ProtoLanguage-Primer.htm

THE PROTO-LANGUAGE

PRIMER





(Part One)

by Patrick C. Ryan

(9/23/98)

Lesson One

I. Phonology





A. Consonants


The consonants of the Proto-Language were:

P[?], P[H], P[?]F, PF[H], F, F[H],
T[?], T[H], T[?]S, TS[H], S, S[H],
K[?], K[H], K[?]X, KX[H], X, X[H],
M, M[H], N, N[H], Q, Q[H],
R, R[H],
?, H, ¿ (formerly $), HH



[?] indicates glottalization; [H] indicates aspiration ? = voiceless laryngal {glottal} stop; ¿ is a voiced pharyngal fricative {originally, a voiceless pharyngal stop} H is a voiceless laryngal fricative; HH is a voiceless pharyngal fricative Q = /ng/, a voiced dorsal nasal





Because it may be amusing for some readers, who will have difficulty with the original pronunciations of the consonants, to speak the Proto-Language, I offer the following simplifications:


1) All glottalized stops and affricates may be pronounced as voiced: P[?],
P[?]F, T[?], T[?]S, K[?], K[?]X as / b, bv, d, dz, g, g /, the last written gzh;

2) All unaspirated fricatives may be pronounced as voiced: F, S, X as / v, z,
/, the last written zh;

3) All aspirated stops and affricates may be pronounced without aspiration:
P[H], P[H]F, T[H], T[H]S, K[H], K[H]X as / p, pf, t, ts, k, kš /, the last written ksh;

4) All aspirated fricatives may be pronounced without aspiration: F[H], S[H], X[H] as / f, s, š /, the last written sh;

5) However, an effort should be made to pronounce aspirated nasals as /h/ + nasal: M[H] as /^hm/, written hm; N[H] as /^hn/, written hn; and Q[H] as /^h?/, written hng;

6) Though it may be slightly difficult initially, Q([H]) should always be pronounced as /?/, written ng;

7) The distinction between R and R[H] can be maintained by pronouncing R as a flap /r/ but trilling R[H], written as R;

8) ? should be pronounced as a 'pause' — when between vowels — if nothing else; however, I will indicate it phonetically as /(?)/.

9) Though H will be no problem (/h/), most readers will find HH very difficult; I suggest substituting /x/, the dorsal fricative in German ach so that PL HHE, 'go', may be pronounced /xe/, written as xe.

10) Finally, ¿ will also be very difficult for most readers. I suggest a substitute pronunciation of English 'y' for it, i.e. /j/, written as y.






B. Vowels


The vowels of the Proto-Language were:

E, A, O
These are easily pronounced:

E as in English 'bet' (/ e/);
A as in English 'father' (/ a/);
O as in English 'bought'(/ o/).





C. Tone



A rising tone ( / ) marked the beginning of a statement.

A falling tone ( \ ) marked the end of a declarative statement, i.e. a realis proposition.

M[H]O RA HHE.
[ / hmo ra xe \ ]
The man goes to the tree.

A non-declarative statement, i.e. an irrealis proposition, did not have a falling tone at the end of the clause:

M[H]O RA HHE, . . .
[ / hmo ra xe . . . ]
If/when the man goes to the tree, . . .


1. Interrogative

A question was a non-declarative statement, i.e. an irrealis proposition; and did not have a falling tone at the end of the clause.

An yes-no question was indicated by prefixing the statement with ?A, 'here', so that the PL yes-no-question may be paraphrased as 'is it here that . . . ?':

?A M[H]O RA HHE{?}
[ / (?)a hmo ra xe ]
Does the man go to the tree?

A WHo question was indicated by insertion into the statement of M[H]O, 'human', so that the PL WHo-question may be paraphrased as 'the human who . . . is?':

M[H]O RA HHE{?}
[ / hmo ra xe ]
Who goes to the tree?

A WHat question for a place ('where') or for an object ('what') was indicated by insertion into the statement of MA, 'place', so that these PL WHat-questions may be paraphrased as 'the place which . . . is?':

M[H]O MA HHE{?}
[ / hmo ma xe ]
Where does the human go (to)?

M[H]O MA KX[H]O{?}
[ / hmo ma ksho ]
Where/what does the human cut?

?A WHat question for a quantity ('how many/much') was indicated by insertion into the statement of X[H]A / XA, 'quantity', so that this PL WHat-question may be paraphrased as 'the quantity which . . . is?':

X[H]A RA HHE{?}
[ / sha ra xe ]
How many go to the tree?

XA KX[H]O{?}
[ / zha ksho ]
How much is cut?

2. Indefinite

When used in a declarative statement, and indefinite was indicated by insertion into the statement of these same elements: M[H]O, 'someone'; MA, 'somewhere, something'; and X[H]A, 'some (number)' / XA, 'some (amount)' , so that these PL statements may be paraphrased as 'someone/somewhere/something/some(number)is . . .':

X[H]A RA HHE.
[ / sha ra xe \ ]
Some go to the tree.

M[H]O MA HHE.
[ / hmo ma xe \ ]
The human goes somewhere.

XA KX[H]O.
[ / zha ksho \ ]
Some amount has been cut.

Vocabulary

Notes

a. ?A, ‘here’, ?O, and ?E, ‘over there’, were used in a relative way to express concepts like ‘presently’, ‘close to presently (near past or near future)’, and ‘some time from presently (distant past or distant future)’. The implication of two consecutive sentences was ordinarily that they occurred in the same time frame:

M[H]O HHA SO, M[H]O FA XA.
[ / hmo xa zo \ / hmo va zha \ ]
(While) the human drank water, the human ate vegetables.

but, it was also possible to say:

M[H]O HHA ?O SO, M[H]O FA ?A XA.
[ / hmo xa (?)o zo \ / hmo va (?)a zha \ ]
The human drank water (soon) before the human ate vegetables.

or:

M[H]O HHA ?A SO, M[H]O FA ?O XA.
[ / hmo xa (?)a zo \ / hmo va (?)o zha \ ]
The human drinks water (soon) before the human shall eat vegetables.

or:

M[H]O HHA ?E SO.
[ / hmo xa (?)e zo \ ]
The human drank water some time ago or shall drink water some time in the future).

10. Another important particle was P[H]A, ‘over’, which indicated what we might term a perfect:

M[H]O FA P[H]A XA, M[H]O HHA SO.
[ / hmo va pa zha \ , / hmo xa zo \ ]
(After) the human had eaten (has eaten, shall have eaten) vegetables,
the human drank (drinks, shall drink) water.

11. This particle, NA, ‘(be) inside’, is approximately equivalent to English ‘now’. It serves the purpose of defining a new time-frame for the action:

M[H]O HE HHE. M[H]O HHA NA SO.
[ / hmo he xe \ , / hmo xa na zo \ ]
The human went to the river. Now the human drank water.

12. One of the negatives available in the Proto-Language was NO, ‘put inside, put away, absent’, which implied volition:

M[H]O HE NO HHE.
[ / hmo he no xe \ ]
The human did not go to the river (because he decided not to go).

13. Another negative was Proto-Language was HA, ‘hollow, empty, missing’, which conveyed lack of capability:

M[H]O HE HA HHE.
[ / hmo he ha xe \ ]
The human did not go to the river (because he was not able to go).

14. Volition was expressed by K[H]A, ‘lust, desire fervently’:

M[H]O HHA K[H]A SO,
[ / hmo xa ka zo \ ]
The human wants very much to drink water.

15. A milder kind of volition was expressed by K[?]XE, ‘face, yearn’:

M[H]O HHA K[?]XE SO.
[ / hmo xa gzhe zo \ ]
The human yearns to drink water.

16. A loose kind of association was expressed by QO, ‘attach’:

K[?]E HHA SO; HA HHA QO SO.
[ / ge xa zo \ / ha xa ngo zo \ ]
The male drinks water; the female drinks water also.

17. An act entailing another was expressed by S[H]O, ‘follow’:

K[?]E HHA SO HA HHA S[H]O SO.
[ / ge xa zo \ / ha xa so zo \ ]
The male drinks water so the female drinks water.

18. To emphasize the sequential number of parts of an occurrence, T[H]O, ‘approach’, was used:

K[?]E HHA SO K[?]E FA T[H]O XA.
[ / ge xa zo \ / ge va to zha \ ]
The male drinks water then the male shall eat vegetables.

19. A negative imperative was formed by ME, ‘push away’, which, because of its irrealis nature, prevented the falling tone at the end of the statement:

HHA ME SO!
[ / xa me zo ]
Do not (ever) drink water!

20. Another negative imperative was formed by NO, ‘put inside’:

HHA NO SO!
[ / xa no zo ]
Do not drink the water! (Stop drinking the water!)

This is not an exhaustive list of the particles that could be used.

D. Stress-Accent



Stress-accent was used to group two monosyllables in the statement into a closer relationship in which the relative distributional elements were specified.

The mechanism of stress-accent and the conceptual advance of grouping monosyllables into larger units made modern vocabulary and grammar possible.

The idea behind stress-accent was deceptively simple:

an element that was stress-accented
had more significance than one which was not.



