1. Basic Word Order

We inherit from our actions, and we are bound to our actions. For that reason, the verb is typically placed first. Blaken therefore tends toward VSO order.

>

Blinken woblum nas Love    I-AGT    YOU I love you intentionally

2. Event-Nominal Predication

Verb stacking is avoided in Blaken. Modal, attitudinal, and control meanings (e.g. _want_, _must_, _begin_, _try_) are not expressed through auxiliary verbs or embedded infinitival clauses. Instead, the language encodes such meanings through event nominals, which function as the semantic nucleus of the clause (see _Morphology §Event Nominal Compounds_).

In constructions that would involve multiple verbs in English, Blaken forms a single complex event nominal, and predicates its existence, necessity, or relevance with a simple clausal operator.

For example, the English sentence _"I want to help you find him/her"_ is rendered in Blaken as a single event nominal denoting a _wanted helping–finding event_, with participants encoded internally.

Example

domken nas os senko gjof-pølña

_Literal interpretation:_ “A [he-she related helping-finding desire] exists (in me).”

Syntactically, the clause contains no verbal complement or subordinate clause. The entire propositional content is packaged into a single noun phrase headed by an event nominal. Participant roles (agentive stance, referential target, recipient) are expressed through nominal morphology and relational markers. The clause predicate operates over this nominal as a whole.

2.2. Existential Sentences

These phrases express modality predicates as transitory states of existence. They would require two verbs in English (want to V, must V, begin V, can V, etc.), one subordinated to the other. In Blaken, existential sentences are built from the following elements:

1. an existential clausal operator predicate

2. a single event nominal (often a ɲa-compound)

3. an experiencer/location phrase (with tin)

Structure

>

EXIST EVT LOC “EXIST [event-compound] [locative experiencer]”

2.2.1 Experiencer as a locative argument

The experiencer is encoded as a locative-like argument (“in me/you/him”), not as a syntactic subject that controls a verb. The event nominal is the semantic nucleus and the experiencer phrase anchors where or for whom the event-state holds.

>

>

domken gljumɲa wo tin _Pragmatic translation:_ “I want water.” _Literal gloss:_ “A water-wanting exists in me.”

Desires, intentions, and impulses are _states that arise in a locus_ (a person), rather than actions initiated by a sovereign agent. It is important to note that in these phrases the subject marker prum is optional here, since the existence itself cannot be intentional.

domken gljumɲa wo tin = domken gljumɲaprum wo tin

2.2.1.1 Recoverable Omission of domken

Once an existential or locative frame has already been established in the immediately preceding discourse, speakers may omit domken when the existential predicate is fully recoverable. What remains is often a locative phrase, an event nominal, or a parallel fragment that continues the same frame.

This ellipsis is especially natural in literary prose, emotionally weighted description, and parallel clause chains.

>

Sydom Wahla tin, vlysdom Koldom tin. _Interpretation:_ “[Existence is] here in Gaul; [my] origin-place [is] in Colombia.”

The omission does not remove existential meaning; it simply leaves it unspoken when the discourse has already activated it.

2.2.2 Internal participant specification with _-ko_

To encode “I want you to see” or “I want to see you”, participant roles are expressed inside the event nominal using ko-relational modifiers, rather than embedding a second clause.

Structure

EXIST [participant-ko + EVT] LOC

Here participant-ko marks the relevant participant (target, reference, affected person).

This yields structures like:

>

dombu nasko mimɲɑ sen tin _Literal interpretation: "A you-related seeing-desire must exist in him/her."_

2.2.3. Examples with Desire Nouns

2.3. Interrogative Scope with _ra_

In Blaken, interrogativity is expressed by the evidential particle _ra_, which scopes over the clause and signals that a proposition is asked or epistemically uncertain. Semantic content is provided by ordinary nouns (e.g. _dom_ ‘place’, _trjom_ ‘time’, _mon_ ‘thing’, _tʁon_ ‘reason’), while _ra_ marks interrogative stance.

This same morpheme also appears in verbal morphology as a bound prospective/uncertainty marker. The two uses are historically and semantically related, but descriptively they occupy different positions: free _ra_ has clause scope, while bound _-ra_ scopes over a single event root.

The particle _ra_ has clause scope. It cannot function as a relativizer. In current orthography it may appear written adjacent to a clause-initial existential or domain anchor (e.g. _Domra_, _Laodomra_), but this should be analyzed as clause-scope marking rather than lexical compounding. Blaken therefore has no interrogative pronouns equivalent to _where, when, what, why_.

