From Letters to the Journal of Transcircumstantial Linguistics
A.B. Dunwitte, W.B. van Beek, R. Akutagawa
There have been many attempts to find (one would hesitate to say “forge”) links between the so-called “Maastrichtic” languages and those of our home timeline. The curious reader may find arguments for relationships between one or more of the languages of this famous lost time colony and the Algic, Sino-tibetan, and Turkic languages to name only the most popular. However, unambiguous evidence has yet to present itself for any genetic relationship other than the first one proposed, namely the link between all Maastrichtic languages and the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family, specifically English.
A case study of the value of this interpretation is presented in the reconstructed origins of the mythological city called “Megga.” Stories of this edenic settlement are wide-spread in Maastrichtian cultures, including the Eethlek (Meggha), Fesh (Ma’ash), and Kacharan (Me’eye). In addition, the archaic toponym for the forests north of the Hell Creek Floodplain (The Thalassian province of Pinea), Nuwa, is well attested from Nwa and Thalassian sources, as is Spek Nmo for the floodplain, itself (The Ethlek lands, often called Alluvia, more properly “the Face of God where the Mud Dries”). The cognate nature of these two sets of terms is widely accepted, reconstructed as proto-Eethlek *Mega and proto-Nwa *Nuam.
The genetic relationship between these two groups of words did not come to light until recently, when a tax document pertaining to a 1st dynasty (~1000 years PC) Senerian merchant vessel was found to preserve the intriguing ethnonym “Nu Amaga people” to describe “barbarians dwelling along the end of the Seaway.” Thus it seems likely that Me’eye, Meggha, Megga, Nwa, and possibly nwirga (“pirate” in Thalassian) are all derivatives of a phrase reconstructable as *nu ameega.
The temptation to name the first Maastrichtian human settlement “New America” is great indeed.
But what sort of language did the ancient “Meggans” speak? We can make surprisingly specific educated guesses.
The most conservative Maastrichtic languages are attested in the jjii, or etching plates, of the Orthodox Memorialist churches of Seneria. There may be seen a language that, like “Meggan” and modern English, preserved analytic morphology and lacked vowel harmony.
Even in this earliest source, however, we can already see the elision of unstressed vowels, (see Old Memorialist pejis, Orthodox Memorialist pjis, and modern Senarian jjii). If we are to reconstruct the English word “pages,” we must also assume a very early “Meggan” shift of preferred emphasis from the first to the second syllable of nouns. This shift in turn must have occurred after the voicing of intervocalic consonants (Orthodox Memorialist dar, Old Memorialist adar from “Meggan” *ader, Eng. “water”). A later tendency to turn intervocalic voiced consonants into flaps or burrs is present only in North American languages such as Ethlek (ni-rrar), and Nwa (arra). Accusative morphology is common among Maastrichtic languages, leading to the assumption that the reconstructed form *adwit iit fuud (I-do-it eat food) (for unagentive direct objects) versus *adwim iit daad (I-do-him eat father) (agentive direct object) was already commonplace by time of the Fall of Megga, some 2,500 years Pre-Contact.
The implications of this monogenic theory of Maastrichtic evolution extend far beyond the reconstruction of the “Meggan” language. If all Maastrichtic languages can be assumed to have derived from 21st century American English, then the world of “Maastrichtia” itself becomes an in incalculably valuable natural laboratory of linguistic evolution.