phundrak/conlang.phundrak.com
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Activity

initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Lucien Cartier-Tilet
2023-02-26 19:20:43 +01:00
commit 2ac1781763
105 changed files with 5471 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

64
docs/proto-nyqy/culture-and-people.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Culture of the Proto-Ñyqy People
While the Proto-Ñyqy is the most well attested cultural and linguistic
family, the temporal distance between the Proto-Ñyqy people and us
makes it extremely hard to reconstruct anything. The various branches
of the Ñyqy family evolved over the past eight to twelve past
millenia, and some changed pretty drastically compared to their
ancestors. Therefore, do not expect an in-depth description of what
their society was like, but rather what could be considered an
overview compared to some other culture descriptions.
** The Name of the Language
First, it is important to know where the name of this language came
from. Since it has such a wide spread in this world, giving it a name
based on where its daughter branches went would give it a very long
name, or with a shorter one we would have very boring or limited names
--- the “Proto-Northern-Southern” language doesn’t sound very good,
and the “Proto-Mojhal-Andelian” language leaves other major branches
out, such as the Pritian branch which we cannot ommit, just as the
Mojhal and Andelian branches. So, researchers went with the
reconstructed word for the inclusive /we/: {{{recon(ñyqy)}}}. It itself is a
coumpound word made up of {{{recon(ñy)}}}, which is the first person
pronoun, and {{{recon(qy)}}} which is sometimes used as a grammatical
morpheme indicating a plural --- it also means six, as we will later
on, the number system of the Proto-Ñyqy people was a bit complex.
** Geographical Location
It is often very hard to find the location of very old reconstructed
languages, such as the Proto-Mojhal language itself which location is
still not clearly known despite its name. But when it comes to the
Proto-Ñyqy people, we have a surprisingly good idea of where they
were: in the hot rainforests of the northern main continent, most
probably near nowadays’ Rhesodia. We know this thanks to some of their
reconstructed words which are typical for the other people that lived
or still live in hot rainforests, and these terms are older than the
split between the northern and southern groups. For instance, both
groups have a common ancestor word for /bongo/, {{{recon(zebec)}}}, as well as
for the /bonobo/, {{{recon(pœwec)}}}, which are only found in these
rainforests.
** Society
The Proto-Ñyqy was a matriachal society, led most likely by older
women who had an important spiritual role. This cultural trait is
found in numerous daughter branches of the Ñyqy family, and it would
be unreasonable to think a large amount of them would change in the
same way despite many branches being most likely disconnected from one
another, and the patriarchal branches almost all retained women as
their spiritual figurehead, even if political power passed in the
hands of men.
** Religion and Beliefs
This question might be the hardest of all to answer, as we can only
speculate based on the religions the daughter cultures of the Ñyqy
family had, as well as the few hints we can get through the Proto-Ñyqy
vocabulary. Through this keyhole, dusted by millenia of cultural and
linguistic changes, we can offer an initial answer. It seems the
Proto-Ñyqy reveered several gods, with however one god or goddes above
them called {{{recon(Qiisci)}}}, that might have been to them some form of
queen or some sort of god for the gods themselves. We can find for
instance this figure in the Mojhal patheon under the name of Kísce.
Other than the parental figure of this divinity, their role is vastly
unknown.
** Personal Names :noexport:

71
docs/proto-nyqy/dictionary.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Dictionary
** B
*** {{{recon(beñ)}}}
1. (n) tooth/teeth
*** {{{recon(bin)}}}
1. (n) something bad, badness
2. (n) mischief, ill-will, maliciousness
3. (n) dirtiness
** C
*** {{{recon(cø)}}}
1. (pron) my, first person singular possessive pronoun
** E
** G
** I
** J
** M
** N
*** {{{recon(noc)}}}
1. (n) old age
2. (n) elderly person
*** {{{recon(núc)}}}
1. (n) youth
2. (n) youngster, teenager
** Ñ
*** {{{recon(ñocm)}}}
1. (n) human being
2. (n) someone
*** {{{recon(ñe)}}}
1. (n) house
** O
** Ø
** Œ
** P
*** {{{recon(pœwec)}}}
1. (n) bonobo
*** {{{recon(pom)}}}
1. genitive particle
** Q
*** {{{recon(qy)}}}
1. (pron) first person singular
** S
** U
** Ú
** W
** Y
*** {{{recon(yq)}}}
1. demonstrative of proximity, designating something visible by but
far from both speakers.
