This section necessarily involves more interpretation, although I've based everything as closely as possible on phrases from the corpus. I've not hesitated to fill in details when it seemed advisable; words unattested in the Tintin oeuvre are marked in blue . Genetic affiliation Many have assumed, from its phonology, that Syldavian is a Slavic language. And of course the first king of Syldavia, Muskar, was a Slav. But history tells of many nations whose people and whose sovereign do not (or did not originally) share the same language. If one looks for cognates with other European languages, putting aside international words and proper names, the results are striking:

Syldavian Dutch German Russian bätczer beter besser luchshe better blaveh blijven bleiben udyerzhivat' stay bûthsz boot Boot lyotka boat dascz de das the döszt dorst Durst zhazhda thirst fläsz fles Flasche flyaga bottle forwotzen verbieden verboten zapreshchat' forbidden güdd goed gut dobryy good eih hij er on he ek ik ich ya I ihn in in v in kar koning König korol' king khoujchz koets Kutsche karyeta coach kzommet komen kommen prittí come micz met mit s with muskh moed Mut muzhestvo courage nietz niet nein nye not omhz ons uns nas us wertzragh vertragen verspäten zamyedlyat' slow down werkhven werken Werken rabotat' work The evidence is clear: Syldavian is of Germanic stock, not Slavic; there are no cases (apart from proper names) where there is a Slavic but no Germanic cognate. Naturally, Slavic influence on the language is significant, both because the Syldavian nobility was Slavic, and because of its geographical location. Proper names in Syldavia, for instance, are normally Slavic; and there is some evidence for a Slavic influence on syntax. Though Syldavia is in the Balkans, Syldavian forms are usually closer to Dutch than to German (cf. güdd, nietz, wertzragh above). Extratextually the reason is simple: when he needed foreign words, Hergé regularly used Marols, the Brussels Flemish dialect his grandmother spoke. (Another example is the Arabian city of Wadesdah— "What is that" in Marols; and see the Arumbaya in L'oreille cassée.) Some readers conclude that Syldavian "is" Marols, but this is an exaggeration. Take a closer look at the cognate list above; eih, fläsz, forwotzen, muskh, and micz are closer to German than to Dutch. Note also the plethora of forms of 'the'— dascz, dze, dzem, dza, dzoe— indicating an article declined by case and gender, as in German; the Dutch article has just two forms, and does not decline by case. There are also clear imports from French, such as czesztot, klebcz, gendarmaskaïa, adwicza, zrälùkz. Phonology Syldavian has a rich inventory of consonants. In the usual transliteration: lab dent alv velar uvular

