2023-02-26 18:20:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
#+setupfile: ../headers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
** Language Evolution
|
|
|
|
|
We are not sure which was the first language ever spoken in our world.
|
|
|
|
|
Was there even one primordial language, or were there several that
|
|
|
|
|
spontaneously appeared around our world here and there? We cannot know
|
|
|
|
|
for certain, this is too far back in our history. Some scientists
|
|
|
|
|
estimate the firsts of our kind to be gifted the ability to speak
|
|
|
|
|
lived some hundred of thousand of years back, maybe twice this period
|
|
|
|
|
even. There is absolutely no way to know what happened at that time
|
|
|
|
|
with non-physical activities, and we can only guess. We can better
|
|
|
|
|
guess how they lived, and how they died, than how they interacted with
|
|
|
|
|
each other, what was their social interaction like, and what were the
|
|
|
|
|
first words ever spoken on our planet. Maybe they began as grunts of
|
|
|
|
|
different pitches, with hand gestures, then two vowels became
|
|
|
|
|
distinct, a couple of consonants, and the first languages sprung from
|
|
|
|
|
that. This, we do not know, and this is not the subject of this book
|
|
|
|
|
anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What we do know is, languages evolve as time passes. One language can
|
|
|
|
|
morph in the way it is pronounced, in the way some words are used, in
|
|
|
|
|
the way they are shaped by their position and role in the sentence, by
|
|
|
|
|
how they are organized with each other. A language spoken two
|
|
|
|
|
centuries back will sound like its decendent today, but with a
|
|
|
|
|
noticeable difference. Jumping a couple of centuries back, and we lost
|
|
|
|
|
some intelligibility, and some sentences sound alien to us. A
|
|
|
|
|
millenium back, and while the language resonates, we cannot understand
|
|
|
|
|
it anymore. Going the other way around, travelling to the future,
|
|
|
|
|
would have the same effect, except that we would not necessarily
|
|
|
|
|
follow only one language, but several, for in different places,
|
|
|
|
|
different changes would take place. As time goes by, these differences
|
|
|
|
|
become more and more proeminent, and what was once the same langage
|
|
|
|
|
becomes several dialects that become less and less similar to one
|
|
|
|
|
another, until we end up with several languages, sister between
|
|
|
|
|
themselves, daughters to the initial language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Relating Languages Between Themselves
|
|
|
|
|
We are not sure who first emited the theory of language evolution;
|
|
|
|
|
this has been lost to time during the great collapse two thousand
|
|
|
|
|
years back, and only a fraction of the knowledge from back then
|
|
|
|
|
survived the flow of time. We’re lucky even to know about this. It’s
|
|
|
|
|
the Professor Loqbrekh who, in 3489, first deciphered some books that
|
|
|
|
|
were found two decades prior, written in Énanonn. They described the
|
|
|
|
|
principle of language evolution, and how language families could be
|
|
|
|
|
reconstructed, how we could know languages are related, and a hint on
|
|
|
|
|
how mother languages we do not know could be reconstructed. The
|
|
|
|
|
principle on how historical linguistics are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+begin_quote
|
|
|
|
|
If two languages share a great number of coincidentally similar
|
|
|
|
|
features, especially in their grammar, so much so that it cannot be
|
|
|
|
|
explained by chance only, then these two languages are surely related.
|
|
|
|
|
#+end_quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By this process, we can recreate family trees of languages. Some are
|
|
|
|
|
more closely related to one another than some other, which are more
|
|
|
|
|
distant. Sometimes, it is even unsure if a language is related to a
|
|
|
|
|
language tree; maybe the language simply borrowed a good amount of
|
|
|
|
|
vocabulary from another language that we either now of, or died since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best attested languages are the ones we have written record of. In
|
|
|
|
|
a sense, we are lucky: while we do know a vast majority of the written
|
|
|
|
|
documents prior to the great collapse were lost during this sad event,
|
|
|
|
|
we still have a good amount of them left in various languages we can
|
|
|
|
|
analyze, and we still find some that were lost before then and found
|
|
|
|
|
back again. The earliest written record we ever found was from the
|
|
|
|
|
Loho language, the oldest member of the Mojhal language tree attested;
|
|
|
|
|
the Mojhal tree has been itself linked to the Ñyqy tree some fifty
|
|
|
|
|
years ago by the Pr Khorlan (3598).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+name: tree-language-family
|
2023-02-26 21:56:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
#+begin_src dot :file proto-nyqy/nyqy-family-tree.png :results none :eval no-export
|
2023-02-26 18:20:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
digraph d {
|
|
|
|
|
graph[dpi=300,bgcolor="transparent"];
|
|
|
|
|
node[shape=plaintext];
|
|
