The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Conworlds and conlangs
Post Reply
User avatar
dɮ the phoneme
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:53 am
Location: On either side of the tongue, below the alveolar ridge
Contact:

The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by dɮ the phoneme »

Preliminary Notes on the Conworld

I had some maps showing bits and pieces of the as-yet (and probably forever) unnamed conworld in which the Yonutian languages live, but I lost those maps ages ago and have yet to get around to making new ones. As soon as I do, I'll add them here for increased clarity. Until then, I hope vague geographical descriptions will suffice. The exact geography isn't super important here, so it shouldn't be too much of a concern. The main thing to keep in mind is that most of the land in this world is concentrated in a single large continent, tentatively dubbed Yā Yen ('All Land' in Classical Yorshorzha), perhaps a bit bigger than Africa and Eurasia taken together. This continent is roughly ┌ shaped, stretching from the northern to the southern hemisphere. Hwatsonichia refers to the region of northwestern Yā Yen around the continent's "elbow", so to speak.

So What's This 'Yonutian'

Yonutian is a language family, one of many originating in Hwatsonichia. In some ways, Yonutian is a bit like this world's equivalent to Indo-European; it's of a similar time depth to IE, with Proto-Yonutian spoken about seven or eight millennia before the time I've (mostly arbitrarily) designated as 'present', and it's of a similar geographical scope. Yonutian includes a number of culturally and historically important languages of the north-central and northwestern regions of Yā Yen, as well as a massive number of smaller languages in a multitude of subfamilies. The earliest attested written language of Yā Yen was Old Halka, a Yonutian language of the Steppe-Yonutian subbranch, found in inscriptions in eastern Hwatsonichia from about the mid sixth millennium BP. Old Halka would later lend its writing system to the unrelated Shorzhic Language, eventually birthing the standardized literary form Classical Yorshorzha, which would become and remain the most influential written language in Hwatsonichia for some four thousand years.

Yonutian itself can be divided into four primary branches: Northern-Yonutian, Western-Yonutian, Steppe-Yonutian, and Tujjo-Yonutian. Northern-Yonutian comprises a number of small families of closely related languages spoken in the extreme northern reaches of the continent, and on the many island chains extending up into the arctic circle. Western-Yonutian is the largest subfamily, comprising most of the languages of present day Hwatsonichia, followed distantly by Steppe-Yonutian. Tujjo-Yonutian, on the other hand, is the most geographically widespread Yonutian subfamily, containing all Yonutian languages spoken to the east of Hwatsonichia, and many spoken to the south. All together, the Yonutian languages are by far the largest family of Yā Yen, and arguably the most influential --though the Shorzhic or Eastern Desert languages are equally contenders for this position.

While some aspects of Yonutian's history and influence may resemble IE, the languages themselves couldn't be more different. Proto-Yonutian was a highly synthetic, agglutinative language, with polypersonal agreement, a split-ergative alignment based on an animacy hierarchy, and a highly developed, morphologized politeness system. The Northern, Western, and Steppe branches of the family maintain, to varying degrees, this synthetic and agglutinative nature, while Tujjo-Yonutian is as a whole highly eroded, with most members being analytic and, at most, mildly fusional.

I will be posting bits and pieces about the Yonutian languages in this thread as I develop them, more or less based on what I find most interesting. I'll begin with the Proto-Yonutian alignment system, in my next post.
Last edited by dɮ the phoneme on Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ye knowe eek that, in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.

(formerly Max1461)
User avatar
WeepingElf
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:39 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by WeepingElf »

That sounds interesting. This could be the beginning of something great. I am looking forward to seeing more of it!
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
My conlang pages
User avatar
mèþru
Posts: 1196
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:22 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by mèþru »

Same!
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť
User avatar
dɮ the phoneme
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:53 am
Location: On either side of the tongue, below the alveolar ridge
Contact:

Re: The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by dɮ the phoneme »

WeepingElf wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:59 am That sounds interesting. This could be the beginning of something great. I am looking forward to seeing more of it!
mèþru wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:22 pmSame!
Thanks! I'm very excited about this particular project, so I'm glad others find it interesting as well!

