er?
   who.MED.INDIR-ERG ritual-ABS watch-VRB
   "Who (that we can hear/sense) watches the ritual?"
   
   'atum-las materok-el rismater-es ward-'er?
   where.DIST-ILL handler-ERG reed.boat-ABS guide-VRB
   "Where (unknown) does the handler guide the reed boat to?"

5. Semantic Notes

   • Proximal forms: Used for visible/known referents and confirmation
   • Medial indirect forms: Used for hidden, sensed, inferred, or expected referents
   • Distal forms: Default information-seeking questions about unknowns
   • All forms take regular case marking based on syntactic role
   • Follow standard compound phonology (See: Compound Phonology)

Polar and Confirmation Questions

Early Hick can form yes/no questions with a clause-initial truth-checking particle. The transparent form is ’aka thid, literally “what truth?” or “is it true?” In quicker or more grammaticalized speech, this reduces to ’athid [ʔa.θid].

'aka thid kel-es kakel-'er?
Q truth sky-ABS blue-VRB
"Is it true that the sky is blue?"

'athid kel-es kakel-'er?
Q.TRUE sky-ABS blue-VRB
"Is the sky blue?" / "Is it true that the sky is blue?"

The reduced form ’athid is best understood as a confirmational polar question particle. It asks whether the whole clause is true, rather than asking for a missing noun like ’aka “what.” When ’aka functions as an ordinary content question word, it takes the case ending required by its role in the clause:

With tense markers, ’athid normally has wider scope and comes before the temporal marker:

Affirmative answers normally use one of two short correctness terms:

• gnar [gnar] “yes; correct” is the ordinary affirmative and the normal standalone answer in most speech.
• nar [nar] “yes; yup” is an informal reduced answer used in quick or familiar speech.

The related form ignar [i.gnər] is not the usual standalone “yes” in ordinary speech. It belongs to the same correctness cluster, but its primary living use is “fit, accord with an established pattern or norm.” It can still color formal or conservative statements of correctness where the older *ʔiga naru “correct action, fitting response” formula remains felt.

The ordinary standalone negative answer is mope [mo.pe] “no.” It is historically mo-pe “NEG-no,” where the productive negative mo- reinforces an older inherited refusal particle pe. This is negative concord rather than a logical double negative.

'athid kel-es kakel-'er?
Q.TRUE sky-ABS blue-VRB
"Is the sky blue?"

gnar.
yes
"Yes."

mope.
no
"No."

A transparent negative answer can use mo-gnar “not correct, no,” though fuller negative echoes are often clearer:

Usage note: ignar and ka-ignar qualify statements; they do not normally serve as the basic yes/no answer themselves. In a response, gnar can answer the truth of the question, while a following echo clause can specify that the action was correct or fitting:

'athid mater-es vinud-'er ka-ignar?
Q.TRUE boat-ABS build-VRB ADJ-correct
"Was the boat built correctly?"

gnar, vinud-'er ka-ignar.
yes build-VRB ADJ-correct
"Yes, built correctly."

See: Compound Phonology for sound change patterns

Relative Clauses

Early Hick forms relative clauses using interrogative pronouns as relativizers. These maintain their proximal/medial/distal distinctions and take case marking based on their syntactic role within the relative clause.

1. Basic Structure

2. Interrogative Forms Used

   • ak “which” (inanimate referents)
   • alis/aleth/alum: “who” (animate referents)
   • atal/ateth/atum: “where” (locations)
   • ater/atereth/aterum: “when” (time)
   • aker/akereth/akerum: “how” (manner)

3. Case Marking

   • Relativizer takes case based on its role in the relative clause
   • Main clause maintains independent case marking

4. Evidentiality Through Distance Forms

   • Proximal (-is): visible/known referents
   • Medial indirect (-eth): hidden, sensed, inferred, or expected referents
   • Distal (-um): unknown/general referents

5. Word Order

   • Relative clause typically precedes its head
   • Internal word order follows main clause patterns
   • Spatial case marking on verbs functions normally