** Z
*** {{{recon(zebec)}}}
1. (n) bongo (antelope)

42
docs/proto-nyqy/functional-system.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Functional System
** Grammatical Relationship :noexport:
# Examplify some simple intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive
# clauses. Three-argument clauses may not unequivocally exist.
# - What are the grammatical erlations of this language? Give
# morphosyntactic evidence for each one that you propose.
# - Subject?
# - Ergative?
# - Absolutive?
# - Direct object?
# - Indirect object?
# There are basically four possible sources of evidence for
# grammatical relations:
# - morphological case on NPs
# - person marking on verbs
# - constituent order
# - some pragmatic hierarchy
# - Is the system of grammatical relations in basic (affirmative,
# declarative) clauses organized according to a
# nominative/accusative, ergative/absolutive, tripartite, or some
# other system?
# - Is there a split system for organizing grammatical relations? If
# so, what determines the split?
# - Is there split instransitivity? If so, what semantic or
# discourse/pragmatic factor conditions the split?
# - Does the system for pronouns and/or person marking on verbs
# operate on the same basis as that of full NPs?
# - Are there different grammatical-relation systems depending on
# the clause type (e.g. main vs. dependent clauses, affirmative
# vs. negative clauses)?
# - Are there different grammatical-relation assignment systems
# depending on the tense and/or aspect of the clause?
# - Are there any syntactic processes (e.g. conjunction reduction,
# relativization) that operate on an ergative/absolutive basis?
** Constructions Linked to Voice and Valence :noexport:
** Valence Increase :noexport:
*** Causative
*** Applicative
*** Dative Shift
*** Dative Interest
*** External Possession

1
docs/proto-nyqy/img Symbolic link
View File

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
../.vuepress/public/img

15
docs/proto-nyqy/index.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Proto-Ñyqy
The documentation is about a conlang I created. However, it will be
written as an in-universe document would be. Therefore, any reference
to other works, documents or people will be completely fictional. If
there is somewhere written along the lines of “there needs to be more
research done on the subject”, this simply means I haven’t written
anything on this subject, and I may or may not plan to. As you might
notice, the style of writing in this document will be inspired mainly
by the book /Indo-European Language and Culture/ by Benjamin W. Forston.
Go read this book if you haven’t already, it’s extremely interesting
(except for the part with the Old Irish and Vedic people and what
their kings and queens did with horses, I wish to unread that).

273
docs/proto-nyqy/introduction.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
#+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
#+begin_src dot :file proto-nyqy/nyqy-family-tree.png :exports none
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]].

290
docs/proto-nyqy/phonology.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Phonetics and Phonology of Proto-Ñyqy
** Phonetic Inventory and Translitteration
*** Vowels
As we stand today, eight vowels were reconstructed for Proto-Ñyqy, as
presented in the table below.
#+NAME: table:vowels:trans
#+CAPTION: Proto-Ñyqy Vowels
#+ATTR_LATEX: :placement [htb]
| | antérieures | postérieures |
|-------------+-------------+--------------|
| fermées | y | ú |
| pré-fermées | i | u |
| mi-fermées | ø | œ |
| mi-ouvertes | e | o |
Below is a short guide to their pronunciation:
- e :: {{{phon(*ɛ)}}} as in General American English /“bed”/ [bɛd]
- i :: {{{phon(*ɪ)}}} as in General American English /“bit”/ [bɪt]
- o :: {{{phon(*ɔ)}}} as in General American English /“thought”/ [θɔːt]
- ø :: {{{phon(*ø)}}} as in French /“peu”/ [pø]
- œ :: {{{phon(*ɤ)}}} as in Scottish Gaelic /“doirbh”/ [d̪̊ɤrʲɤv]
- u :: {{{phon(*ʊ)}}} as in General American English /“hook”/ [hʊ̞k]
- ú :: {{{phon(*u)}}} as in General American English /“boot”/ [bu̟ːt]
- y :: {{{phon(*y)}}} as in French /“dune”/ [d̪yn]
We also have a ninth vowel, noted «ə» which denotes an unknown vowel.
It is most likely this was before the Proto-Ñyqy breakup a simple
schwa standing where a vowel got reduced either at an earlier stage
than Proto-Ñyqy or during the breakup of the language. Depending on
the languages that evolved from Proto-Ñyqy, some got rid of it later
while some other reinstated it as a full vowel with different rules
each on which vowel it would become. Thus in the current stage of
reasearch on Proto-Ñyqy, we cannot know for certain which vowel it
should have been.
It is however possible to create a featural tree for the known vowels,
determining which would have been considered closer to others, as
seens with the vowel tree below.
