Paradigm Tables

Askathal makes extensive use of productive derivation to expand its lexicon from smaller stems. These patterns derive abstract nouns, agent nouns, result nouns, place nouns, relational adjectives, causatives, and size-shifted forms. The system allows new vocabulary to be built through regular morphology rather than by relying only on unrelated roots.

Askathal distinguishes noun individuation from simple singular-plural number. Bare nouns are number-neutral and may refer to a kind, a mass, or an unspecified quantity depending on context. Dedicated morphology marks one individuated unit, a grouped or collective set, or one bounded portion of a mass. The comitative has two synchronically recognised forms: free /wø/ and clitic /=mø/. The clitic is especially common after pronouns and in frozen high-frequency collocations, while the free form remains the default elsewhere.

Askathal verbs may take associated-motion clitics that situate an event within a motion frame. These forms specify whether an action is performed while going, while coming, after arrival, after departure, or while moving en route. In narrative and spatial discourse, associated motion is a central part of how events are structured.

Askathal relies more heavily on aspect and mood than on strict tense. The TAM system distinguishes unmarked realis, retrospective, prospective, and edge-reduplicative marking; progressive, habitual, completive, irrealis, imperative, and prohibitive marking. Temporal interpretation is often inferred from context, while these forms primarily describe the internal shape, status, and reality value of an event.TAM morphology is not phonologically uniform. Liquid-final stems neutralise progressive and completive as /=ɔ/. /ʜ/-final stems contract the completive historically. Glide-final stems may show secondary glide-colored allomorphs in fast speech. Several high-frequency verbs use suppletive retrospective stems instead of regular reduplication.

Degree in Askathal is marked by post-adjectival clitics rather than by inflection on the adjective stem itself. These markers express intensification, attenuation, comparison, superlative force, and equative comparison. The system keeps adjective stems stable while allowing degree to be added transparently and productively. Degree clitics extend freely to adverbial modification in ordinary usage, especially with manner adverbs and lexicalized adjective-like adverbs.

These are the productive default strategies. A set of high-frequency nouns shows lexicalized singulatives or collectives that do not follow the default patterns. These irregular formations are synchronically opaque to many speakers and must be learned lexically.

Askathal uses a duodecimal counting system with lexical numerals from one to twelve and compositional forms above that point. Ordinals are derived mostly regularly from cardinals, with only minor lexical irregularity. This numeral system forms one of the language’s main closed lexical paradigms. The modern duodecimal set coexists with an older tally vocabulary preserved in a handful of lexicalized quantifier nouns and archaic counting expressions. The older forms are no longer the productive ordinary cardinal system.

Yes-no questions in Askathal are formed with clause-final particles rather than by inversion. The language distinguishes neutral polar questions, confirmatory questions, and alternative questions, while content questions are built from the interrogative series shown elsewhere in the grammar.

Askathal has a structured deictic system contrasting proximal, medial, distal, and interrogative forms. These distinctions interact with ecological classifiers, allowing the language to distinguish not only distance and question type, but also the conceptual class of the referent. The result is a compact but highly expressive system of pointing and asking.

Askathal pronouns distinguish first, second, and third person, with a special inclusive-exclusive contrast in the first-person plural. In the third person, the language uses a proximate-obviative opposition to track discourse salience, allowing speakers to more clearly distinguish central and backgrounded participants in multi-participant clauses and narratives.