|
|
|
ranksep=.75; size="7.5,7.5";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
"-10000" -> "-8000" -> "-6000" -> "-5000" -> "-4500" ->
|
|
|
|
|
"-4000" -> "-3500" -> "-2000" ->
|
|
|
|
|
"-1000" -> "-500" -> present;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-8000";
|
|
|
|
|
protonyqy[label="Proto-Ñyqy\n6,000 to 10,000 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-5000";
|
|
|
|
|
protoma[label="Proto-Mojhal-Andelian\n4,000 to 6,000 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-4500";
|
|
|
|
|
prototiltinian[label="Proto-Tiltinian\nca. 4,500 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
protoandelian[label="Proto-Andelian\nca. 4,000 to 5,000 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-4000";
|
|
|
|
|
protomojhal[label="Proto-Mojhal\nca. 4,000 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-3500";
|
|
|
|
|
loho[label="Loho\nca. 3,500 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-2000";
|
|
|
|
|
oldpritian[label="Old Pritian\nca. 2,000 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
"ne’ic"[label="Ñe’ic\nca. 2,500 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-1000";
|
|
|
|
|
oryora[label="Old Ryora\nca. 1,300 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
oenanonn[label="Old Énanonn\nca. 900 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
omanniki[label="Old Manniki\nca. 1,200 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
midpritian[label="Middle Pritian\n 1,100 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
"-500";
|
|
|
|
|
oauc[label="Old Auc\n600 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
mmanniki[label="Middle Manniki\nca. 400 years ago"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
rank=same;
|
|
|
|
|
present;
|
|
|
|
|
enanonn[label="Énanonn"];
|
|
|
|
|
ryora[label="Ryora"];
|
|
|
|
|
auc[label="Auc"];
|
|
|
|
|
manniki[label="Manniki"];
|
|
|
|
|
pritian[label="Pritian"];
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
protonyqy -> protoma;
|
|
|
|
|
protonyqy -> oldpritian;
|
|
|
|
|
protonyqy -> prototiltinian;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
protoma -> protomojhal;
|
|
|
|
|
protoma -> protoandelian;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
protomojhal -> loho;
|
|
|
|
|
protomojhal -> "ne’ic";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"ne’ic" -> oenanonn -> enanonn;
|
|
|
|
|
"ne’ic" -> omanniki -> mmanniki -> manniki;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
protoandelian -> oryora -> ryora;
|
|
|
|
|
protoandelian -> oauc -> auc;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oldpritian -> midpritian -> pritian;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
#+end_src
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+html: <ImgFigure src="/img/proto-nyqy/nyqy-family-tree.png" alt="Ñyqy Family Tree">Ñyqy Family Tree</ImgFigure>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Principles of Historical Linguistics
|
|
|
|
|
So, how does historical linguistics work? How does one know what the
|
|
|
|
|
mother language of a bunch of other languages is? In historical
|
|
|
|
|
linguistics, we study the similarities between languages and their
|
|
|
|
|
features. If a feature is obviously common, there is a good chance it
|
|
|
|
|
is inherited from a common ancestor. The same goes for words, we
|
|
|
|
|
generally take the average of several words, we estimate what their
|
|
|
|
|
ancestor word was like, and we estimate what sound change made these
|
|
|
|
|
words evolve the way they did. If this sound change consistently works
|
|
|
|
|
almost always, we know we hit right: sound changes are very regular,
|
|
|
|
|
and exceptions are very rare. And this is how we can reconstruct a
|
|
|
|
|
mother language that was lost to time thanks to its existing daughter
|
|
|
|
|
languages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But as we go back in time, it becomes harder and harder to get
|
|
|
|
|
reliable data. Through evolution, some information is lost --- maybe
|
|
|
|
|
there once was an inflectional system that was lost in all daughter
|
|
|
|
|
languages, and reconstructing that is nigh impossible. And since no
|
|
|
|
|
reconstruction can be attested, we need a way to distinguish these
|
|
|
|
|
from attested forms of words. This is why attested words are simply
|
|
|
|
|
written like “this”, while reconstructed words are written with a
|
|
|
|
|
preceding star like “{{{recon(this)}}}”. Sometimes, to distinguish both from
|
|
|
|
|
the text, you will see the word of interest be written either in *bold*
|
|
|
|
|
or /italics/. This bears no difference in meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** On Proto-Languages
|
|
|
|
|
As we go back in time, there is a point at which we have to stop: we
|
|
|
|
|
no longer find any related language to our current family, or we can’t
|
|
|
|
|
find enough evidence that one of them is part of the family and if
|
|
|
|
|
they are related, they are very distantly related. This language we
|
|
|
|
|
cannot go beyond is called a proto-language, and it is the mother
|
|
|
|
|
language of the current language family tree. In our case, the
|
|
|
|
|