This ‘significance’ can be characterized as plurality. ‘Many men’ are intrinsically a larger factor with which to reckon than ‘one man’; accordingly, the earliest nominal plurals were indicated simply by increased acoustic volume, i.e. stress-accent, which will be indicated with underlining:

M[H]O HHA K[?]XE SO.
[ / hmo xa gzhe zo \ ]
The humans yearn to drink water.

But this ‘significance’ can be characterized as durativity when applied to a ‘verbal’ idea. ‘Many cuts’ designates an intrinsically more significant affect than ‘one cut’; accordingly, the earliest verbal duratives were indicated simply by increased acoustic volume, i.e. stress-accent, which will be indicated with underlining:

M[H]O FA P[H]A XA, M[H]O HHA SO.
[ / hmo va pa zha \ , / hmo xa zo \ ]
(After) the humans had eaten (has eaten, shall have eaten) vegetables,
the human satisfies (satisfied, will satisfy) himself by drinking water.

Care must be taken not to accompany the stress-accent on a ‘verbal’ element with a rising tone-accent as is the pattern in English.

A momentous application of the stress-accent was to group two nominal elements into a nominal pseudo-compound. RO M[H]O, as a nominal sequence in a sentence, would mean ‘(the) human who underwent/undergoes/will-undergo a (one) growing = growing human’ but

RO(-)M[H]O.
[ ro(-)hmo ]
’many-growings = grown human = adult’

This (pseudo-)compound is the earliest designation by speakers of the Proto-Language for themselves, and is very well-attested among the languages of the world as a self-designation. In this sequence, the idea of ‘many growings’ is interpreted as ‘finished growing or permanently grown’, i.e. duratively.

Because of the predominantly monosyllabic nature of the Proto-Language, there was a pattern of associating a single monosyllable with a single (if broad) concept; and this produced an inclination to regularize the new pseudo-compounds with the system by making them into monosyllables.

This, combined with the natural tendency for stress-unaccented vowels to be less prominent than stress-accented vowels, produced true compounds, created by suppression of the second vowel of a pseudo-compound:

ROM[H]^(o)
[ *rohm ]
’adult’

For those who who like to speak the Proto-Language, I am going to recommend a pronunciation of /e:, a:, o:/ (i.e. prolonged length) for the vowel sequences of V + aspirated nasal, and a vowel-glide to indicate whether the suppressed second vowel of a compound was E, namely /i/ or O, namely /u/ so that ROM[H]^(o) will be pronounced /ro:^um/.

Pseudo-compounds also occurred in the predicate or comment position (‘verbal’). A sentence like:

M[H]O T[?]A R[H]A
[ / hmo da Ra \ ]
’the human causes the hand to fly = trembles’

became, when stress-accented initially:

M[H]O T[?]AR[H]
[ / hmo daR \ ]
’the human is nervous (is in a state characterized by trembling of the hand.’

When the sequence T[?]A(-)R[H](A) began to be felt as a compound meaning ‘tremble’ rather than as two words meaning ‘hand + fly’, it was, perhaps, inevitable that a new stress-accentual pattern of ^{- v} (iambic) would be established, and associated with momentary activity, to contrast with the trochaic pattern ( ^{v -} ) of the duratives:

M[H]O T[?]AR[H]A
[ / hmo da-Ra \ ]
’the human trembles.’

It is important to keep in mind that durative does not mean progressive, for which -¿E was used. ‘Progressive’ deals with action which persists over a period of time without implying any lasting effect. ‘Durative’ is a condition which results after some action or activity.

Some readers may be interested in a fuller discussion of momentary-durative phenomena.

One of the major effects of this new device was to be able to create true compounds that distinguished some of the categories of ideas that had been included in the broad meanings of the monosyllables. For example, R[H]E, which meant ‘a creature which throws itself down onto something’, and included the meanings of ‘rain’ and ‘panther’, could now be separated into R[H]E, ‘rain’, and R[H]E- P[?]FE, ‘panther’, which was composed of R[H]E + P[?]FE, ‘foot, track’, and eventually became R[H]EP[?]F^e (Reibv). This formative was extensively used for names of animals: ?E¿EP[?]F^(e) ((?)eyeibv), ‘elephant’, from ?E ((?)e), ‘tooth’, through ?E¿^(e) ((?)eiy), ‘tusk’.

As the language developed, single monosyllable nouns were gradually phased out; and new compounds like R[H]EK[?]X^(o) (Reugzh), ‘rain(-puddle)’, from R[H]E (Re), ‘rain’, plus K[?]XO (gzho), ‘hole’, supplanted monosyllabic nouns like R[H]E; or new unrelated compounds supplanted them: P[H]FE (pfe), ‘lion’, lives on in PHFER[H]ⁱ (pfeiR), ‘leopard (‘lion+panther’)’, but has been supplanted by R[H]OF[H]^o (Rouf), ‘lion (‘antelope+predator’)’.