#+NAME: vow-tree
#+header: :var vowels=vowels-featural-list
#+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp :wrap "src dot :file proto-nyqy/vowel-feature-tree.png :exports none"
(conlanging-list-to-graphviz vowels)
#+END_SRC
#+RESULTS[eaefac0c72a08ab3e9f428c0d312996e99dc0502]: vow-tree
#+begin_src dot :file proto-nyqy/vowel-feature-tree.png :exports none
graph{graph[dpi=300,bgcolor="transparent"];node[shape=plaintext];"vowels-0jqz10ex3ux6"[label="vowels"];"+back-0jqz10ex3uxr"[label="+back"];"vowels-0jqz10ex3ux6"--"+back-0jqz10ex3uxr";"+tense-0jqz10ex3uy2"[label="+tense"];"+back-0jqz10ex3uxr"--"+tense-0jqz10ex3uy2";"+high-0jqz10ex3uyb"[label="+high"];"+tense-0jqz10ex3uy2"--"+high-0jqz10ex3uyb";"/u/-0jqz10ex3uyk"[label="/u/"];"+high-0jqz10ex3uyb"--"/u/-0jqz10ex3uyk";"-high-0jqz10ex3uz6"[label="-high"];"+tense-0jqz10ex3uy2"--"-high-0jqz10ex3uz6";"/ɤ/-0jqz10ex3uzg"[label="/ɤ/"];"-high-0jqz10ex3uz6"--"/ɤ/-0jqz10ex3uzg";"-tense-0jqz10ex3v0u"[label="-tense"];"+back-0jqz10ex3uxr"--"-tense-0jqz10ex3v0u";"+high-0jqz10ex3v14"[label="+high"];"-tense-0jqz10ex3v0u"--"+high-0jqz10ex3v14";"/ʊ/-0jqz10ex3v1d"[label="/ʊ/"];"+high-0jqz10ex3v14"--"/ʊ/-0jqz10ex3v1d";"-high-0jqz10ex3v20"[label="-high"];"-tense-0jqz10ex3v0u"--"-high-0jqz10ex3v20";"/ɔ/-0jqz10ex3v29"[label="/ɔ/"];"-high-0jqz10ex3v20"--"/ɔ/-0jqz10ex3v29";"-back-0jqz10ex3v4z"[label="-back"];"vowels-0jqz10ex3ux6"--"-back-0jqz10ex3v4z";"+tense-0jqz10ex3v59"[label="+tense"];"-back-0jqz10ex3v4z"--"+tense-0jqz10ex3v59";"+high-0jqz10ex3v5i"[label="+high"];"+tense-0jqz10ex3v59"--"+high-0jqz10ex3v5i";"/y/-0jqz10ex3v5r"[label="/y/"];"+high-0jqz10ex3v5i"--"/y/-0jqz10ex3v5r";"-high-0jqz10ex3v6c"[label="-high"];"+tense-0jqz10ex3v59"--"-high-0jqz10ex3v6c";"/ø/-0jqz10ex3v6m"[label="/ø/"];"-high-0jqz10ex3v6c"--"/ø/-0jqz10ex3v6m";"-tense-0jqz10ex3v7w"[label="-tense"];"-back-0jqz10ex3v4z"--"-tense-0jqz10ex3v7w";"+high-0jqz10ex3v86"[label="+high"];"-tense-0jqz10ex3v7w"--"+high-0jqz10ex3v86";"/ɪ/-0jqz10ex3v8f"[label="/ɪ/"];"+high-0jqz10ex3v86"--"/ɪ/-0jqz10ex3v8f";"-high-0jqz10ex3v91"[label="-high"];"-tense-0jqz10ex3v7w"--"-high-0jqz10ex3v91";"/ɛ/-0jqz10ex3v9a"[label="/ɛ/"];"-high-0jqz10ex3v91"--"/ɛ/-0jqz10ex3v9a";}
#+end_src
#+html: <ImgFigure src="/img/proto-nyqy/vowel-feature-tree.png" alt="Proto-Ñyqy Vowel Featural Tree">Proto-Ñyqy Vowels Featural Tree</ImgFigure>
**** Private Data :noexport:
#+name: vowels-featural-list
- vowels
- +back
- +tense
- +high
- /u/
- -high
- /ɤ/
- -tense
- +high
- /ʊ/
- -high
- /ɔ/
- -back
- +tense
- +high
- /y/
- -high
- /ø/
- -tense
- +high
- /ɪ/
- -high
- /ɛ/
*** Consonants
The topic of consonants, unlike vowels, is a hot debate among
linguists. while we are pretty sure proto-ñyqy has twelve consonants,
we are still unsure which consonants they are due to the extreme
unstability of the dorsal feature, and there is seemingly no
consistency as to how the consonants stabilized in the different
languages that emerged from the proto-ñyqy breakup. it is only in the
recent years Ishy Maeln proposed a new theory that is gaining traction
among proto-ñyqy specialists: each consonant could be pronounced
either as a dorsal or as a non-dorsal depending on its environment and
both potential pronunciation can be correct. she even goes further and
proposes proto-ñyqy had an alternating rule stating a given consonant
had to be non-dorsal if the previous one was, and vice versa. this
would explain the common pattern of dorsal consonants alternation
found in some early languages found after the breakup such as
proto-mojhal. this phenomenon is more thouroughly explained in
[[file:phonology.md#consonants][Consonants]].
You can find the featural tree of the Proto-Ñyqy consonants in the
consonant tree below. Each grapheme displays below its dorsal
pronunciation on the left and its non-dorsal pronunciation on the
right.
