Diachronic change in Yuk Tepat
Yuk Tepat is often presented here as a fixed entity - âClassical Yuk Tepatâ - but beneath that has undergone evolution like all languages. The following sentences both mean âA man I didnât know came in.â The first represents the most archaic layer of old Tepat, and the second is a relatively modern colloquial version from the late Conciliarity period.
Ci niw yan-uk syow mi-yat ku hyew.
*[tsi niw ja nuk sju me jat ku hjew]
PAST enter person 1P REL NEG know to room
(Alternately: Ci niw yan syuk mi-yat ku hyew. (syuk = syu + =uk)
HĂťq-khal yan i-wat Ă´l-yat mul ntâĂ´l-nyul hyew-iw.
[hÉŻĘ kʰal ja ni wÉ ɞlĚŠÂ jat mu lnĚŠÂ tlĚŠÂ nyɏ çø wiw]
one CLASS person of 1P PAST know NEG 3P PAST enter room CIS
Letâs unpack this. First, a couple of very notable things:
The modern sentence is much longer.
Only three words are the same in both sentences: yan, yat, hyew.
Ci was the normal particle expressing past tense in Old Yuktepat, but it has been replaced by ôl in the second sentence.
The second sentence begins with a subject noun phrase HĂťq-khal yan i-wat Ă´l-yat mul, which is normal SVO word order. The equivalent subject noun phrase in the first sentence comes AFTER the verb. In archaic language, this is an acceptable ordering for INDEFINITE subject nouns (but actually, it would still have been unusual for a complex noun phrase like this).
The subject noun yan in the second sentence is modified by a numeral-classifier phrase hĂťq-khal âone.â This kind of specification of number - such as âoneâ for any old indefinite noun phrase - is more common in later Yuk Tepat.
The first person pronoun. In the first sentence, there is a clitic form -uk. In later Yuk Tepat, everything has been leveled to the invariable pronoun wat.
The subject contains a relative clause. In the first sentence, it is relativized by syow, in the second sentence it is relativized by i. I also means âofâ and has been generalized to all kinds of situations, while specific subordinating particles like syow - which is only used to relativize objects - have fallen out of use.
(Additionally, syow and -uk might occur together as a fused form syuk.)
The negative. The first sentence uses mi before the verb, the second sentence uses mul after the verb.
The second sentence contains a pronoun nat (contracted to nt) which follows the subject noun phrase, before the verb. Kind of like âThe man I didnât know, he entered the room.â
Niw and nyul âenter.â Niw and nyul are the same verb basically. Niw is an older intransitive form. Most verb pairs of this sort have been leveled to only one form. In Yuk Tepat, the originally transitive form nyul has taken over everything.
The first sentence has a preposition ku âin, at, to.â This is missing in the second sentence. âToâ is considered implicit in the verb nyul. Ku is no longer used except in fixed expressions.
The second sentence ends in a clitic -iw indicating motion toward the speaker. This is derived from the verb khiw âcome.â
These examples are very different, but the reality may not be that extreme. Although only 3 words are identical, most words in either sentence are found in all stages of the language, although their usage may have shifted. For example past tense ci is still used, but it has a very archaic sound. It is used for DISTANT past, or in say, historical textbooks, but Ă´l is now the neutral past tense marker. Hence, either (written) sentence should be interpretable to someone from the other time period. Through this we also see one trend of the languageâs evolution, that of reducing morphological variants to a single uninflected form.