2.3.1. Existential Interrogatives (Place, Time)

Existential interrogatives are formed by combining an existential predicate with a semantic domain noun, while _ra_ marks interrogative scope over the clause.

Structure

EXIST (ra) EVT (DOMAIN) (LOC / temporal phrase)

Where:

• EXIST = existential predicate (e.g. _domken_)

• DOMAIN = semantic anchor noun (_dom_, _trjom_)

• ra = clause-scope interrogative/evidential

• optional _ɲwin_ reinforces uncertainty (“some / unknown”)

The form _ɲwin_ also exists as an independent lexical noun in the current lexicon (“difference, specialness”, with extended readings such as alienation or madness in some contexts). The uncertainty reading described here is a grammaticalized discourse use restricted to existential/interrogative environments; outside those environments, speakers may intend the full lexical meaning.

Example (place)

>

>

Domra kidomprum ɲwinko dom tin? _Literal interpretation:_ “Concerning place, is there an uncertain forest-existence somewhere?” _Pragmatic translation:_ “Where is the forest?”

Example (time)

>

>

Domra ʎaprum trjom tin _Literal interpretation:_ “Concerning place, will rain exist in which time?” _Pragmatic translation:_ “When will it rain?”

2.3.2. Predicational Interrogatives (Manner, Identity)

Interrogative scope may also apply to predicational clauses that do not involve existential predicates. In these cases, _ra_ scopes over an appearance, manner, or identity predication.

Example

>

>

Omra duχmonɲɨko ɸønblum vomvom _Literal interpretation:_ “How does the door-hitting person appear?” _Pragmatic translation:_ “Who is hitting the door?”

2.3.3. Causal-Source Interrogatives (Reason)

Questions corresponding to English _why_ are expressed as source interrogations over a reason noun. Causation is conceptualized as origin or source, using the domain noun _dʐen_ (‘source’) and the reason noun _tʁon_.

Structure

[EVT] tʁon-prum (ABL source phrase)

Example

>

>

dʐenra [duχmonɲɨko] tʁonprum mon ex ? _Literal interpretation:_ “From which source does the reason for the door-hitting come?” _Pragmatic translation:_ “Why is someone hitting the door?”

When a source-domain noun (_dʐen_) is used, the ablative postposition _ex_ may be omitted in neutral contexts and retained for emphasis or contrast.

3. Sequential Event Chains

Blaken allows sequential event chains, in which multiple event predicates are juxtaposed without subordination, coordination, or auxiliary structure. Such sequences are interpreted as a single experiential episode, rather than as a series of independently asserted actions.

In these constructions, no verb governs another. Instead, events are listed in temporal or logical succession and interpreted under a shared experiencer frame, optionally modified by aspectual or discourse particles.

Structure

EVT EVT (ASPECT) (DEIXIS) NP-AGT/PAT

Where:

• EVT = bare event predicate

• ASPECT = aspectual modifier (e.g. iteration, continuity)

• DEIXIS = discourse or situational anchor

• NP-AGT/PAT = a noun phrase marked with AGT or PAT, depending on volitionality

Example

_Interpretation:_ “This me kept sleeping and waking up, unintentionally.”

3.1. Clause Combining, Parataxis, and Event Series

Blaken avoids conjunctions of the _AND/OR/BUT_ type as a default strategy. Instead, multi-event utterances are typically expressed through parataxis: events are placed next to each other without a coordinating head, and their relationship is inferred from context, event semantics, and discourse flow.

In narration and everyday speech, clauses and event predicates may be juxtaposed directly. This strategy does not encode logical coordination; it presents events as a single experiential flow.

3.1.1. Relational Particles

When the speaker wishes to make the relation between two event groups explicit, Blaken may optionally use relational particles. These particles are not treated as traditional conjunctions; they function as discourse modifiers.

Two such particles are:

• prjør “unclear / indeterminate” (disjunctive relation, OR-like)

• sɨ eχ (Simple Encoding sɨ ex) “from this / therefore” (consequential relation, SO-like)

Relational particles used in an adverbial manner follow the general adverb-building strategy of Blaken: doubling. Thus, when prjør modifies the relation between clauses (rather than standing as a standalone predicate), it appears as:

• prjørprjør (adverbial “unclearly / in an indeterminate way”)

For their discourse-framing behavior in actual texts, see pragmatics.md.

