Showing posts with label typology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label typology. Show all posts

Thursday, November 25, 2021

Introducing the Yole-Chort [Cxernian] languages

 So I've been meaning to do a language family for a while and finally got around to sketching it out. Originally I wanted to do a proto-lang as it truly should be: constructed from the daughter languages. Well that proved unfeasible, so instead my current strategy is thinking of a word in a daughter language and then working backward. Not as cool, but a lot easier. I am going to try to keep the proto-lang fairly unspecified though. As far as world building is concerned, this family is the dominant language on the west continent, which goes from about the equator to quite south. There's other families there (and plenty of substrate influence) but it's still by far the largest. Anyway, some history.

Kikxotian explorers first encountered Cxernian speakers on the islands that stretch between the Moon People's home and the western continent. Eventually after reaching the main continent itself, some clever people started to notice minor similarities between the languages of the islands (the so called Yolean languages) and the languages the dominated the coast. More exploration eventually uncovered more language with similarities. After deciding that Proto-Viggo-Viggo wasn't a very informative name, they decided to name the family after the word for "person" in two of the languages, hence Yole from the language of Greater Rock Island (one of the Far Island languages and the first encountered by Kikxotian explorers) and Chort from Central Plateau Mountain Valley (the largest of the languages spoken in the mountains). Cxern (possibly [cχʷərn] but the actual pronunciation of X is unknown) is the reconstructed word for "person" in their reconstructed ancestor, hence the other name for the family, the Cxernian languages.

Proto-Yole-Chort was likely spoken some 6 to 7 thousand years before present in the mountains central to the continent. This placement is based on some of the reconstructed words, its location in the middle of the current spread, and because the greatest diversity is still found in that region. It's thought that the Cxernian languages spread with the invention of agriculture, especially the sweet potato. Some reconstructed words relating to this location and time period include *adiH "sweet potato" (seen in GRI as tete, in CPMV as adha and in Imperial Great Delta as arè), *QuSayaG "mountain peak" (GRI kwena "heaven", CPMV ahuśā "high holy place", IGD kohě "mountain") and *kelun "terrace, garden plot" (GRI hulo "earthworks", CPMV ūt "garden", IGD klung "paddy"). They likely had domesticated yaks or some other beast of burden before the family broke up based on words like *muNis "beast of burden" (reflexes include GRI mulisa "trade boat", CPMV amume "yak", IGD pùnê "water buffalo").

The internal classification of the Cxernian languages is not well understood. It's hypothesized that there's between 4 and 8 primary branches. The Badlands and Forest languages are well accepted as forming a Western Branch, and the Upriver and Delta languages are often (but controversially) linked together in an Eastern branch on basis of the treatment of *Q as /k/, and some lexical similarities (the Island family is occasionally placed here as well, and sometimes even as a branch of the Delta languages). The Mountain Valley languages are traditionally treated as their own branch. The so called Jungle Farmer and Jungle Hunter languages are often linked together but the evidence is lacking despite their close proximity (it's mainly typological as the so-called jungle languages are much more dependent marking than most Cxernian languages). Finally, the poorly attested Hill languages (known mostly as an ancient substrate of West Mountain Valley languages and as a small remnant dialect cluster deep in the mountains) are conventionally treated as part of the Western branch but it may actually be it's own primary branch or better treated as coordinate with Proto-Western instead of a daughter. 

The subbranches of the primary branches are better understood. There's well over 30 surviving branches today, many of which have time depths of over 2000 years (and thus are comparable to Romance or Germanic languages in diversity). There's also many dead, but influential branches such as the so called "Old Raiders" language which left its loans and influence across the western part of the continent 2500 years ago (so before the Kikxotian branch of the Western Plains languages separated from its parent!) and most of the Hill branch. A lot of the subbranches seemed to have started diversifying around 2000 years ago, which incidentally is around when the Proto-Kikxotians headed east. Maybe there was some sort of global climate shock which influenced migratory patterns or something.