stop b p t d k g

fricative f w s z sz zs kh gh h

affricate tz dz cz dj

nasal m n

lateral l

approximant v r rz

semivowel j Most of these sounds exist in English; only the spelling (on which more below) is unusual to English-speakers. sz and zs are the alveolar fricatives ʃ ʒ spelled sh and zh in English. The related affricates cz (also spelled tcz or tch) and dj are pronounced like English ch, j. Some linguists would count kz, pronounced [ks], as a separate phoneme. tz is pronounced /ts/, and dz is simply the voiced equivalent. I've taken the interpretation of zs from Hungarian, which spells this sound in this way. Sz and cz are interpreted as in Polish; such spellings were common in eastern Europe, as witness the word Czech. The spelling -tch (Sporowitch), imitating the Slavic patronymic (Ivanovich), is obviously taken from French; as we only see tch in proper names we can assume it is an orthographic variant— that's the nice way of saying that Hergé should have been consistent and written Sporowicz. tcz is attested only in bätczer; as a t doesn't change the sound of a cz, this is best interpreted as a another spelling variant— or perhaps indicates a doubled consonant. How do we interpret khoujchz? The Dutch equivalent koets suggests only that some affricate is involved. chz can surely not be the same as tz; more likely (given that we've already seen the variant tch) it's yet another form of cz. kh (sometimes spelled ch) is pronounced like the German ch in Bach. The voiced equivalent is gh. The voiced gh /ɣ/ is not that common in European languages— it's common in Turkic ones— but is clearly suggested by the Dutch model; e.g. vagebond is pronounced [vaɣebont]. The coexistence of such words as ghounh, güdd suggests that in Syldavian, unlike Dutch, /g/ and /ɣ/ contrast. In older Syldavian we find c used for /k/: eltcâr, cârrö. We don't see this in modern words, and I suspect k is now used, at least for words perceived as native. As in the Slavic languages, one must be careful to pronounce the dental phonemes against the teeth. Thus s and sz, tz and cz contrast much more strongly than they do in English. The l is always clear, as in 'light', even at the end of the word— never dark, as in 'tale'. The r is a flap, as in Spanish, Italian, or Japanese, never a uvular fricative as in French or German, or a retroflex approximant like the American r. The rz is the same palatalized r found in Polish (rz) or Czech (Dvorak); to American ears it sounds something like rsh. Confusingly, w is /v/, as in 'avid', while v is a bilabial approximant /β/, as in continental Spanish lavar. The phonemes w and v are something of a puzzle. From the word Klow, which is given in both alphabets, we see that w corresponds to Cyrillic В, which is /v/ in all Slavic languages; compare also loan-words like Wladimir, and the pronunciation of w in German and Polish. Nonetheless we see v used as well, in such words as Hveghi. The key to this mystery is provided by the word ЮЕРХВЕН 'works', cognate to German Werken, for which Hergé does not provide a transliteration. Thinking of Russian words like soyuz, we may be tempted to read /yuerxven/; but I believe this is misreading the usage of the letter yu in Russian, where it marks not y + u but a form of /u/, specifically, any /u/ following a palatalized consonant. Palatalization is not important in Syldavian, but 'a form of u' is the key point. The best interpretation of the facts is that Syldavian Ю is a bilabial approximant /β/, as in continental Spanish lavar, and should be identified with the v seen in transliterated Syldavian. After a consonant, as in Hveghi, it is likely that v becomes an approximant: [hweɣi]. Note that Dutch has the same /v/ vs. /β/ distinction, but the opposite orthography: v, w. In two words (bûthsz, Zmylpathes) we see a digraph th; I take this as an orthographic variant for t, as in French or German. In the second case the spelling is obviously suggested by the 'Carpathian' range. There's no good explanation for the th in bûthsz; but equally no reason for a fricative in this word. The only Germanic languages with a fricative th are English and Icelandic, and the cognate lists make it clear that Syldavian follows the other Germanic languages (cf. döszt, dze vs 'thirst, the') rather than these. The vowels are: front mid back

high i,y ü u û

mid e ö o ô

low ä a The phonetic realization of the front vowels is clear: as in French and German, i and e exist in both unrounded and rounded variants. The interpretation of ä is unclear: it may be a rounded form of a, or a fronted [æ] as in 'ask', or it may represent [ɛ], as in German. It's also unclear how û and ô are pronounced, especially as they appear in only one word each (bûthsz, khôr). I suggest û = u as in put; ô = open o as in caught. We also see a few uses of ou, oe, y. The first can be taken as a diphthong, and the second as a variation of ö. I've taken y as a high lax vowel, the / I / of 'pin', but it may simply be an orthographic variant of i. The plethora of diacritics and alternate spellings are really a flaw in Hergé's invention. He would have done well to sit down and decide on the sounds of Syldavian once and for all, then stick to them. The lack of systematicity may only bother a linguist; but there is an artistic problem as well: the reader can have no idea how to pronounce the language consistently. Orthography In medieval times the Syldavians apparently wrote their (Germanic) language using the Roman alphabet (see for instance the 14th century manuscript shown in Le sceptre d'Ottokar). To this day the coat of arms of Syldavia shows the motto Eih bennek, eih blavek in Latin characters (to be precise, in what is called in English black-letter script, and in German Fraktur). In the present day, Syldavians write their language using the Cyrillic alphabet. When the changeover occurred and why cannot be determined. Here are the Syldavian consonants in the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets: In some cases (cz, tz) digraphs are used instead of the single letters used in Cyrillic. We can only assume that the Roman alphabet was used first in Syldavia, and that the Cyrillic spellings were based on it. I've had to supply a few equivalents here, for sounds Hergé gives only in the Roman alphabet. The use of ЗС follows Hergé's model— the Syldavians presumably had their reasons for not using Cyrillic Ш sha and Ж zhe. Finally gz is suggested as the transliteration of gh; this both provides a missing equivalent and produces a neater pronunciation for the word wertzragh. Parts of Speech Nouns Nouns are either of common or neuter gender. Most nouns, including most of those referring to persons or animals, are of common gender. Plurals: -es (zigarettes, Zmyhlpathes) and -en (verkhwen) are both seen. Common words normally pluralize in - en : klebcz en 'dogs', khôr en 'khôrs', fläsz en 'bottles', verkhwen 'works'.