3.1.2. Event-Series Splitting and Preferred Pause

When multiple events occur in the same utterance but involve different objects or different internal participants, Blaken tends to split the utterance into separate event series. In such cases, a pause is normally realized between the series.

Orthographically, this pause is indicated with a comma. The comma is not a conjunction, marking a prosodic boundary between event groups.

Example

_Interpretation: "they (singular) saw me, [and] I ran."_

The pause signals that the two events belong to distinct event groups; the second event is anchored to the experiencer/agent woblum (explicit or recoverable).

Unless otherwise marked, experiencer/agent morphology (e.g., -prum, -blum) is interpreted as scoping over the nearest event group. In the following example, since both events point to the same experiencer, the pause may be omitted.

_Interpretation:_ “I accidentally saw him/her and ran.”

More Examples

3.1.3. Parallel Event Series

When multiple events share the same attitudinal or experiential frame (e.g. liking, fearing, preferring), but represent distinct activities, Blaken tends to express them as separate event units within a single utterance.

In such cases, the events are listed in parataxis, separated by an optional pause. Orthographically, this pause may be indicated with a comma.

This construction signals that the events are:

• independent of one another,

• not fused into a single complex event,

• but evaluated under the same experiential perspective.

Example

>

Interpretation: “The person likes reading, and likes writing.” (Reading and writing are understood as two distinct liked activities.)

Experiencer or agent marking (e.g. -blum) is interpreted as applying to all event units within the same series. In the example above, ɸøn-blum scopes over both _drif_ and _krif_.

4 The Associative Syntax: Relative Modification

Blaken does not appear to use dedicated relative pronouns. Instead, meanings that English often expresses with relative clauses are usually rendered through associative nominal modification: an eventive, descriptive, or relational phrase is placed next to a head noun.

The running texts support a descriptive analysis more strongly than a procedural "translate from English" analysis. The system therefore looks less like a rigid relativization rule and more like a family of noun-centered modifier patterns.

Aspect inside these modifiers is often left to context, but when it is overt, two forms recur:

• -ko profiles ongoing, characteristic, or participant-like involvement

• -blom profiles completed, resultative, or affected-state involvement

Scope principle: These modifiers bind to the nearest event root to their right.

4.1 Attested tendencies

The attested data suggest the following broad tendencies:

• the modifier usually precedes the head noun

• the head noun tends to occur at the right edge of the construction
• when a relational postposition is present, it usually appears at the right edge of the modifier, immediately before the head noun
• to is the broadest associative linker in nominal modification
• ex, tin, and os can also appear when the intended relation is more specifically one of source, domain/location/time, or goal/recipient

This can be seen in attested text examples such as:

>

χorɸøn to domwɨ, aχaχ dʐolɸøn to dom association-with-fools, association-with-prudent.people

>

Domken ɨsenprum bɑnbljølko vlom to bɑnbɑnko ɸløm sorblom glwɑmdo tin "There was a woman there, a bright plant with very large flowers around the bed ..."

>

Dʐolko trjom tin, monvompum "hearing/engaging with the Law at the proper time"

These examples do not behave like embedded clauses. They behave like noun-centered relational structures whose interpretation is recovered from lexical semantics and discourse.

Constructed bare examples

The older grammar examples can still be read as tightly integrated bare modifiers:

>

womiko yɸøn The woman who sees me (the me-seeing woman)

Imperfective with object

>

wo os kigrifko ypheon The woman who draws a tree to me (the to me tree-drawing woman)

Perfective (no distinction here; same surface pattern)

>

grifko yɸøn The woman who drew (the drawing woman)

Perfective with object

>

wo os kiblom grifko yɸøn The woman who drew a tree to me (the to me treed drawing woman)

4.2 Main modifier strategies

Beyond tightly integrated bare modifiers, Blaken also uses overtly linked nominal modifiers. In these constructions, a relational postposition anchors the modifier to the head noun. The postposition does not behave like a relativizer; it signals the kind of relation the speaker wants to foreground.

Relational postpositions do not encode one single fixed role inside these constructions. Their interpretation is resolved through event semantics, discourse, and pragmatic expectation.

4.2.1 Associative postposition to

The most common marker is to. In the current corpus it behaves as the broadest associative postposition in nominal modification. It does not introduce a clause and it does not encode syntactic subordination. Instead, it signals that the preceding material should be interpreted in association with the following head noun.

Depending on context, English may translate this pattern as who, that, with which, for which, or whose.

