An interesting group of sentences is the one that suggests movement (I will start with the translations still found in my transcribed corpus):

  • Frame 2734: ᖽᔕᐣᘖ ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ ᖆᐣᖽ ᘊᒣᑦᖽᖆᐨ (“We are going to the castle.”)
  • Frame 2806: ᖆᘈᘖ ᖽᔕᐣᘖ ᖚᒣᑕᑫᓭ ᖆᐣᖽ ᘊᒣᑦᖽᖆᐨ (“Comrade, we shall now go to the castle.”)
  • Frame 2836: ᖽᔕᐣᘖ ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ ᖆᐣᖽ ᘊᓭᘖᑦᓄᐨ (“We are going to the leader.”)

A table might illustrate it better:

F2734 ᖽᔕᐣᘖ ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ ᖆᐣᖽ ᘊᒣᑦᖽᖆ
F2806 ᖆᘈᘖ ᖽᔕᐣᘖ ᖚᒣᑕᑫᓭ ᖆᐣᖽ ᘊᒣᑦᖽᖆ
F2836 ᖽᔕᐣᘖ ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ ᖆᐣᖽ ᘊᓭᘖᑦᓄ

We are very confident about the meaning of ᘊᒣᑦᖽᖆ (“paʧoʤada”), given its usage in frame 2827 and its importance in OTT lore: “castle”. The word, just like the alternative ᘊᓭᘖᑦᓄ (“patebova”, i.e., “leader”), has the ᘊ- (“pa-“) prefix that is probably either a determinative (“the castle”), the hypothesis I now favor, or an augmentative (“(the) big castle”); its basic form ᒣᑦᖽᖆ (“ʧoʤada”) doesn’t say much, but the ᒣ (“ʧ(a)”) glyph is once more found in what is probably a name (a “noun”) that refers to something Beanie-made. As just stated, ᘊᓭᘖᑦᓄ (“patebova”) is probably “leader” (“teacher, master, king, commander, professor…”), whose basic form ᓭᘖᑦᓄ (“tebova”) is not extremely far from our old friend ᓭᘖᔭᓄ (“tebagava”), “water”. We don’t know Beanish cosmology, maybe the leader of the group is a “master of waters” or the like (perhaps the leading engineer?); what is more likely, however, is that the ᓭᘖ group develops a word from a basic constituent. This would force us to accept ᓄ as a basic semantic unit (“liquid”, as per azule’s theory), but the hypothesis is not extremely likely and, alas, untestable for the time being.

What is hardly deniable, however, is that these words refer to the castle and to Rosetta, almost certainly acting like objects (a conclusion that has its difficulties in context, however, as Beanish is supposed to be as different from English as possible, and these sentences start to look like a common European language). We are lucky that one of them is a person (and not only a person, but a leader) and the other a thing: it is not impossible to take them as agents (for example, “we will be seen by Rosetta” and “we will be seen by the castle”), but they don’t seem to work like that. The hypothesis of Beanish as an ergative language, which I raised months ago, is also very improbable, in particular when we analyze the isolated occurence of ᘊᒣᑦᖽᖆ in frame 2827 (but, truth be told, we don’t really know what kind elipsis Beanish has in place, i.e., what it omits).

We unfortunately don’t have other occurences of ᖆᐣᖽ (“deʤa”), the closest match looks to be ᖊᐣᖽ (“ðeʤa”) in frame 2664, but in any case it looks a lot like a proposition and seems to work as expected from Germanic and Romance ones — the most obvious translation, of course, is “to(wards)”. To take the repeated ᖽᔕᐣᘖ (“ʤameba”) as the subject, likely a “we”, is the next logical step, leaving us with what starts to look like a coniugated verb: ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ / ᖚᒣᑕᑫᓭ / ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ (the word ᖆᘈᘖ [“dasaba”] in frame 2806, used once more in frame 2842, is almost certainly a vocative, likely even the name of the Beanie, but in any case it is superflous for this analysis).

Now, if ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ / ᖚᒣᑕᑫᓭ / ᖚᐣᘖᖗᑫ are different forms of a single verb “to go”, what do we learn? First of all, a structure ᖚ__ᑫ_, that suggest either an infix morphology (where the words are altered not with something before or after a word, like biannual or toys) or a complex phonotactics (i.e., restrictions of the combinations of sounds). As usual, there is not enough corpus to delve into this, but it is something to restart with. Next time, I will probably try to better investigate the ᘊ- morpheme (is it a morpheme?) as a determinative (“the/this”).

ᖉ, ᖆᐣᖚᔭ,ᐨ