#+name: cons-tree
#+header: :var consonants=consonants-featural-list
#+begin_src emacs-lisp :wrap "src dot :file proto-nyqy/consonant-feature-tree.png :exports none"
(conlanging-list-to-graphviz consonants)
#+end_src
#+RESULTS[084ff9041851d57a11859fbe86f3939212c0caf5]: cons-tree
#+begin_src dot :file proto-nyqy/consonant-feature-tree.png :exports none
graph{graph[dpi=300,bgcolor="transparent"];node[shape=plaintext];"consonants-0jqz10keat1f"[label="consonants"];"+coronal-0jqz10keat1m"[label="+coronal"];"consonants-0jqz10keat1f"--"+coronal-0jqz10keat1m";"+anterior-0jqz10keat1p"[label="+anterior"];"+coronal-0jqz10keat1m"--"+anterior-0jqz10keat1p";"+voice-0jqz10keat1r"[label="+voice"];"+anterior-0jqz10keat1p"--"+voice-0jqz10keat1r";"+nasal-0jqz10keat1t"[label="+nasal"];"+voice-0jqz10keat1r"--"+nasal-0jqz10keat1t";"n\nɳ / n-0jqz10keat1v"[label="n\nɳ / n"];"+nasal-0jqz10keat1t"--"n\nɳ / n-0jqz10keat1v";"-nasal-0jqz10keat21"[label="-nasal"];"+voice-0jqz10keat1r"--"-nasal-0jqz10keat21";"z\nʝ / z-0jqz10keat22"[label="z\nʝ / z"];"-nasal-0jqz10keat21"--"z\nʝ / z-0jqz10keat22";"-voice-0jqz10keat2d"[label="-voice"];"+anterior-0jqz10keat1p"--"-voice-0jqz10keat2d";"s\nç / s-0jqz10keat2e"[label="s\nç / s"];"-voice-0jqz10keat2d"--"s\nç / s-0jqz10keat2e";"-anterior-0jqz10keat2t"[label="-anterior"];"+coronal-0jqz10keat1m"--"-anterior-0jqz10keat2t";"+voice-0jqz10keat2v"[label="+voice"];"-anterior-0jqz10keat2t"--"+voice-0jqz10keat2v";"j\nɟ / d͡ʒ-0jqz10keat2y"[label="j\nɟ / d͡ʒ"];"+voice-0jqz10keat2v"--"j\nɟ / d͡ʒ-0jqz10keat2y";"- voice-0jqz10keat34"[label="- voice"];"-anterior-0jqz10keat2t"--"- voice-0jqz10keat34";"c\nc / t͡ʃ-0jqz10keat36"[label="c\nc / t͡ʃ"];"- voice-0jqz10keat34"--"c\nc / t͡ʃ-0jqz10keat36";"-coronal-0jqz10keat5e"[label="-coronal"];"consonants-0jqz10keat1f"--"-coronal-0jqz10keat5e";"+voice-0jqz10keat5g"[label="+voice"];"-coronal-0jqz10keat5e"--"+voice-0jqz10keat5g";"+nasal-0jqz10keat5i"[label="+nasal"];"+voice-0jqz10keat5g"--"+nasal-0jqz10keat5i";"+labial-0jqz10keat5k"[label="+labial"];"+nasal-0jqz10keat5i"--"+labial-0jqz10keat5k";"m\nŋ͡m / m-0jqz10keat5m"[label="m\nŋ͡m / m"];"+labial-0jqz10keat5k"--"m\nŋ͡m / m-0jqz10keat5m";"-labial-0jqz10keat5r"[label="-labial"];"+nasal-0jqz10keat5i"--"-labial-0jqz10keat5r";"ñ\nɴ / ɦ̃-0jqz10keat5t"[label="ñ\nɴ / ɦ̃"];"-labial-0jqz10keat5r"--"ñ\nɴ / ɦ̃-0jqz10keat5t";"-nasal-0jqz10keat63"[label="-nasal"];"+voice-0jqz10keat5g"--"-nasal-0jqz10keat63";"+labial-0jqz10keat65"[label="+labial"];"-nasal-0jqz10keat63"--"+labial-0jqz10keat65";"+constricted-0jqz10keat67"[label="+constricted"];"+labial-0jqz10keat65"--"+constricted-0jqz10keat67";"w\nw / v-0jqz10keat6d"[label="w\nw / v"];"+constricted-0jqz10keat67"--"w\nw / v-0jqz10keat6d";"-constricted-0jqz10keat6h"[label="-constricted"];"+labial-0jqz10keat65"--"-constricted-0jqz10keat6h";"b\ng͡b / b-0jqz10keat6k"[label="b\ng͡b / b"];"-constricted-0jqz10keat6h"--"b\ng͡b / b-0jqz10keat6k";"-labial-0jqz10keat6u"[label="-labial"];"-nasal-0jqz10keat63"--"-labial-0jqz10keat6u";"g\nɡ / ʕ-0jqz10keat6w"[label="g\nɡ / ʕ"];"-labial-0jqz10keat6u"--"g\nɡ / ʕ-0jqz10keat6w";"-voice-0jqz10keat7t"[label="-voice"];"-coronal-0jqz10keat5e"--"-voice-0jqz10keat7t";"+labial-0jqz10keat7v"[label="+labial"];"-voice-0jqz10keat7t"--"+labial-0jqz10keat7v";"p\nk͡p / p-0jqz10keat7w"[label="p\nk͡p / p"];"+labial-0jqz10keat7v"--"p\nk͡p / p-0jqz10keat7w";"-labial-0jqz10keat81"[label="-labial"];"-voice-0jqz10keat7t"--"-labial-0jqz10keat81";"q\nq / ħ-0jqz10keat83"[label="q\nq / ħ"];"-labial-0jqz10keat81"--"q\nq / ħ-0jqz10keat83";}
#+end_src
#+html: <ImgFigure src="/img/proto-nyqy/consonant-feature-tree.png" alt="Feature Tree of Proto-Ñyqy Consonants">Feature Tree of Proto-Ñyqy Consonants</ImgFigure>
As you can see, each one of the consonants have their two alternative
indicated below their grapheme. In the case of the coronal consonants,
the alternative consonant is obtained by replacing the anterior
feature by the dorsal feature when it is present.
The way of writing consonants was therefore standardized as presented
in the table below.
#+name: table:consonants-pronunciation
#+caption: Possible Pronunciations of the Proto-Ñyqy Consonants
| Main Grapheme | Dorsal Phoneme | Non-Dorsal Phoneme | Alternate Grapheme |
|---------------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------|
| ñ | {{{phon(*ɴ)}}} | {{{phon(*ɦ̃)}}} | ḿ |
| q | {{{phon(*q)}}} | {{{phon(*ħ)}}} | ħ, h_{1} |
| g | {{{phon(*ɢ)}}} | {{{phon(*ʕ)}}} | ȟ, h_{2} |
| c | {{{phon(*c)}}} | {{{phon(*t͡ʃ)}}} | ł |
| j | {{{phon(*ɟ)}}} | {{{phon(*d͡ʒ)}}} | ʒ |
| w | {{{phon(*w)}}} | {{{phon(*v)}}} | l |
| m | {{{phon(*ŋ͡m)}}} | {{{phon(*m)}}} | r, r_{1} |
| p | {{{phon(*χ)}}} | {{{phon(*p)}}} | xh, r_{2} |
| b | {{{phon(*g͡b)}}} | {{{phon(*b)}}} | rh, r_{3} |
| n | {{{phon(*ɳ)}}} | {{{phon(*n)}}} | y |
| s | {{{phon(*ç)}}} | {{{phon(*s)}}} | x, r_{4} |
| z | {{{phon(*ʝ)}}} | {{{phon(*z)}}} | ɣ, r_{5} |
For each of these consonants, the letter chosen represents what we
suppose was the most common or the default pronunciation of the
consonant represented. In the table are also included alternate
graphemes you might find in other, mostly older works, though they are
mostly deprecated now.
As you can see, Proto-Ñyqy had potentially two different consonants
that could be pronounced as {{{phon(*m)}}}. Although it did not influence
Proto-Ñyqy as far as we know, it definitively influenced the Pritian
branch of the family, with «ñ» and «m» influencing differently the
vowel following it.
Several consonants used to be unknown at the beginnings of the
Proto-Ñyqy study, as can be seen with the old usage of «h_{1}, h_{2}, r_{1},
r_{2}, r_{3}, r_{4}, and r_{5}». These are found mostly in the earlier documents
but progressively dissapear as our understanding of the Proto-Ñyqy
grew during the past century. They are not used anymore, but any
student that wishes to read older documents on Proto-Ñyqy should be
aware of these.
**** Private Data :noexport:
#+name: consonants-featural-list
- consonants
- +coronal
- +anterior
- +voice
- +nasal
- n\nɳ / n
- -nasal
- z\nʝ / z
- -voice
- s\nç / s
- -anterior
- +voice
- j\nɟ / d͡ʒ
- - voice
- c\nc / t͡ʃ
- -coronal
- +voice
- +nasal
- +labial
- m\nŋ͡m / m
- -labial
- ñ\nɴ / ɦ̃
- -nasal
- +labial
- +constricted
- w\nw / v
- -constricted
- b\ng͡b / b
- -labial
- g\nɡ / ʕ
- -voice
- +labial
- p\nk͡p / p
- -labial
- q\nq / ħ
*** Pitch and Stress
It is definitively known Proto-Ñyqy had a stress system that was used
both on a clause and on a word level, as the languages that evolved
from it inherited this characteristic. However, it is not possible to
reconstruct it accurately, we only know the vowel «ə» was unstressed
and only appeared in words with two syllables or more. However, we do
not know if it had any morphological meaning or if it was productive.
On the other hand, we are much less sure about whether it had a pitch
system, and if it did whether it was productive or not. Most of the
languages that evolved from Proto-Ñyqy had or have one such as the
Mojhal-Andelian family, but some don’t such as the Pritian family. The
most commonly accepted answer is a pitch system appeared after the
breakup of the pitchless branches which happenned earlier than the
other branches which do have a pitch system. In reconstructed
Proto-Ñyqy however, if such a system was present, pitches were most
likely non-phonemic and unproductive. It only gained productivity in
later stages, after the first breakups we know, in a common unknown
ancestor language of the branches which did or still do have either an
accent or a pitch system, and even there the evolutions seem to have
happened in different ways depending on the branches. It is therefore
impossible to know what the pitch system of Proto-Ñyqy was if it had
one.
** Phonotactics
*** Syllable Structure
The prototypical syllable in Proto-Ñyqy appears as a (C)V(C)(C)
syllable with at least one consonant around the vowel, either in the
onset or in the coda. At most, it can have one consonant in the onset
and two in the coda.
No special rule have been found to rule the onset, it can host any
consonant without any effect on the vowel.
However, it has been found the coda has some rules:
- two nasal consonants cannot follow each other --- no {{{recon(-ñm)}}}
- two coronal consonants cannot follow each other --- no {{{recon(-ns)}}}
- labial consonants are never found with another consonant in the coda
--- no {{{recon(-ps)}}}
For instance, {{{recon(noc zebec)}}} would be pronounced as {{{recon(noc
gebec)}}}. It is most likely the features to chose from when converting a
consonant from a coronal to a non-coronal were considered as absent by
default. This results in the table below --- as you can see, the pair
«z» and «j» and the pair «s» and «c» convert to the same consonant
respectively.
#+name: table:coronal-to-non-coronal-consonants
#+caption: Conversion Table of Coronal to Non-Coronal Consonants
| Coronal Consonant | Non-Coronal Consonant |
|-------------------+-----------------------|
| n | ñ |
| z | g |
| s | q |
| j | g |
| c | q |
It has also been found that if two coronal consonants do follow each
other in cross-syllabic environments, with the first one in the coda
of a first syllable and the second one in the onset of a second
syllable, then the former will become voiced as the latter.
Similarly, if two nasal consonants are found near each other in a
cross-syllabic environment, the second nasal consonant will become
denasalized. Thus, we get the conversion table below.
#+name: table:consonants-denasalization
#+caption: Denasalization Table for Proto-Ñyqy Consonants
| Nasal Consonant | Non-Nasal Consonant |
|-----------------+---------------------|
| n | z |
| m | w |
| ñ | b |
It has also been found a schwa tends to appear between syllables when
the first one ends with two consonants and the second one begins with
one.
*** Consonantal Dorsal Alternation
As mentioned above in [[file:phonology.md#consonants][Consonants]], it seems probable according to
Maeln’s theory consonants were alternating between dorsals and
non-dorsals. We do not know if it only happened between words, within
words, or along whole clauses, but this would explain much of the
different languages that evolved from Proto-Ñyqy. The table below
shows different possible pronunciation of Proto-Ñyqy words with
word-wise consonantal dorsal alternation whether the first consonant
is to be considered a dorsal consonant or not. Note the nasal switch
as well as the extra schwa insertion in the third example as described
above in [[file:phonology.md#syllable-structure][Syllable Structure]].
#+name: table:word-consonantal-dorsal-alternation
#+caption: Different Possible Pronunciation of Proto-Ñyqy Words
| Word | Dorsal-Initial | Dorsal-Final |
|-----------------+-----------------------+---------------------|
| {{{recon(pœwec)}}} | {{{phon(*pɤwɛt͡ʃ)}}} | {{{phon(*pɤvɛc)}}} |
| {{{recon(zebec)}}} | {{{phon(*zɛg͡bɛt͡ʃ)}}} | {{{phon(*ʝɛbɛc)}}} |
| {{{recon(ñocm noc)}}} | {{{phon(*ɴɔt͡ʃŋ͡m ə ɦɔc)}}} | {{{phon(*ɦɔcm ə ɴot͡ʃ)}}} |

311
docs/proto-nyqy/syntax.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,311 @@
#+setupfile: ../headers
* Syntax
** World Classes
*** Nouns
# - What are the distributional properties of nouns?
# - What are the structural properties of nouns?
# - What are the major formally distinct subcategories of nouns?
# - What is the basic structure of the noun word (for polysynthetic
# languages) and/or noun phrases (for more isolating languages)?
Nouns in Proto-Ñyqy generally refer to defined entities, such as
objects, people, concepts, or events. Regardless of their role during
locution, a noun bears no morphological information such as its
syntactic role or its number. However, nouns can associate with each
other and act as adjectives.
# More on that in
# §[[#Structural-Preview-World-Classes-Modifiers-Descriptive-Adjectives-pcpelau058j0]].
Noun phrases in Proto-Ñyqy are head-first, meaning the noun in noun
phrases come relatively early although the former is built around the
former and not exclusively after it. Noun phrases are mainly found as
agents or patients of a sentence, but they can also be found in
genitive and dative constructions.
The nouns could most likely take genitive pronouns, but how they
interacted exactly is yet unsure. The
**** Countables and Uncountables :noexport:
**** Proper Nouns :noexport:
*** Pronouns and Anaphoric Clitics
# - Does the language have free pronouns and/or anaphoric clitics?
# (These are distinct from grammatical agreement.)
# - Give a chart of the free pronouns and/or anaphoric clitics.
**** Personal Pronouns
It seems only three pronouns existed in Proto-Ñyqy, one for each of
the persons you would find in a typical language, as shown below.
#+name: table:pronouns
#+caption: Proto-Ñyqy pronouns
| Person | Pronoun |
|--------+-----------|
| 1 | {{{recon(qy)}}} |
| 2 | {{{recon(bú)}}} |
| 3 | {{{recon(zø)}}} |
It appears Proto-Ñyqy pronouns did not have any morphological rule to
make them agree in number and due to the apparent lack of gender
neither did they agree with it. However, it is possible that at some
stage of the development of the language, Proto-Ñyqy began affixing
cardinal numbers in order to its pronouns up until the number “six”
{{{recon(ñy)}}} which would have marked a general plural. It is very much
possible all numbers up to {{{recon(ñy)}}} were used with pronouns, however
only remains of it as well as {{{recon(qi)}}} (/two/) for some dual or paucal,
and in the case of the Tiltinian family {{{recon(nø)}}} (/three/) was used for
trial and later on for paucal. No remains of {{{recon(gø)}}}, {{{recon(co)}}} or
any number higher than {{{recon(ñy)}}} is found in its daughter languages.