Examples

Imperfective

>

kurken woko blim to yɸønblum The woman whom I love leaves

Perfective

>

kurtan woblom mi to yɸønblum The woman whom I saw left

Imperfective with object

>

woko fjexkoblom fen to tjex The knife with which I [usually] cut the bread

Perfective with object

>

woko fjexblom fen to tjex The knife with which I cut (past) the bread

Inside these modifiers, ko is used to mark participant anchoring, while blom derives a resultative or stative form.

4.2.2 Privative postposition wy

Some constructed examples also use wy for absence, loss, or deprivation. At the current stage, this pattern is less well represented in the running texts than to, ex, tin, and os, so it should be treated more cautiously.

>

>

domken numprum woko kjofblom krifpol to wy ɸøn tin [There] exists sadness me-ish lost book without with person-IN The person whose book I lost is sad

Another constructed example without an overt object:

>

>

domken numprum zrjɑχblom fex to wy ɸøn tin exist sadness die-PFV cat KE person-IN` The person whose cat died is sad

4.2.3 Source postposition ex

Another common postposition is ex, used to depict source, cause, origin, or motivating background.

>

>

That is the reason why she cried domken ysenko ʎan ex tʁonprum sy tin exist she-AGT cry-FROM reason-IN that-IN`

Some examples also add to after ex. At the current stage, it is better to describe this as optional double-linking rather than a required pattern.

>

>

woblom gur ex to kim I-ed coming FROM tree The tree for which I came

The same structure formation is present.

>

>

woko gurblom lɑdom ex kim me-ish gone there FROM tree The tree for which I went there

4.2.4 Locative and temporal anchoring with tin

When the head noun is understood as a location, time, or containing domain, tin appears naturally as the relational postposition.

>

domtan pɑχprum woblom bla to trjom tin The moment when I spoke was silent

Attested running-text examples point in the same direction:

Dʐolko trjom tin, monvompum

monvom tin dʐi to

4.2.5 Goal and recipient anchoring with os

The running texts make especially clear that os is the regular goal/recipient postposition. In nominal modification, it is therefore the most natural linker when the head is interpreted as a recipient, addressee, or endpoint.

>

Kurtan blum sen os [she] went toward him/her

This area still needs more attested nominal examples than the current corpus provides, but the semantics are consistent with the broader postpositional system.

Because to, tin, ex, and wy are semantically broad, some constructions can be ambiguous without discourse. Blaken prioritizes experiential plausibility over syntactic disambiguation. Ambiguity is resolved by:

• semantic compatibility of events

• animacy

• discourse continuity

4.3 Internal structure of relative modifiers

An earlier version of this grammar treated a relational postposition as obligatory in these modifiers. The examples do not support such a strict claim. A better descriptive generalization is that Blaken tends toward a head-final nominal modifier, with a relational postposition appearing when the speaker wants to make the link more explicit.

Structure:

(participant / experiencer modifier) + eventive core + (theme / domain) + optional relational postposition + HEAD NOUN

Not every slot is present in every example. What matters more than a fixed template is the recurring drift toward:

• a head-final noun phrase

• a modifier that packages eventive content nominally

• semantic interpretation guided by plausibility, animacy, and discourse continuity

For example, in the phrase "the knife with which I cut the bread is sharp", the modifier follows the order:

Literally: "There is sharpness in the knife associated with my cutting of the bread."

4.4 Restrictive vs non-restrictive modification

The examples suggest that Blaken often encodes non-restrictive modification with the adverb sasa, meaning "in addition", at the beginning of the modifier. A prosodic pause, represented orthographically by a comma, may also appear in non-restrictive sentences.

Nominal non-restrictive:

>

>

tʂindʐenken woko, sasa temdom tin vlysko, ʎelblum visit me-ADJ, In addition foreign-IN living, brother-PFV My brother, who lives abroad, is visiting

Nominal restrictive:

>

tʂindʐenken woko temdom tin vlysko to ʎelblum My brother who lives abroad is visiting

Other non-restrictive:

>

tʂindʐenken, sasa woko blin to, iphoenblum The man, whom I love, is visiting

Other restrictive:

>

tʂindʐenken woko blin to iphoenblum The man whom I love is visiting

4.5 Example-based sketch

Unless otherwise noted, the examples below are analytic grammar examples rather than direct quotes from the running texts.