My current game plan is to define sound changes up to branching points, since I have their spatial and temporal positions well defined and from there create languages as needed. And if there's nowhere a language idea fits, I can just establish a new branch somewhere. Hard parts right now are grammar evolution and making sure I get both family internal and external loans right. There's a lot of other languages on the continent after all and I don't want to have a simple grammar in the protolanguage but I also want a very typologically diverse family, so we'll see what happens. Another issue is deciding what amount of sound change is sufficient for a new branch and over a given time period. By the end, I should have about Indo-European levels of diversity, so a lot. As for storage, I'll probably keep the proto-language's dictionary in a spreadsheet, since that will make tracking the different branches much easier (and in theory I can even automatically apply sound changes). But I think I have a good start.



Saturday, September 2, 2017

Isolating polylang?

I've already complained about polysynthesis before. I still think it's a stupid term. Anyway, here's one (very strict) definition I've seen for it:

1) polypersonal agreement
2) noun incorporation
3) extensive derivational synthesis
4) pervasive head-marking
5) verb-marking more than noun-marking

There's nothing about the phonological coherence in this one. Which, if I understand correctly, allows for the mythical "isolating polysynthetic language". Now this is a concept I've heard about before, in the back corners of internet forums and the like. I never understood how it was possible.

Then I met Abui. The author describes it as polysynthetic. Yet it sure doesn't look it. I think the most morphemes I've in a (phonological?) word is 5 and most of 2-3. Yet it's serial verbs allow for very complex verb phrases. While it's not isolating by any means (it's squarely in the agglutinating camp), it does show the diversity of "polysynthetic" languages and how the term really doesn't do justice. I'm sure if the average amateur (con)-linguist looked at it (even with glosses) they'd probably not label it as polysynthetic. Yet the author of this grammar was confident in doing so and I haven't seen anything disputing this. (Another fun one that I keep seeing brought up as polysynthetic (including by experts in the field like Michael Fortescue) with no discussion as to why it is classified as such. From my skimmings of the grammar, it sure doesn't look it).

In other news, I'm looking forward to the release of the Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis which comes out in a few months.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Symmetrical Voice in Toúījāb Kīkxot

So I read an article about the Totoli language of Sulawesi today (For reference it is "Symmetrical Voice and Applicative Alternations: Evidence from Totoli" by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Sonja Riesberg). Interesting stuff, mostly focusing on how Totoli has significant features of both symmetrical voice languages (its own typology) and Philippine-type languages (a relative of the symmetrical voice languages of course). Some things I liked included the authors getting slightly annoyed with Philippinists (for assuming everything is like Philippine languages, I guess) and the general overall topic. I'm always looking for info about obscure languages of Indonesia. My general feeling is that it is really hard to find such info, especially online. A lot of the examples used seemed pretty natural to me as an Indonesian speaker, so I guess I do understand this applicative suffixes after all :p. I was interested that the benefactive/instrumental suffix (-kan in indonesian, -an in Totoli, for the actor voice) can have a iterative function...which is a function of the locative suffix (-i in both languages) in Indonesian. Or maybe I don't, as I didn't quite get what exactly their conclusion that there was a locative voice in opposition to an undergoer voice with a goal applicative suffix meant, though the proposal seemed reasonable enough.

Anyway, this reminded me a lot of Toúījāb Kīkxot and how it came to have the typology it has. When I was learning Indonesian I thought the voicing system of Indonesian (which I later learned is called symmetrical voice) was cool and a feature I didn't see often, if ever in conglangs (sure, austronesian alignment appears lots, but Indonesian is pretty much ignored by everyone so yeah). I also decided I wanted to do something with triconsonantal roots (but had no knowledge of Arabic at the time and no access into any materials, so we get what wonderful mess we have), but that's not super relevant right now.

Now, with my Indonesian grammar book (The Sneddon one, I highly recommend it), I saw that suffixes like -i and -kan could do cool things with objects and marking arguments. I didn't quite get it at the time (let alone know that these are called applicatives) but I decided that Toúījāb Kīkxot should have them too. Originally there were 2-3 (locative, "benefactive" and an optional patient), later I added a third instrumental/causative. They were pretty much as classic applicative suffixes, as far as I can tell, marking the role of the direct object (often raising the transitivity of the verb, requiring a change of verb form) or the subject in the undergoer voice. I'll cover what they actually do in another post, since the benefactive form is especially confusing, but that's how they came about. It's one part of the language I am really proud of, as it gives a very different flavor than English and can do some pretty cool things. Plus it really helps with focus and showing what is most important in a sentence.