Proto-Ñyqy language, spoken by the Ñyqy people, is the mother language
|
|
|
|
|
of the Ñyqy language family tree and the ancestor of the more widely
|
|
|
|
|
known Mojhal languages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is something I want to insist on very clearly: a proto-language
|
|
|
|
|
is not a “prototype” language as we might think at first --- it is not
|
|
|
|
|
an imperfect, inferior language that still needs some iterations
|
|
|
|
|
before becoming a full-fledged language. It has been proven multiple
|
|
|
|
|
times multiple times around the world, despite the best efforts of the
|
|
|
|
|
researchers of a certain empire, that all languages are equally
|
|
|
|
|
complex regardless of ethnicity, education, time, and place. Languages
|
|
|
|
|
that are often described as “primitive” are either called so as a way
|
|
|
|
|
to indicate they are ancient, and therefore close to a proto-language,
|
|
|
|
|
or they are described so by people trying to belittle people based on
|
|
|
|
|
incorrect belief that some ethnicities are somehow greater or better
|
|
|
|
|
than others. This as well has been proven multiple times that this is
|
|
|
|
|
not true. A proto-language bore as much complexity as any of the
|
|
|
|
|
languages currently spoken around the world, and a primitive language
|
|
|
|
|
in linguistic terms is a language close in time to these
|
|
|
|
|
proto-languages, such as the Proto-Mojhal language (which is also in
|
|
|
|
|
turn the proto-language of the Mojhal tree). The only reason these
|
|
|
|
|
languages might seem simpler is because we do not know them and cannot
|
|
|
|
|
know them in their entierty, so of course some features are missing
|
|
|
|
|
from it, but they were surely there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that “Proto-Ñyqy” is the usual and most widely accepted spelling
|
|
|
|
|
of the name of the language and culture, but other spellings are
|
|
|
|
|
accepted such as “Proto Ñy Qy”, “Proto Ñy Ħy”, “Proto Ḿy Qy”, or
|
|
|
|
|
“Proto Ḿy Ħy”, each with their equivalent with one word only after the
|
|
|
|
|
“Proto” part. As we’ll see later in [[file:phonology.md#consonants][Phonology: Consonants]], the actual
|
|
|
|
|
pronunciation of consonants is extremely uncertain, and each one of
|
|
|
|
|
these orthographies are based on one of the possible pronunciations of
|
|
|
|
|
the term {{{recon(ñyqy)}}}. In this book, we’ll use the so called
|
|
|
|
|
“coronal-only” orthography, unless mentionned otherwise. Some people
|
|
|
|
|
also have the very bad habit of dubbing this language and culture as
|
|
|
|
|
simply “Ñyqy” (or one of its variants), but this is very wrong, as the
|
|
|
|
|
term “Ñyqy” designates the whole familiy of languages and cultures
|
|
|
|
|
that come from the Proto-Ñyqy people. The Tiltinian languages are as
|
|
|
|
|
much Tiltinian as they are Ñyqy languages, but that does not mean they
|
|
|
|
|
are the same as the Proto-Ñyqy language, even if they are relatively
|
|
|
|
|
close in terms of time. When speaking about something that is “Ñyqy”,
|
|
|
|
|
we are generally speaking about daughter languages and cultures and
|
|
|
|
|
not about the Proto-Ñyqy language and culture itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note also we usually write this language with groups of morphemes,
|
|
|
|
|
such as a noun group, as one word like we do with {{{recon(ñyqy)}}}.
|
|
|
|
|
However, when needed we might separate the morphemes by a dash, such
|
|
|
|
|
as in {{{recon(ñy-qy)}}}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Reconstructing the Culture Associated to the Language
|
|
|
|
|
While the comparative method described in [[file:introduction.md#principles-of-historical-linguistics][Principles of Historical
|
|
|
|
|
Linguistics]] work on languages, we also have good reasons to believe
|
|
|
|
|
they also work of culture: if elements of different cultures that
|
|
|
|
|
share a language from the same family also share similar cultural
|
|
|
|
|
elements, we have good reasons to believe these elements were
|
|
|
|
|
inherited from an earlier stage of a common culture. This is an entire
|
|
|
|
|
field of research in its own right, of course, but linguistics also
|
|
|
|
|
come in handy when trying to figure out the culture of the Ñyqy
|
|
|
|
|
people: the presence of certain words can indicate the presence of
|
|
|
|
|
what they meant, while the impossibility of recreating a word at this
|
|
|
|
|
stage of the language might indicate it only appeared in later stages
|
|
|
|
|
of its evolution, and it only influenced parts of the decendents of
|
|
|
|
|
the culture and language. For instance, the lack of word for “honey”
|
|
|
|
|
in Proto-Ñyqy but the ability to reconstruct a separate word for both
|
|
|
|
|
the northern and southern branches strongly suggests both branches
|
|
|
|
|
discovered honey only after the Proto-Ñyqy language split up into
|
|
|
|
|
different languages, and its people in different groups, while the
|
|
|
|
|
easy reconstruction of {{{recon(mygú)}}} signifying /monkey/ strongly suggests
|
|
|
|
|
both branches knew about this animal well before these two groups
|
|
|
|
|
split up. More on their culture in [[file:culture-and-people.md][Culture and People]].
|