Summary
Atenkhet (and to an extent,
Sa-kemet's) manner of address is baked into their linguistic structure. Thus, when referring to people, one literally has to include the proper honorifics or the whole structure simply doesn't work. That being said, these partially broken sentences often end up forming different slang and dialects in less strict environments.
The mechanism for speaking is also distinct in that people refer to one another in relative manners. Fundamentally, this whole language structure is built around superiors and their subordinates, and this understanding is key to deciphering how it works. The more one plays into or out of this structure, the more formal or informal their way of speaking can become.
For example, "If it might please suon Abasi to do so ..." when spoken in face-to-face conversation with the woman named Abasi. This behavior is an inheritance from old traditions, where different tribes or clans would refer to each other in their entirety. It has since changed in common vernacular where every person is regarded as a whole entity, to be spoken to of relatively or indirectly. It is necessary to sometimes use direct reference, for example, "If you would do so, Abasi ...", but this has social implications.
It is the nature of speaking to "offer courses of action" that the other party will naturally agree to. A directly spoken manner is considered domineering and often rude. However, if specificity is needed, such as, for example, "
You did what?", it can be seen as clarity in absolute terms.
Honorifics are used before any proper noun when referring to people. For example, "Suon-al Abasi". The following honorifics are:
'Suon' (suu-on) is the root when referring to women.
'Mund' (muh-Nd) is the root when referring to men.
'Ilhmo' (ill-hm-oh) is the root when referring to unspecified gender or especially formal entities.
The root honorific then has a qualifier attached (or not) to determine relative social relationship. Family members do not typically use these attached qualifiers unless there is something very particular about their power structure. A lack of qualifier between speakers may suggest lack of familiarity or close intimacy; generally, enough there is no perceived distinction between the two. For example, "Mund Naard", or "Suon-daikan Tethern".
The following qualifiers are:
'-al' (all) is used when referring to people of lower perceived social status.
'-ya' (yah) is used when referring to people of higher perceived social status.
'-daikan' (die-kahn) is used principally among nobilities and those of royal blood. It is an identifier of noble status and chiefly used among themselves or those who interact with them.
'-tek' (teck) is used when referring to those of the priestesshood or other clerical-affiliated duties.
'-kten' (keh-TEN) is used by the priestesshood to refer to those of their clerical responsibility.
Comments