: 'dogs', 'khôrs', 'bottles', 'works'. Loanwords generally pluralize in -es: zigarettes 'cigarettes', komitzät es 'committees'. The chief reason for postulating two genders in Syldavian is the multiple forms of 'the'. Pronouns subject object possessive 1s I ek ma mejn 2s thou dûs da dejn 3s he eih itd yhzer 3s she zsoe irz yhzer 1p vei ohmz ohmz 2p 3p zsoe khon khon Subject forms are used, naturally, for the subject of a sentence: Eih döszt. He's thirsty.

Ek nietz itd werlagh . I don't want it. Object forms are used for the object of a verb or after a preposition. Wladimir irz löwt . Wladimir loves her.

Kzommet micz omhz. Come with us. The deictic pronouns are czei 'this', tot 'that': Eih czei klebcz klöppta. He hit this dog.

Tot eszt on döszt waghabontz. This is a thirsty tramp.

Tintin noh czei bûthsz kzommet. Tintin is coming to this boat.

Hadok öpp tot bûthsz fällta. Haddock fell off that boat. Other known pronouns are eihn 'here', daren 'there', eltkar 'another (person)'. Articles The indefinite article is on. on klebcz a dog

on fläsz Klowaswa a bottle of Klow water The plural is onegh . Note that English omits the article in this case, or uses 'some'. onegh klebcz en dogs, some dogs

onegh fläsz en Klowaswa [some] bottles of Klow water The definite article is declined, as in German. m/f n pl nom dze dascz dzoe acc dzem dascz dzoe dat dze dza dzem gen doscz doscz doscz Nominative forms are used for the subject of a sentence: Dzebûthsz wzryzkar vertraght. The boat is surely slowing down. Accusative forms are used for the direct object (as well as after certain prepositions): Dzem bûthsz werlagh ek. I want the boat. Dative forms are used for the indirect object (as well as after certain prepositions): Ek itd dzekönikstz werkop ta. I sold it to the king. Genitive forms are used in possessive phrases: Eih fällta öpp o kârrö doscz bûthsz. He fell on the floor of the boat. The forms ending in a vowel attach to the following word: dascz gendarmaskaïa 'the police station', but dzoeteuïh 'the doors'. Attested forms are:

dâzsbíck 'the nanny-goat' in the medieval chronicle; should be feminine, but seems to be neuter instead. The zs is an assimilation of the expected scz before the following voiced consonant.

noh dascz gendarmaskaïa 'to the police station'

noh dzem bûthsz! 'to the boat!'; Boot is neuter in Ger. but common in Du.

ihn dzekhoujchz 'in the car'; Kutsche is fem. in German, common in Du.

vüh dzapeih 'for the guy' - logically should be common; but then it should be dze-, so I take it as neuter, otherwise unattested

dzoeteuïh '[open] the doors'; deur is common in Du. Compare German and Old Dutch: m f n pl O.Du. nom der die das die die acc den die das die dien dat dem der dem den dien gen des der des der des Syldavian must have once had set of forms more like the German. It is not hard to see what has happened. Final -r was lost (-r is unstable in Syldavian; compare döszt with 'thirst', or vüh with 'for'), and final -m as well. The distinction between de and die was also lost, perhaps at the same time both affricated to dze. The fem. acc. and gen. should have been dze as well; the masculine dzem (from earlier den) and doscz (from des) were adopted by analogy, merging the two genders. With palatalization of das in the neuter, the present system was attained. Adjectives Adjectives precede nouns: forwotzen zona 'prohibited area'; Zekrett Politzs 'Secret Police'. They are not declined. (Actually, there isn't sufficient evidence to tell whether adjectives ever change in form. The rules in Dutch are complex.) Note the derivation Klow > Klowaswa. This is merely one of many adjectivizations, however; compare Zyldav 'Syldavian'. Adjectives can be used to modify verbs (or, if you like, adverbs have the same form as the corresponding adjective): Nadja Wladimir zekrett löwt . Nadja secretly loves Wladimir.

Dzapeih wzryzkar eszt on vaghabontz. The guy is surely a tramp. Verbs: Conjugation Attested forms:

bennek - am (with cliticized pronoun)

blavek - 1s present indicative (with cliticized pronoun)

ghounh - 3p present indicative

forwotzen - past participle

kzömmetz - (Czesztot bätczer yhzer kzömmetz noh dascz gendarmaskaïa?) infinitive ("better for him to come...") or 3s subjunctive ("better that he come...")

kzommetz - imperative (to 1 person)

touhn - infinitive

wertzragh - generalized command, possibly in infinitive

kzömmet - imperative, T or V form (to 1 person). V form = stem + -t in Dutch!