It is also unlikely {{{recon(mi)}}} (/one/) was ever used to mark the
singular, or at least its usage never persisted in its recorded
daughter languages as it cannot be reconstructed with our current
knowledge.
# The order in which these cardinal numbers are affixed to
# the pronoun depend on the numbers’ word order described in
# [[#Structural-Preview-World-Classes-Modifiers-Numerals-4gvelau058j0]].
- {{{recon(møgusqim qy ij)}}}
village towards 1sg go
I’m going to the village
- {{{recon(møgusqim qyqi ij)}}}
village towards 1 two/du go
We both are going to the village
- {{{recon(møgusqim qynø ij)}}}
village towards 1 3/tri/pauc go
We three are going to the village
- {{{recon(møgusqim ñyqy ij)}}}
village towards six/pl 1 go
We are going to the village
It doesn’t appear either that there was any morphology associated to
their grammatical case. All of its daughter languages have at least a
distinction between nominative, accusative, and genitive pronouns, but
it appears they all evolved after the Proto-Ñyqy breakup, with no
relation between the main daughter language families. The best example
is the striking difference between the Andelian and the Mojhal
families despite the fact they both come from Proto-Mojhal-Andelian
which is the earliest known language to split off from Proto-Ñyqy, as
well as Proto-Tiltinian and Old Pritian which again have no
similarities regarding their pronoun declensions. The only common
roots found are these three pronouns described in [[./syntax.md#personal-pronouns][Personal Pronouns]].
Personal pronouns are free pronouns which do not need to be bound to
other elements in a sentence.
1. {{{recon(qibú qy qe)}}}
du 2 1sg see
I see them both
2. {{{recon(qyim ñocm qe)}}}
1sg DAT someone see
Does anyone see me?
{{{recon(ee qy)}}}
yes 1sg
Yes, me.
**** Demonstrative Pronouns
Four levels of demonstratives seems to have existed in Proto-Ñyqy:
- {{{recon(bœce)}}} :: near the speaker
- {{{recon(pue)}}} :: near the interlocutor
- {{{recon(yqe)}}} and {{{recon(jœe)}}} :: distant from the speakers
It is interesting to see here a common pattern among languages which
is demonstratives pronouns coming from words meaning “here” or
“there”. In that case, these pronouns are derived from {{{recon(bœc)}}},
{{{recon(pu)}}}, {{{recon(yq)}}}, and {{{recon(jœ)}}}.
We are not sure about the difference between {{{recon(yq)}}} and {{{recon(jœ)}}}.
It is theorized they had differences in distance between the element
described by the pronoun and the speakers, maybe one describing
something that could be seen and the other not. In any case, only one
of the two survived in each language family so we cannot compare their
use in documented languages.
