NACLO 2026 - Problem PWear There's a Will

Invitational round | 15 points | N/A | Problem statement | Official solution | Tags: Phrase translationMorphologyPhonology

There are 2 2-word sentences, which both contain an intransitive verb; the other sentences are 3-word and contain a transitive verb. So we know that the words stand for the subject, verb, and object respectively, we just don't know their order. Compare common parts:

• wife
  • nuliɑq annɔʁaamik iluɑʁsaassissɑɑq. The wife will mend a coat.
  • nuliɑʁa pisussɑɑq. My wife will walk.
• priest
  • palasiga sinissɑɑq. My priest will sleep.
  • palasima annɔʁɑɑʁa iluɑʁsaassavaa. My priest will mend my coat.
• king
  • kunngiga qalissiamik tigumiɑʁsissɑɑq. My king will wear linen.
  • uima kunngi isussavaa. My husband will criticize the king.
• mend-coat
  • nuliɑq annɔʁaamik iluɑʁsaassissɑɑq. The wife will mend a coat.
  • palasima annɔʁɑɑʁa iluɑʁsaassavaa. My priest will mend my coat.

Based on "wife" and "priest", the first word is the subject. Based on "king", the second word is the object. In the "mend-coat" sentences, both the verb and object are shared, explaining why the last two words both share the same root.

Now we can study each word in isolation. Nouns:

There's obvious suffix alternation here, which I've already annotated in the table, with the goal of maximizing the length of the common root in each row, and then applying the common suffixes across rows.

• If the noun is indefinite, it ends with -mik.
• If the determiner is "the", it either ends with -q or has no suffix.
• The "my" possessive can be one of three suffixes: -ʁa, -ma, or -ga.

There's another interesting pattern that I've marked: we have some shared roots across rows. Namely, palasi = "priest", while palasi-ssɑ = "religion student"; ui = "husband", while ui-ssɑ = "fiancé". This suggests that the suffix -ssɑ is a "future" marker (i.e., "X-to-be").

We can augment this table with the nouns introduced in P1. Most of the roots here (ignoring the determiner suffix) are derived from the root in the table by adding or removing -ssa:

• "nulia-ssɑ" = "wife-to-be" = "fiancée"
• "viinni" = "was-grape" = "wine" ("viinni" just looks like "vin")
• "annɔʁaa-ssa" = "coat-to-be" = "cotton" (might be anything else that makes coats)
• "ɔʁsu-ssɑ" = "processed-oil-to-be" = "raw oil"

Apparently, nouns come in two kinds: those that take nothing for "the" and -ga/-ma for "my", and those that take -q for "the" and -ʁa for "my". Within the first kind, the choice between -ga and -ma is not conditioned by the noun itself, since we have both palasi-ma and palasi-ga. Looking at the sentences, palasi-ga has no object while palasi-ma does ("my coat"); ui-ma and kunngi-ga also have objects, where the former has "the king" and the latter has "linen". So:

• -ga: object is definite ("my", "the")
• -ma: object is indefinite or no object

There's one more variation we haven't accounted for: between "a" and "ɑ". As follows:

The conclusion is that this is a harmony: a → ɑ when before a uvular (q, ʁ).

Verbs:

So the suffix:

• -avaa: object is definite ("my", "the")
• -issɑɑq/-ussɑɑq: object is indefinite or no object

Apply these findings to P1:

1. nulia-ssɑ-q

   husband-FUT-the

   viinni-ga

   wine-my

   katiss-avaa.

   collect-DEF.OBJ.
   The fiancée will collect my wine.
2. palasi-ssɑ-ʁa

   priest-FUT-my

   annɔʁaa-ssa-mik

   cotton-indef

   isɔʁs-issɑɑq.

   criticize-INDEF.OBJ.
   My religion student will criticize cotton.
   Note: we haven't seen "isɔʁs" before, but it's closest to "isuss".
3. palasi

   priest

   ɔʁsu-ssɑ-q

   oil-FUT-the

   tigumiass-avaa.

   wear-def.obj.
   The priest will wear the raw oil.
   Note: again, "tigumiass" is closest to "tigumiɑʁs".

We have a few extra verbs to augment the table:

Again, we have to explain all the variations in the root:

• isuss vs. isɔʁs
• katiss vs. katɛʁs
• tigumiass vs. tigumiɑʁs

The obvious explanation for the vowel is, again, harmony: a → ɑ, u → ɔ, i → ɛ when before a uvular (q, ʁ). But where does this uvular come from? Why does the "s" randomly become "ʁ"? And why doesn't "iluɑʁsaass" undergo the same change? The explanation is that this "ʁ" is actually the underlying form, which changes to "s" in the presence of "-avaa". It's quite unnatural but it suffices for the explanation in P3. It's not necessary for P2 though.

1. ui-ma

   husband-my

   ɔʁsu-ssɑ-q

   oil-FUT-the

   katiss-avaa.

   collect-DEF.OBJ.
   My husband will collect the raw oil.
2. palasi-ga

   priest-my

   qalissia-ssa-mik

   linen-FUT-indef

   katɛʁs-issɑɑq.

   collect-indef.obj.
   My priest will collect flax.
3. ui-ssɑ-ʁa

   husband-FUT-my

   kunngi-ssa-mik

   king-FUT-indef

   isɔʁs-issɑɑq.

   criticize-INDEF.OBJ.
   My fiancé will criticize a crown prince.