Some Stuff About the Proto-Yonutians Themselves

Before moving on to the language(s), I'll give some brief ethnographic notes about the Proto-Yonutian people. This part is still very much a work-in-progress, so it's potentially likely to change a bit, and will certainly be expanded as I develop it further.

The Proto-Yonutians were a people living in the region of the Yonut mountains (Yonutia), in northeastern Hwatsonichia, around the seventh or eighth millennium BP. They were semi-sedentary, practicing a mixture of hunting, gathering, and forest horticulture. Agriculture was already well established to the south in Naria (where Old Halka would eventually be spoken), but the maize-like cereal grains domesticated in Naria where completely unfit for cultivation in the colder climate of the Yonutia.

Proto-Yonutian religious practice was essentially animist, shamanistic, and centered around ancestor worship and veneration of the dead. These beliefs were tied in to the use of a system of avoidance registers for speaking to and about the spirits, including nature spirits and dead ancestors. The Proto-Yonutian kinship system was accordingly quite complex, but I've yet to work out the details. This religious system has in essence survived into the present day on the far western edge of the continent, though with strong mutual influence from the (also animistic) religious practices of the Unyk-Tohhai peoples of that region. To the east, however, these traditional practices have largely been replaced by the ascetic pantheism common to the region (and further exported westward by the Shorzhic Empire).

Ok, Now, Morphosyntactic Alignment in Proto-Yonutian

In terms of morphosyntactic alignment, Proto-Yonutian functions on a split-ergative system, which respects an animacy hierarchy of the form 1, 2 > 3 > Human > Non-Human Animate > Inanimate. Verbal agreement marking, as well as the case marking of NPs referencing discourse participants —first and second person pronouns— is marked according to an accusative system. All independent noun phrases lower on the hierarchy, including third person pronouns and other nominals, are marked according to an ergative system. Both animacy and information structure play a central role in Proto-Yonutian’s alignment. Special constructions involving valency shifts are employed when an entity lower on the animacy hierarchy is the agent of a clause with a higher entity as patient, and the choice of which construction to employ is dependent on information structure.

In terms of verbal agreement, Proto-Yonutian is consistently accusative. There is polypersonal agreement in transitive clauses, and the agreement morphology on intransitive verbs matches the agent agreement morphology employed for transitives.

k-os-qolqu-q te-s-haʈʈu-s-o b-os-boʂʈu-s
M-SG-male.bear-ERG 3sg.M.A-3sg.N.P-eat-ACT-PST N-SG-bird-ABS
"A (male) bear ate the bird."

pa-mfe-suʈu-s-o k-os-qolqu-s
1.A-3sg.M.P-see-ACT-PST M-SG-male.bear-ABS
"I saw a (male) bear."

k-os-qolqu-s te-piɻo-s-o
M-SG-male.bear-ABS 3sg.M.A-come-ACT-PST
"A (male) bear came."

Highest on the animacy hierarchy are discourse participants —principally first and second person pronouns. Independent pronouns rarely occur as core arguments in Proto-Yonutian, with verbal agreement typically conveying pronominal information. Pronouns are only found as core arguments when in focus, or in the A=T inverse construction (explained below). In both cases, marking is structured accusatively. In focus constructions where the pronoun appears as a transitive agent, it takes its unmarked form.

ɻajan nu-s-haʈʈu-s-o b-os-boʂʈu-s
2sg.F 2sg.A-3sg.N.P-eat-ACT-PST N-SG-bird-ABS
"It was you who ate the chicken!"

In focus constructions where the focused pronoun appears as a patient, it takes the accusative case marker -hi.

ba, nes-hi nu-n-𝛘urnu-s-o! nu-finɟe-s-iʈ?
no, 1sg.M-ACC 2sg.A-1sg.P-hit-ACT-PST. 2sg.A-remember-ACT-NPST?
"No, you hit me. Don't you remember?"

