This first protolang mixes Proto-Indo-European, a.k.a. PIE, with Proto-Taqva-miir.
PIE Consonants: m, n, p, b, bʰ, t, d, dʰ, kʲ, gʲ, gʲʰ, k, g, gʰ, kʷ, gʷ, gʷʰ, s, h1, h2, h3, r, l, j, w
Proto-Taqva-miir Consonants: m, n, ɲ, b, t, tʼ, d, c, cʼ, ɟ, k, kʼ, g, q, qʼ, ɢ, ʔ, s, z, ɕ, ʑ, ç, ʝ, x, ɣ, ħ, ʕ, h, r, l, ʎ, j, w
PIE Vowels: e, eː, o, oː(Though a, aː, i, iː, u, uː might've also existed with them.)
Proto-Taqva-miir Vowels: a, aː, i, iː, u, uː
For the consonants, I added the two amounts from each language, then divided by two, meaning that 29 consonants should be the amount for this protolang. Matching them, I could add whatever consonants from each set correspond the most neatly with whatever consonants from the other. PIE's syllable structure was (C)CVC(C), which allowed nasals and liquids in the nucleus alongside the vowels. PTM's structure was (C)V(R), meaning that only nasals and liquids, grouped as resonants, can end syllables and words. In terms of stress, PIE used a pitch accent, while PTM's stress system was the same as Finnish at first, with stress falling on the first syllable all the time, with the modern language's system being the same as Latin, meaning that stress falls on the third-to-last syllable by default, with the second-to-last one being stressed instead as long as it contains a long vowel or is closed.
For syntax, PIE word order is debated. Mixing the two hypotheses could lead to PIE having used a free word order still classified as strictly subject initial. PTM would utilize SOV as the word order, utilizing postpositions derived from verbs. PIE used prepositions, and adjectives before nouns, while PTM's adjectives are also derived from nouns. In terms of grammar, both PIE and PTM were going to share the same grammatical number system: singular, dual, and plural, though PTM, in the end, used singular and plural, which evolved into a singulative/dual/plural system with an inverse marker. I'm considering this mixture using an inverse marker alongside singular, dual, and plural markings.
Regarding the tense systems, PIE is said to have two tenses: past and present. It might've used an auxiliary as an indicator of the future tense. It also used three aspects: imperfective ("present"), perfective ("aorist"), and stative ("perfect"). There were also four moods, or five: indicative, subjunctive, optative, and imperative. An injunctive mood might've also been possible. PTM utilized an unmarked imperfective, a marked perfective via reduplication, and an infinitive. Reduplication plus the [i] vowel was used for the perfective converb, and an -in suffix was used for the imperfective converb, the -su suffix marking the infinitive. The standard copula, derived from "live", and the locative copula, derived from "stand", would be utilized to create a new tense system:
1. Imperfect + Standard Copula = Continuous
2. Perfect + Standard Copula = Past Continuous
3. Imperfect + Locative Copula = Future
4. Perfect + Locative Copula = Future in the Past
(A negative copula was also used.)
PIE only utilized one copula: h1es-. They might've also used others like the following: bʰuh₂-(maybe "grow" and "become"), h2wes-(maybe "live"), h1er-, and (s)teh2-("stand").
Regarding valency-changing operations, PIE is said only to use a causative, while PTM utilizes a mediopassive derived from "take/get" and a causative/commitative derived from "lead". At least that was the original plan. The modern form uses the following operations: detransitive, causative, reflexive, reciprocal, mediopassive (detransitive + Dative), and antipassive (detransitive + Genitive). And via morphology.
And speaking of morphology and synthesis, while Proto-Taqva-miir is somewhat agglutinative, the eventual modern language being fusional, PIE was fusional. At least I think so, though I need better clarity. PIE lacks a dominant order regarding comparatives(superlatives, sublatives, etc.). However, PTM utilized auxiliaries and later a morphological system to indicate everything: comparative, superlative, sublative, intensive, excessive, equative, and contrastive. Unfortunately, there is no paucative marking as far as I'm aware. I'd need to look at the other Conlang Case Study videos. Let me make a list, and I keep the following distinct and antonymous with augmentatives and diminutives, which relate to size descriptions of nouns unrelated to other nouns.
Comparative: ???
Superlative: highest degree
Sublative: lowest degree
Equative: equal value
Contrastive: different value
Intensive: stronger
Excessive: too much of something
???: weaker
Paucative: too few of something
What is supposed to go where the triple question marks are? I'd like to know. Here's a bonus question: Which of these have been reconstructed and are theorized to have existed in Proto-Indo-European?
Now to figure out the idea.
Consonants: m, n, ɲ, ŋ, ŋʷ, p, b, t, d, c, ɟ, k, g, kʷ, gʷ, q, ʔ, s, ʝ, ɣ, ɣʷ, ħ, r, l, ʎ, j, w(The remaining two consonants being either ʕ and h, or β and ð, the latter choice adding symmetry in some way.)
Vowels: a, aː, e, eː, i, iː, o, oː, u, uː
Syllable structure: (C)CV(R)(C)
(A resonant(R) cannot be followed by the same one. Geminates and diphthongs prohibited. Any diphthongs that seem to exist are actually two different vowels separated by a glottal stop.)
Word structure:
Stress:
Writing system:
Word order:
Adjectives:
Adpositions:
Grammatical Number:
Grammatical Gender:
Noun Classes:
Augmentatives and/or Diminutives:
Interjections:
Pluractional:
Double marking:
Tenses:
Aspects:
Moods:
Copulae:
Noun Cases:
Interjections:
Evidentials:
Mirativity:
Affirmative:
Negation:
Conjunctions:
Question marking:
Demonstratives:
Articles:
Rhetorical questions:
Comparatives:
Superlatives:
Sublatives:
Equatives:
Excessives:
Polypersonal agreement:
Obviation:
Valency-changing Operations:
Number System:
Sets of Number Words:
Taxonomic Division of Animals:
Taxonomic Division of Colors:
Taxonomic Division of Emotions:
Conceptual Metaphors:
Other:
