97 lines
4.9 KiB
Org Mode
97 lines
4.9 KiB
Org Mode
|
#+setupfile: ../headers
|
|||
|
|
* Typological Outline of Proto-Ñyqy
|
|||
|
|
# - Is the language dominantly isolating or polysynthetic?
|
|||
|
|
# - If the language is at all polysynthetic, is it dominantly
|
|||
|
|
# agglutinative or fusional? Give examples of its dominant pattern
|
|||
|
|
# and any secondary patterns.
|
|||
|
|
# - If the language is at all agglutinative, is it dominantly
|
|||
|
|
# prefixing, suffixing or neither?
|
|||
|
|
# - Illustrate the major and secondary patterns (including infixation,
|
|||
|
|
# stem modification, reduplication, suprasegmental modification, and
|
|||
|
|
# suppletion).
|
|||
|
|
# - If the language is at all polysynthetic, is it dominantly
|
|||
|
|
# "head-marking", "dependent-marking", or mixed?
|
|||
|
|
# - Give some examples of each type of marking the language exhibits.
|
|||
|
|
Proto-Ñyqy is a language that appears to be strongly analytical and
|
|||
|
|
isolating. It relies mainly on its syntax when it comes to its grammar
|
|||
|
|
and seldom on morphological rules if at all. It wouldn’t really make
|
|||
|
|
much sense to say whether the language is postpositional or
|
|||
|
|
prepositional since the only rule defined in Hawkin’s Universals
|
|||
|
|
Proto-Ñyqy respects is relative clauses and possessives before the
|
|||
|
|
noun, though it tends to make Proto-Ñyqy slightly more postpositional
|
|||
|
|
than neutral. Most of its words contain either one or two syllables
|
|||
|
|
and its sentenses often revolve around linked morphemes which could be
|
|||
|
|
interpreted as grammatical particules. You can find some examples of
|
|||
|
|
Proto-Ñyqy and its translation below as well as its glossing.
|
|||
|
|
1. {{{recon(yq ñe pom qy)}}}
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
dem.prox3 home gen 1sg.abs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This house is mine
|
|||
|
|
2. {{{recon(cø ne)}}}
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1sg.poss.incl house.abs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is my house
|
|||
|
|
3. {{{recon(pim bú qi coq op)}}}
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
mango 2sg.erg du eat pst
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We (two) ate a mango
|
|||
|
|
4. {{{recon(cø pim i bœ mygú coq ug mún op zø qy zúmu op)}}}
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
POSS.1sg mango undef.art(ABS) def.art monkey(ERG) eat SUBJ PROG PST
|
|||
|
|
3sg(ABS) 1sg(ERG) see PST
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I saw the monkey that would have been eating a mango of mine
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In the first and second examples, we can notice the absence of a verb
|
|||
|
|
“to be” or any equivalent, this shows existential predicates did not
|
|||
|
|
need a verb in order to express the existance of something and its
|
|||
|
|
attributes. This also reveals the word order of the genitive form in
|
|||
|
|
Proto-Ñyqy, the genitive particle follows the element it propertizes
|
|||
|
|
and is followed by its property. For instance, in {{{recon(yq ñe pom qy)}}},
|
|||
|
|
{{{recon(yq ñe)}}} “this house” has the property of being mine {{{recon(qy)}}} is
|
|||
|
|
the first person singular). /I/ characterize /this house/, therefore /this
|
|||
|
|
house is of me/, /this is my house/. The main difference between the
|
|||
|
|
first and the second examples is the first example is the accent in
|
|||
|
|
the first example is on the fact that said house is /mine/, whereas in
|
|||
|
|
the second example “my house” is simply presented to the interlocutor.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As you can see in the third example, Proto-Ñyqy used to have a dual
|
|||
|
|
number which has been lost in most of its decendent languages, and the
|
|||
|
|
remaining languages employ the former dual as their current plural
|
|||
|
|
dissmissing instead the old plural. Only does the Énanon keep it with
|
|||
|
|
its plural, using the former dual as a paucal. As indicated by its
|
|||
|
|
name, the dual was used when referencing to two elements when an
|
|||
|
|
otherwise greater amount of elements would have required the plural.
|
|||
|
|
Hence, in this example, you could consider {{{recon(bú qi)}}} to be kind of
|
|||
|
|
a 2DU pronoun.
|
|||
|
|
# --- it is actually a bit more complex than that, as we’ll see in
|
|||
|
|
# chapter
|
|||
|
|
# [[#Structural-Preview-Structure-of-a-Nominal-Group-Numbers-n0a6umu058j0]].
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Finally, the fourth example gives us an overview of Proto-Ñyqy syntax,
|
|||
|
|
such as a different position depending on whether we use an indefinite
|
|||
|
|
or definite article, as well as a subclause inserted in the main
|
|||
|
|
clause defining a noun phrase, here {{{recon(zø)}}} refering to {{{recon(mygú)}}}.
|
|||
|
|
We can also clearly see the word order of main clauses presented as
|
|||
|
|
Patient-Agent-Verb. Although most of its are nominative languages,
|
|||
|
|
Aarlerte (3652) postulates in her recent papers Proto-Ñyqy might have
|
|||
|
|
been primarily ergative. The loss of this trait in its closest
|
|||
|
|
descendent languages such as Proto-Mojhal-Andelian and Proto-Tiltinian
|
|||
|
|
might indicate this feature was already unstable in Proto-Ñyqy.
|
|||
|
|
Ergativity might have been in use only in main clauses, and Aarlerte
|
|||
|
|
argues this might have been the last trace of ergativity in an
|
|||
|
|
otherwise nominative language.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Note that although linguists suppose Proto-Ñyqy was a mostly
|
|||
|
|
analytical language, some people like to write related morphemes
|
|||
|
|
together as one word, hyphenated or not. Thus, the third example could
|
|||
|
|
also be written as {{{recon(pim búqi coqop)}}} or {{{recon(pim bú-qi coq-op)}}} by
|
|||
|
|
some. It is due to the fact Proto-Ñyqy was for a long time thought to
|
|||
|
|
be an agglutinative language like Proto-Mojhal-Andelian and the habit
|
|||
|
|
of writing related morphemes as one word stuck around. However,
|
|||
|
|
nowadays we know an analytical Proto-Ñyqy is instead most likely and
|
|||
|
|
scolars began writing morphenes separated from each other instead.
|