Subject-like modifier

The man who left came back

>

gurtan kublom iɸønblum return-PFV leave-PFV man

Object-like modifier

The woman whom I saw smiled to me

dʐolrintan woblom mi to yphoenblum wo os

Recipient-like modifier

The friend to whom I gave the book thanked me

>

mestan woko exblom krifpol to ɲomblum wo thank-PFV me-ish given book WITH friend

Associative / possessor-like modifier

The person who lost my book is sad

>

>

domken numprum kjofblom wodom tin krifpol to ɸøn tin exist sadness-AGT lost me-domain IN book WITH person-IN There is sadness in the person with the lost in-me-domain book

Locative modifier

The house in which I grew up has collapsed

>

prɑχtan drafblom wo to glwɑmdom (prum) The house with me grown in it has fallen

Temporal modifier

The moment when I spoke was silent

>

>

domtan pɑχprum woblom bla to trjom tin exist silence-AGT me-ED speaking WITH moment-IN There was silence in the time with me-done-speaking

Manner

>

>

I remember the way he walked gurjomken woblum senko kwom I remember the he-like walking

Instrument

The knife with which I cut (past) the bread

woko fjexblom fen to tjex

Free subject-like nominal

Whoever arrives waits

>

>

asken lɑko ʐrwølko ɸønprum wait arriving person-NONVOL The arriving person waits

Nominalized

I remember what you told me

>

>

gurjomken woblum wo os nasko blabon remember I me DAT you-AGT said I remember your said [thing]

Free object-like nominal

I accept whatever you decide

>

>

tinken woblum nas to polbyʂ internalize I you-AGT decide I internalize the decision with you

Event as modifier

The desire to sleep grew

>

draftan mumɲaprum grew sleep-desire

Experiential nominal relation

The fear I felt remained

>

tʂantan kranprum wodom tin remain fear-AGT in me-domain

5 Reference-anchored evaluative comparison

Blaken does not encode grammatical comparison (e.g. _more than_, _less than_, _as X as_). Instead, relative comparison emerges from perceptual evaluation anchored to a reference frame. The language prefers to anchor comparison to a nominalized property or manner, rather than to a concrete entity. This makes the dimension of evaluation explicit (shape, manner, form, style) and avoids overloading relational markers with comparative meaning.

5.1 Property anchoring with -vom

A property noun is derived using -vom, which specifies the dimension of evaluation (shape, manner, form, style, appearance).

When followed by os, this property noun establishes a reference frame for perceptual assessment.

Structure

`` [PROPERTY-NP-vom] os , omken [EVALUATED NP]-prum [EVALUATION] ``

Where:

• PROPERTY-NP-vom identifies the dimension along which comparison is inferred (e.g. shape, manner, form)

• os establishes a reference frame (“with respect to”), not a comparative relation

• omken predicates perceptual or inherent evaluation

• EVALUATED NP-prum is the entity being assessed, marked as non-volitional experiencer

• EVALUATION is expressed lexically (property noun or adjective, optionally modified adverbially)

Examples

wandlom-vom os, omken tjerdlom-prum drendren bljøl _With respect to the dawn’s form, the dusk appears beautifully._

sɨko kim-vom os, omken lɑko kim sasa bɑn _(Lit.) With respect to the form of the trees here, the trees there appear extensively big._

In these constructions, any interpretation such as _“as beautiful as”_ or _“bigger than”_ arises pragmatically, from shared knowledge of the reference property.

5.2 Implicit property anchoring

When the relevant property is recoverable from context, the reference frame may be expressed without an explicit property noun. In such cases, -vom may attach to the reference NP to signal an implicit evaluative dimension.

Structure

`` [REFERENCE NP-vom] os , omken [EVALUATED NP]-prum [EVALUATIVE ADVERB] ``

Example

>

>

Anɸøn to krifpol-vom os, omken wo to krifpol-prum bɑnbɑn _With respect to Anɸøn’s book (in its form), my book appears big._ → pragmatically: _my book appears bigger._

Here, *bɑnbɑn (‘big-ly’) encodes intensity or manner, while relative comparison is inferred from the reference frame.

5.3 Note on X-vom nouns interpretation

The morpheme -vom retains a unified semantic core (_manner / form / way_) and may function as either an adverb or a property noun. When X-vom is followed by os, it is always interpreted as a nominal reference axis, not as an adverb.

In emotionally marked prose, speakers may extend this pattern to abstract absences such as wɨ-vom os. In such cases the phrase is best understood as “with the void / against the background of absence / relative to emptiness”, rather than as a strict comparative marker. The construction still establishes a reference frame; it does not grammaticalize a dedicated comparative case.