A very important subset of the pseudo-compounds was that produced by reduplicating the monosyllable, which had two forms, depending on how it was stress-accented:

With an initial stress-accent, the nominal interpretation of reduplication was ‘totality’:

M[H]O-M[H]O
[ hmo-hmo ]
’all humans’ = ‘humanity’

With a final stress-accent,

M[H]O-M[H]O
[ hmo-hmo ]
’every human’

With an initial stress-accent, the verbal interpretation of reduplication was ‘gnomic’:

M[H]O-M[H]O
[ hmo-hmo ]
’is always in a state of wandering = gone physically or mentally’

With a final stress-accent,

M[H]O-M[H]O
[ hmo-hmo ]
’always wanders’

Probably the single most important compound in terms of its distribution and later employment was ¿E, '-like', which grew out of a specialized use of ¿E (ye), 'abdomen, speak, word'.

The original use of this monosyllable was to designate 'a word relating to something', i.e., ?A, 'here': ?A¿ⁱ ((?)aiy), 'family' = 'those relating to the immediate presence'.

But ?A itself had meant 'family' in its broader and earlier significance so that another interpretation of ?A¿ⁱ was 'something relating to a family'; when combined with a element like P[?]FO (bvo), 'leg, place', produced ?A¿EP[?]F^o ((?)ayeubv), 'family residence'.

It is important to notice that the stress-accent shifted one syllable to the right when a new compound was formed from an existing compound:

?A¿E + P[?]FO becomes ?A¿E + P[?]FO

Now, an earlier state of affairs, during which a stress-accented noun without the addition of ¿E could form analogous compounds is showed by, for example:

*M[H]ONA, 'human-rock' , becomes M[H]ON (hmon), 'testicle'

Addition of this element formed what we have to interpret as a adjective or a genitive (possessive):

M[H]O¿ⁱ (from *M[H]O-¿E) T[?]A
[ hmoiy da ]
’hand pertaining to the human' = 'the human's hand'

There were many other common elements which formed compounds (with or without the interpolation of ¿E) which allowed the speakers of the Proto- Language to more narrowly specify the quantities associated with nouns, which, from our perspective, we would regard as formants constituting inflection of the noun, and which allowed nuances that most modern languages express but rarely. Since these were second elements of compounds, a distinction was made between the appropriate 'quanitifier' for an inanimate or animate first element:

M[H]OS[H]ⁱ (hmois) was a 'human-singleton' or 'single human' but T[?]ASⁱ (daiz) was a 'hand- singleton' or 'single hand'.



M[H]OF[H] (hmof) was a 'human-small-number' or 'small number of humans' (which developed into a dual in many derived languages) but T[?]AF (dav) was a 'hand-small-number' or 'small number of hands'.

Several other 'formants' are listed in the vocabulary below.






Vocabulary



For a complete list of the Proto-Language monosyllabic vocabulary, press here.

?A¿ⁱ ((?)aiy), family
?A¿EP[?]F^o ((?)ayeubv), family residence
?E¿^(e) ((?)eiy), tusk
?E¿EP[?]F^(e) ((?)eyeibv), elephant
¿A {see HHA below}
FA / F[H]A (va / fa), small definite amount / number of . . .
HHA / ¿A (xa / ya), many, much
M[H]ON (hmon), testicle
NA / N[H]A (na / hna), one definite, the (singular)
P[?]A / P[H]A (ba / pa), a piece (half) / portion of . . .
PHFER[H]ⁱ (pfeiR), leopard
RE / R[H]E (re / Re), any
R[H]EK[?]X^(o) (Reugzh), rain(-puddle)
R[H]EP[?]F^(e) (Reibv), panther
R[H]OF[H]^o (Rouf), lion
ROM[H]^(o) (ro:um), adult
SE / S[H]E (ze / se), one single
T[?]A¿ⁱ (daiy), digit, finger (for T[?]SE (dze)
T[?]AR[H] (daR), nervous
T[?]AR[H]A (daRa), tremble
T[?]O / T[H]O (do / to), large definite amount / number of . . .
XA / X[H]A (zha / sha), lots of . . . (very large indefinite amount / number of . . .)

continue to Proto-Language Primer (Part Two) ?

return to

The Proto-Language (5) ?, (4) ?, (3) ?, (2) ?, (1) ?,

or

(INDEX) ?