Print

Print


 >> > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
>> > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
>> > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
>>
>> As am I.

>And I.

Speaking of which, when the time comes I must ask advice on this.


-Yash Tulsyan


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> (Sorry Joerg! Yahoo screwed up the reply to again... And by the way, thank
> you for clarifying / amplifying some aspects of my reply!)
>
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Friday 13 September 2013 01:06:04 Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> > > OTOH, Yash has indicated that this is a proto-language. Proto-languages
> > > often do look artificially regular thanks to the disappearance of
> > > certain irregularities from all attested branches.
> >
> > Indeed, though I think part of this must come from the fact that when WE
> > look at proto-languages, we are looking at them / constructing them
> > BACKWARDS. We don't see them as one point along a continuum so much as a
> > spring whence flows all the descendent languages. Neither PIE nor
> > Nostratic is anywhere close to being such a starting point. They are
> > simply wayposts along the way.
>
> Very much so.  It is a common misunderstanding that these
> "proto-languages" were original languages without ancestors.
> This is often found in the popular press, and partly fuelled
> by the misfortunate use of the word "protolanguage" in
> language origins studies for a hypothetical stage in the
> evolution of Language (this is mainly Derek Bickerton's fault
> - yes, the same Derek Bickerton who gave us the nonsensical
> "bioprogram hypothesis").  Of course, there are creationists
> who opine that languages such as Proto-Indo-European and
> Proto-Uralic were among those languages that came into being
> with the Confusion of Tongues at Babel.  I think it need not
> be said what kind of bullshit that is.
>
> >       Another part is our tendency to rely on
> > reconstructions as if they were the real thing. PIE is *not* a real
> > language. It's what scholars think is pretty close to what some real
> > language might have been like.
>
> Also correct.  They are only models of languages that are lost
> in time, not the lost languages themselves.
>
> > I had simply assumed that Yash's proto-language was not, like Charlie's
> > Senjecas, The Original Language, so much as a language from some point in
> > the midst of the history of those wandering nomadic barbarians he
> > mentions.
>
> At least, this is what I understand it to be like, too.  The
> language of a prehistoric culture (quite similar to the
> mainstream view of the Proto-Indo-Europeans) in a particular
> conworld which has a number of descendants to be worked out,
> not The Original Language of that conworld.
>
> > If we look at a proto-language from the perspective of its own speakers,
> we
> > see that it has antecedents and could very well evolve into descendants.
> > If it survives the rigors of civilisation!
>
> Very certainly so.  PIE was about 5,000 to 6,000 years before
> our time (OK, there are people who'd like to add a few thousand
> years to this figure, but even that doesn't matter much as it
> doesn't change the argument), while it is pretty certain that
> human beings have been using full-fledged languages (and not
> "protolanguages" in the Bickertonian sense) for about 20 times
> as long if not longer.
>
> > > If the original immigrants were small in number, but
> > > derived from an alliance of even smaller groups, one could get a highly
> > > regular language.
> >
> > I suppose like a creole. Only Yash can answer these kinds of questions.
>
> Yep.
>
> > > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
> > > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
> > > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
> >
> > As am I.
>
> And I.
>
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
>