hält - imperative, T or V form (to 1 person)

zrälùkz - imperative, T or V form (to 1 person)

blaveh - imperative, T or V form (to 1 person)

zrädjzmo - imperative, T or V form (to 1 person)

ez - art (2p pres. indic. of 'be')

eszt - is (3s pres. indic. of 'be')

czäídâ - said (3s past indic.)

pakkeho - seize (infinitive)

klöppz - knocks (3s pres. indic.)

fällta - fell (3s past indic.). Verbs are either weak or strong. The strong conjugation can be taken as follows: Infinitive blavn 'stay'

Present indicative 1s blav , 3s blavet , 1p/3p blaven

Past indicative s blev , pl bleven

Subjunctive s blavetz , pl blavendz

Imperative 2s blaveh , 2p blavet

Participles pres blavendz , past bleven And the weak: Infinitive löwn 'love'

Present indicative 1s löw , 3s löwt , 1p/3p löwen

Past indicative s löwda , pl löwenda

Subjunctive s löwetz , pl löwendz

Imperative 2s löweh , 2p löwet

Participles pres löwendz , past löwen The differences are in the past tense (formed by alternation of the root for strong verbs, by the addition of -da (-ta after an unvoiced consonant) for weak ones) and in the past participle (which for strong verbs shares the same vowel alternation as the past tense). There isn't any evidence on which to base 2nd person forms— indeed, we don't even know whether medieval dûs 'thou' survives. I suggest using the 1s/1p forms. Prepositions Known prepositions: ihn in

micz with

noh to

o at, about

öpp up, off

vüh for Interestingly, prepositions become postpositions with 3s pronouns, using the special form er; thus: erom 'at or against him/her', ervüh 'for him or her', etc. Prepositions generally take the dative, except where movement is implied, when the accusative is used. Thus there is a difference in meaning between

ihn dzekhoujchz (dat.) (something takes place) in the car

ihn dzem khoujchz (acc.) (something moves) into the car As a corollary, some prepositions are used with only one case: e.g. noh, which always expresses movement, always takes the accusative; while o, which never does, is always followed by the dative. I base this description on German, since Dutch (including Marols!) lacks the declined definite article. It's consistent with the prepositional phrases found in the Corpus (see Articles). Syntax The verb normally follows the object: Ihn dzekhoujchz blaveh! In the car stay!

Ek mejn mädjek löw. I love my girlfriend.

On sprädj werlagh . I want some wine. Where there's an auxiliary and a main verb, the verb remains at the end, and the auxiliary moves just after the subject: Zsoe ghounh dzoeteuïh ebb touhn. They're going to open the doors.

Ek werlagh ihn Klow blav n . I want to stay in Klow. In earlier Syldavian the pronoun may follow the verb, and this form may still be used for emphasis: Eih bennek, eih blavek Here I am, here I stay. [medieval spelling]

Wzryzkar kzomme ek! I'm coming, for sure! You can say either Eih n ben ek or Ek ben eih n , but never *Eih n ek ben (unlike English, where you can say 'Here I am'). In general "X is Y" can be inverted to "Y is X". When X is a pronoun, the inversion adds some emphasis: Güdd eszt itd, 'Good it is.' In the kzommet sentences in the corpus, prepositional phrases follow the verb. The comma, however, is a signal that the prepositional phrase has been moved for emphasis, or because it is an afterthought: Kzommet micz omhz, noh dascz gendarmaskaïa! Come with us to the police station! Forms of 'be' directly follow the subject : Könikstz eszt güdd. The king is good.

Sbrodj eszt on forwotzen zona. Sbrodj is a forbidden zone.

Dan dzetronn eszt ervüh. Then the throne is for him. The merged form czesztot 'it is, that is' begins a sentence: Czesztot Tintin. "That's Tintin." Negatives To negate a sentence, the particle nietz is placed after the subject, in auxiliary position. Müsstler nietz dzem könikstz löwt . Müsstler does not love the king. In copulative sentences, nietz is placed after the verb (or czesztot) : Müsstler eszt nietz güdd. Müsstler is not good.

Czesztot wzryzkar nietz on waghabontz! That's surely not a vagabond! Questions Simple questions are normally indicated simply by a rising inflection: Dzekönikstz het döszt? Is the king thirsty?

On klebcz fäll t ? Is a dog falling? If there is an auxiliary, or a verb accompanied only by a subject, it may instead be inverted with the subject: Ben ek eih n ? Blav ek eih n ? Am I here? Do I stay here?

Ghounh Tintin noh Sbrodj kzömmen? Is Tintin going to come to Sbrodj? The one known interrogative pronoun is vazs 'what': Vazs eszt tot ? What is that?