In A=T inverse constructions, too, pronominal patients are marked in the accusative. Independent pronominal agents never appear in these constructions.

k-os-qolqu-s te-suʈu-k-iʈ ɻus-hi
M-SG-male.bear-ABS 3sg.M.A-see-ANTIP-NPST 2sg.M-ACC
"The bear will see you!"

Third person nominals, including both third person pronouns and full nouns, are marked according to an ergative system. Third person nominals take an ergative suffix, -q, when acting as the agent in transitive clause; they take an absolutive suffix, -s, when acting as patient

k-os-qolqu-q te-s-haʈʈu-s-o b-os-boʂʈu-s
M-SG-male.bear-ERG 3sg.M.A-3sg.N.P-eat-ACT-PST N-SG-bird-ABS
"A (male) bear ate the bird."

In intransitive clauses, third person subjects take the absolutive.

k-os-qolqu-s te-piɻo-s-o
M-SG-male.bear-ABS 3sg.M.A-come-ACT-PST
"A (male) bear came."

When an agent is lower on the animacy hierarchy than the patient, ergative marking of the agent is disallowed. In this scenario, special "inverse constructions" are employed, based on the topicality of the agent. If the agent is topical, the A=T (Agent=Topic) inverse construction is used; in the A=T construction, the verb occurs in antipassive form —typically a valency-reducing operation. The less-animate agent takes the absolutive case, while the more-animate patient takes the accusative. In accordance with the (ordinarily) valency-reducing nature of the antipassive, only agreement with the agent is marked.

apa, k-os-qolqu-s(=es) te-haʈʈu-k-o hamfe-hi
and.then, M-SG-male.bear-ABS(=es) 3sg.M.A-eat-ANTIP-PST 3sg.M-ACC
"And then, the bear ate him."

The topic enclitic =es is only obligatory if the agent is just being introduced as the topic. If its topical status has already been established, es is not found.

On the other hand, the P=T (Patient=Topic) inverse construction is employed when the patient is topical. In the P=T construction, the verb is marked in what I'm calling the intransitive voice. Here, the patient is marked in the absolutive —or, in the case of a 1st/2nd person pronoun, unmarked— and effects verbal agreement, while inclusion of an explicit agent is optional, with marking in the ablative case.

apa, (hamfe=es) te-haʈʈu-mb-o (k-os-qolqu-t)
and.then, (3sg.M-top) 3sg.M.A-eat-INTRANS-PST (M-SG-male.bear-ABL)
"And then, he was eaten (by a bear)."

This more-or-less follows the ordinary usage of the intransitive voice, which generally serves to demote an agent to an oblique (the ablative), reducing valency by 1. Again, the topic enclitic =es (and, in fact, the presence of an explicit pronoun) is only obligatory if the patient is being introduced as the topic, otherwise it is omitted.
Ye knowe eek that, in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.

(formerly Max1461)
evmdbm
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:07 am

Re: The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by evmdbm »

[
Max1461 wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:00 pm When an agent is lower on the animacy hierarchy than the patient, ergative marking of the agent is disallowed. In this scenario, special "inverse constructions" are employed, based on the topicality of the agent. If the agent is topical, the A=T (Agent=Topic) inverse construction is used; in the A=T construction, the verb occurs in antipassive form —typically a valency-reducing operation. The less-animate agent takes the absolutive case, while the more-animate patient takes the accusative. In accordance with the (ordinarily) valency-reducing nature of the antipassive, only agreement with the agent is marked.

apa, k-os-qolqu-s(=es) te-haʈʈu-k-o hamfe-hi
and.then, M-SG-male.bear-ABS(=es) 3sg.M.A-eat-ANTIP-PST 3sg.M-ACC
"And then, the bear ate him."

The topic enclitic =es is only obligatory if the agent is just being introduced as the topic. If its topical status has already been established, es is not found.

On the other hand, the P=T (Patient=Topic) inverse construction is employed when the patient is topical. In the P=T construction, the verb is marked in what I'm calling the intransitive voice. Here, the patient is marked in the absolutive —or, in the case of a 1st/2nd person pronoun, unmarked— and effects verbal agreement, while inclusion of an explicit agent is optional, with marking in the ablative case.

apa, (hamfe=es) te-haʈʈu-mb-o (k-os-qolqu-t)
and.then, (3sg.M-top) 3sg.M.A-eat-INTRANS-PST (M-SG-male.bear-ABL)
"And then, he was eaten (by a bear)."
Is topicality basically emphasis then? Are we choosing to emphasise the bear when we use the anti-passive and the patient when we use the intransitive?

Incidentally I know I wax lyrical on Telpahke, but I like this too!
User avatar
dɮ the phoneme
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:53 am
Location: On either side of the tongue, below the alveolar ridge
Contact:

Re: The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by dɮ the phoneme »

Proto-Yonutian Nominal Inflection

On to nominal morphology. All Proto-Yonutian content roots are bisyllabic, with a CV(C)CV structure. This applies to both nouns and verbs, and both verb > noun and noun > verb zero-derivation is commonplace. Nominal and verb morphology are in many ways similar: both make use of suffixation as well as prefixation, and quite distinctively, both paradigms exhibit head-marking as well as dependent-marking (I'll expand on this when I do verb morphology). The basic template of nominal inflection is

(CLASS_2)-CLASS-NUMBER-stem-CASE(-CASE_2).

I'll expand on "CASE_2" and "CLASS_2" further below. A stem can either be a nominal root, a nominal root together with some number of derivational affixes, a nominal compound, or so on.

Class

First, to discuss class. Proto-Yonutian nouns are divided into five classes: masculine, feminine, neuter, inanimate, and locative. These classes are assigned on a largely semantic basis, and are basically exactly what they sound like. All animate nouns are either masculine, feminine, or neuter. Most species of large animal that would have been familiar to the Proto-Yonutians have distinct roots for masculine and feminine forms, e.g. -qolqu ‘male bear’ (m), -ɟoɟo ‘female bear’ (f), -niʂʂu ‘male horse’ (m), -hipo ‘female horse’ (f), -hosna ‘male dog’ (m), -qoji ‘female dog’ (f), etc. Names of people, too, are always either masculine or feminine. Neuter is reserved for more generic animate nouns, e.g. -pahe ‘person’ (n), -boʂʈu ‘bird’ (n), etc., though many of these nouns can also take masculine or feminine marking for a more specified reading (ju-ɟi-pahe ‘some women’, with the feminine prefix ju-).

The locative class is reserved for nouns denoting locations, whether specific or generic: -qoppu ‘grove’ (loc), -filhe ‘grassland’ (loc), -wisɟa ‘Mt. Wisja’ (loc). Locative nouns also behave differently from other nouns with respect to case marking. For many verbs of motion, for example, a locative can take direct object marking to indicate a destination, while other nouns must take the lative. For example, one might say:

pa-ɻle-piɻo-s-o ɻi-wisɟa-s
1sg.A-3sg.LOC.P-go-ACT-PST LOC-Wisja-ABS
"I went to Mt. Wisja."

pa-piɻo-s-o s-os-muhe-staʈ
1sg.A-go-ACT-PST INAN-SG-tent-LAT
"I went to my tent."

but never:

*pa-∅-piɻo-s-o s-os-muhe-s
1sg.A-3sg.INAN.P-go-ACT-PST INAN-SG-tent-ABS
"I went to my tent."

If one is heading to a specific location within a more general one, or going somewhere (a locative) in order to get to some specific thing (a noun of another class), these two types of marking can be combined.

pa-ɻle-piɻo-s-o ɻi-wisɟa-s s-os-muhe-staʈ
1sg.A-3sg.LOC.P-go-ACT-PST LOC-Wisja-ABS INAN-SG-tent-LAT
"I went to my tent (on) Mt. Wisja."

Class marking is obligatory on all nouns, and takes the form of prefixation. The class prefixes are:

masculine ke-
feminine ju-
neuter be-
inanimate so-
locative ɻi-

These prefixes lose their final vowels before the vowel-initial singular prefix os-, in order to maintain Proto-Yonutian's CV(C) syllable structure.

The class system survives intact into the proto-language of each primary branch of the family, but beyond that is only maintained in its full form in the most archaic Yonutian languages, such as Old Halka (Steppe-Yonutian) and Sqólq (Tujjo-Yonutian). I'll expand on each development on a language-by-language basis, when I start talking about the daughter languages.

Number

Number marking is pretty simple. There are two numbers, singular and plural, marked with the prefixes os- and ɟi-, respectively. Number is never marked on proper nouns, and is mandatory on animate nouns. For inanimates and locatives, I'm thinking that explicit number marking will indicate definiteness. I may expand this to all nouns, but I'm not sure.

Case

Proto-Yonutian marks nine cases, with suffixes given in the table below:

ergative -q
absolutive -s
accusative -hi
dative -ntit
genitive -ssi
ablative -t
lative -staʈ
inessive
adessive -ɻle

There's not a whole lot to say about the case marking at this point. These suffixes are entirely regular, attaching directly to the verb stem. Case marking tends to have interesting and irregular results in the daughter languages, due to the effects of Proto-Yonutian's strong penultimate stress and associated elision and vowel merges. For now, though, it's straightforwardly agglutinating.

Affix Stacking

Proto-Yonutian exhibits class and case stacking: when one noun modifies another (typically in the genitive or ablative), it takes additional class and case affixes (labeled 'CLASS_2' and 'CASE_2' in the template above), indicating agreement with the head noun; this follows the pattern of adjectives agreeing in case and class with the head noun.

s-os-boqte-s so-k-os-dema-ssi-s
INAN-SG-urn-ABS INAN-M-SG-man-GEN-ABS
‘The man's urn’

Now, this may seem a bit cumbersome. However, noun-noun relational categories like possession are often not explicitly marked. When the possessor is topical, for example, no explicit genitive is necessary.

k-os-baɻe-q te-∅-teqos-topqe-s-i pa-piɻo-s-u pa-∅-hiɻʈu-s-i s-os-kopu-s, pa-piɻo-s-o.
M-SG-chief-ERG 3sg.M.A-3sg.INAN.P-HON-order-ACT-CNV 1sg.A-go-ACT-INF 1sg.A-3sg.INAN.P-retrieve-ACT-CNV INAN-SG-axe-ABS, 1sg.A-go-ACT-PST
"The chief ordered (honorific) that I go and retrieve him (his) axe, so I went. "

That, I believe, covers the main point of nominal inflection in Proto-Yonutian. I think I'll move on to sound changes and other developments for the daughter languages in my next post. Verb morphology is an absolute can of worms that I'm by no mean ready to open, but it will come eventually.
Ye knowe eek that, in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.

(formerly Max1461)
User avatar
dɮ the phoneme
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:53 am
Location: On either side of the tongue, below the alveolar ridge
Contact:

Re: The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by dɮ the phoneme »

evmdbm wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:25 am Is topicality basically emphasis then? Are we choosing to emphasise the bear when we use the anti-passive and the patient when we use the intransitive?
Emphasis is more like focus. Topic is typically reserved for "old information"; somewhat like what you might use a definite article for in English. Topics tend not to be emphasized, in the traditional sense. In my example, people were probably already talking about the bear (which is why I included 'and then'), so the relevance of the bear to the discourse was already known, "old" information.
evmdbm wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:25 am Incidentally I know I wax lyrical on Telpahke, but I like this too!
Thank you!
Ye knowe eek that, in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do.

(formerly Max1461)
User avatar
dewrad
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:57 am

Re: The Yonutian Language Family (Scratchpad, I guess?)

Post by dewrad »

I approve deeply of this. More please!
Post Reply