A note on the abugida hypothesis, as it has been causing some confusion. I should have been more clear saying that, while I support the hypothesis that the script is an abugida, the pronunciations I am using (such as /p/ for ᘊ and /ʤ/ for ᖽ ) are only suggestions to make the discussion easier. I am not saying that the actual pronunciation is or likely is what I am using. My only intention for proposing these pronunciations was to solve the difficulty I (and apparently others) have with the Unicode glyphs, as my mind always reads something like “three-b-dot-seven-en”.

Even if there were evidences supporting that the pronunciation is right, which we do not have, we should not try to find patterns and similarities between Beanish and any other languages. Randall said that Beanish is supposed to be “plausible” and a plausible future language, even when actually evolved from a natural one currently known, would not have any clear phonetic similarities, due to nature of sound changes. Besides, we must consider that “Time” is set very far in the future; even Proto-Indo-European as usually reconstructed (i.e., as far as we can possibly go in terms of human language without a time machine — I am always hoping for the Doctor’s next companion to be a linguist) was likely spoken ~ 3,500 years ago (no Paleolithic Continuity Theory, please) and you just can’t easily go from *dhǵhemon to groom, or from *kʷetwóres to four.

Finally, we are a pattern-matching species, used to find signals in any noise, even random noise (which is my personal explanation for why people still try to write universal data compressors). We cannot help but find similarities among words in different languages, because not only we have this tendency, but also because we know that it is how languages work and because the population of phonemes is so small and the semantic boundaries so flexible that words can, by chance, seem related. This is why so many people try to link languages like Hebrew and Quechua, or Basque and Chinese, and that is why the accepted methodology in comparative linguistics is to look for regular changes (exceptions, if any, must be very well explained, like Tolkien did with Elvish numbers), the words must usually be taken in its “purest” form (and we don’t really know them for Beanish, perhaps with the exception of those starting with ᘊ-), and vowels are important too. There is a very good old article by Mark Rosenfelder you can read: How likely are chance resemblances between languages?

In short, sorry for the confusion, but let’s focus on Beanish syntax and morphology, maybe vocabulary, but not in its similarities with other languages. Sorry for the confusion, my fault!