**** Possessive Pronouns :noexport:
*** Verbs :noexport:
# - What are the distributional properties of verbs?
# - What are the structural properties of verbs?
# - What are the major subclasses of verbs?
# - Describe the order of various verbal operators within the verbal
# - word or verb phrase.
# - Give charts of the various paradigms, e.g. person marking,
# - tense/aspect/mode, etc. Indicate major allomorphic variants.
# - Are directional and/or locational notions expressed in the verb or
# - verb phrase at all?
# - Is this operation obligatory, i.e. does one member of the
# paradigm have to occur in every finite verb or verb phrase?
# - Is it productive, i.e. can the operation be specified for al
# verb stems, and does it have the same meaning with each one?
# (Nothing is fully productive, but some operations are more
# productive than others.)
# - Is this operation primarily coded morphologically, analytically,
# or lexically? Are there any exceptions to the general case?
# - Where in the verb phrase or verbal word is this operation likely
# to appear? Can it occur in more than one place?
**** Verbal Structure
**** Verbal Derivations
**** Verbal Inflexions
*** Modifiers :noexport:
# - If you posit a morphosyntactic category of adjectives, give
# evidence for not grouping theseforms with the verbs or nouns. What
# characterizes a form as being an adjective in this language?
# - How can you characterize semantically the class of concepts coded
# by this formal category?
# - Do adjectives agree with their heads (e.g. in number, case, and/or
# noun class)?
# - What kind of system does the language employ for counting?
# - How high can a fluent native speaker count without resorting
# either to words from another language or to a generic word like
# /many/? Exemplify the system up to this point.
# - Do numerals agree with their head nouns (number, case, noun
# class, ...)?
**** Descriptive Adjectives
**** Non-Numeral Quantifiers
**** Numerals
*** Adverbs :noexport:
# - What characterikes a form as being an adverb in this language? If
# you posit a distinct class of adverbs, argue for why these forms
# should not be treated as nouns, verbs, or adjectives.
# - For each kind of adverb listed in this section, list a few members
# of the type, and specify whether there are any restrictions
# relavite to that type, e.g. where they can come in a clause, any
# morphemes common to the type, etc.
# - Are any of these classes of adverbs related to older
# complement-taking (matrix) verbs?
*** Adpositions :noexport:
*** Grammatical Particules :noexport:
** Constituants Order Typology :noexport:
*** Constituants Order in Main Clauses
# - What is the neutral order of free elements in the unit?
# - Are there variations?
# - How do the variant orders function?
# - Specific to the main clause constituent order: What is the
# pragmatically neutral order of constituents (A/S, P, and V) in
# basic clauses of the language?
*** Constituants Order in Nominal Clauses
# - Describe the order(s) of elements in the noun phrase.
*** Constituants Order in Verbal Clauses
# - Where do auxliaries occur in relation to the semantically “main”
# verb?
# - Where do verb-phrase adverbs occur with respect to the verb and
# auxiliaries?
*** Adpositional Phrases
# - Is the language dominantly prepositional or post-positional? Give
# examples.
# - Do many adpositions come from nouns or verbs?
*** Comparatives
# - Does the language have one or more grammaticalized comparative
# constructions? If so, what is the order of the standard, the
# marker and the quality by which an item is compared to the
# standard?
*** Questions
# - In yes/no questions, if there is a question particle, where does
# it occur?
# - In information questions, where does the question word occur?
** Structure of a Nominal Group :noexport:
*** Composed Words
# - Is there noun-noun compounding that results in a noun (e.g.
# /windshield/)?
# - How do you know it is compounding?
# - Is there noun-verb (or verb-noun) compounding that results in a
# noun (e.g. /pickpocket/, /scarecrow/)?
# - Are these processes productive (like noun-verb in English
# can-opener)? How common is compounding?
*** Denominalization
# - Are there any processes (productive or not) that form a verb from
# a noun?
# - An adjective from a noun?
# - An adverb from a noun?
*** Numbers
# - Is number expressed in the noun phrase?
# - Is the distinction between singular and non-singular obligatory,
# optional, or completely absent in the noun phrase?
# - If number marking is “optional”, when does it tend to occur, and
# when does it tend not to occur?
# - If number marking is obligatory, is number overtly expressed for
# all noun phrases or only some subclasses of noun phrases, such as
# animate?
# - What non-singular distinctions are there?
*** Grammatical Case
# - Do nouns exhibit morphological case?
# - If so, what are the cases? (The functions of the cases will be
# elaborated in later sections)
*** Articles and Demonstratives
# - Do noun phrases have articles?
# - If so, are they obligatory or optional, and under what
# circumstances do they occur?
# - Are they separate words, or bound morphemes?
# - Is there a class of classes of demonstratives as distinct from
# articles?
# - How many degrees of distance are there in the system of
# demontsratives?
# - Are there other distinctions beside distances?
*** Possessives
# - How are possessors expressed in the noun phrase?
# - Do nouns agree with their possessors? Do possessors agree with
# possessed nouns? Neither, or both?
# - Is there a distinction between alienable and inalienable
# possesson?
# - Are there other types of possession?
# - When the possessor is a full noun, where does it usually come with
# respect to the possessed noun?
*** Classes (including Gender)
# - Is there a noun class system?
# - What are the classes and how are they manifested in the noun
# phrase?
# - What dimension of reality is most central to the noun class system
# (e.g. animacy, shape, function, etc.)? What other dimensions are
# relevant?
# - Do the classifiers occur with numerals? Adjectives? Verbs?
# - What is their function in these contexts?
*** Diminution/Augmentation
# - Does the language employ diminutive and/or augmentative operators
# in the noun or noun phrase?
# - Questions to answer for all nominal operations:
# - Is this operation obligatory, i.e. does one member of the
# paradigm have to occur in every full noun phrase?
# - Is it productive, i.e. can the operation be specified for all
# full noun phrases and does it have the same meaning with each
# one? (Nothing is fully productive, but some operations are more
# so than others.)
# - Is this operation primarily expressed lexically,
# morphologically, or analytically?
# - Where in the noun phrase is this operation likely to be located?
# - Can it occur in more than one place?
** Predicates and Linked Constructions :noexport:
*** Nominal Predicates
# - How are proper inclusion and equative predicates formed?
# - What restrictions are there, if any, on the TAM marking of such
# clauses?
*** Adjective Predicates
# - How are predicate adjective formed? (Include a separate section on
# predicate adjectives only if they are structurally distinct from
# predicate nominals.)
*** Locative Predicates
# - How are locational clauses (or predicate locatives) formed?
*** Existential Predicates
# - How are existential clauses formed? (Give examples in different
# tense/aspects, especially if there is significant variation.)
# - How are negative existentials formed?
# - Are there extended uses of existential morphology? (Provide
# pointers to other relevant sections of the grammar.)
*** Possessive Clauses
# - How are possessive clauses formed?
** Verbal Groups Structure :noexport:
** Intransitive Clauses :noexport:
** Ditransitive Clauses :noexport:
** Dependent Type Clauses :noexport:
*** Non-Finite
*** Semi-Finite
*** Finite

96
docs/proto-nyqy/typology.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
#+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.