|
|
|
| ||||
In recent centuries it has become clear that many of the major languages of Ereláe belong to a single family.
The similarity of Cuêzi and Caďinor was noted in ancient times (indeed, In the land of babblers remarks on it, and rehearses the Cuzeians' thinking on the matter; Beretos' conclusion is that it results from the Caďinorians' attempts to imitate Cuêzi); but the extent of the Eastern family did not become apparent until Verdurians became more familiar with Xurnese, and then Axunašin, some two centuries ago.
Over time it was increasingly recognized that these languages were all related; and Caizu, Obenzayet, Eluye-Makši, and Kešvareni were gradually added to the new family (named Sarise, Eastern, to distinguish it from the languages of the western barbarians).
Here are the major branches and subbranches of the family, with representative members. (+ indicates a dead language.)
The reconstruction of proto-Eastern has proceeded according to principles similar to those used to reconstruct Indo-European.
Serious reconstruction has only been attempted in the present century. The first attempt was published by Ružeon in 3442; he and others continued their studies at the University of Verduria (with some assistance from Žésifo and Avéla), culminating in the publication of Dekaši Perëi Řonei (Discovery of the First Language), under the editorship of Ružeon's student Sarileya, in 3473.
The University's effort is highly respectable, but contains serious flaws— most notably an overemphasis on Caďinor and Cuêzi, ignorance of the Čia-Ša languages, inattention to clues offered by minor languages (including Kaini and Ṭeôši), and an occasional overactivity of imagination. This chapter presents my own reconstruction, which given the additional data available and the greater rigor of terrestrial linguistics, must be seen as the most accurate attempt yet to reconstruct the tongue of the Easterners.
Plausible-sounding rules, varying word by word according to the scholar's fancy, allow the misguided to derive any language from any other, and can be seen in schemes deriving all terrestrial languages, from Swahili to Finnish, from Hebrew; or the Avélan scholar Pirosolom's derivation of Caďinor, Kebreni, Eluye-Makši, Western, Skourene, and Qaraumcán (but not Xurnese, which he considered 'devilish') from Cuêzi.
Linguists rely on the comparative method: searching various languages for regular sound correspondances, positing sound changes to account for them, and then reconstructing the historical ancestor of the compared languages. This is the process which has been used to reconstruct proto-Indo-European (and proto-Eastern); the method can be tested (and has been, successfully) by applying it the Romance languages to reconstruct late Vulgar Latin.
If you apply the method to unrelated languages, you get precisely nothing, which is another check on the technique.
The first step, looking for sound correspondances, can be illustrated by listing the following words in several Eastern languages:
From these words— and many others; it must be emphasized that the method relies on the painstaking comparison of literally hundreds of words, not just a few— there seems to be some kind of correspondance going on:
Cuêzi Caďinor Axunašin Obenzayet Lufaša bāsi faucir šagi hägia fä bērede veredes šeirvi häraziz fei ferêde vehend šejiz haʔäd fe fōre fortes šour häriz fou fuse futes šudi hudiz fü
It is not enough, however, to state that "an f in Lufaša corresponds to a š in Axunašin, a b or an f in Cuêzi, to an f or a v in Caďinor, and to an h in Obenzayet." We must respect the principle—in terrestrial linguistics due to the 19th century German Neo-Grammarians, in Almean to Ružeon and his colleagues— of the regularity of sound change: sound changes are not sporadic, but occur without fail in the proper phonetic environment.
Cuêzi Caďinor Axunašin Obenzayet Lufaša b/f f/v š h f
The proper environment in this case may or may not be evident from our small example; but a larger data set (such as the Lexicon) makes it clear: in words which begin with f in Lufaša and an h in Obenzayet, an initial b occurs in Cuêzi before a long a: or ē, and an initial v occurs in Caďinor before a front vowel (i, e).
We can now reconstruct an initial *f in proto-Eastern for all of these words, which via a regular sound change has changed to b or v in certain environments in Cuêzi and Caďinor. And then we move on to other initials; to the medials; to the vowels... it is a prodigious task.
Special emphasis is laid, in reconstruction work, on comparing paradigms (complete sets of inflected forms), rather than simple words. Correspondences like
are riveting for the historical linguist; almost any word can be borrowed, but the everyday inflections of the language almost never.
lūvāo, lūvēo, lūve (Cuêzi) liubao, liubeos, liubes... (Caďinor) ruweu, ruwiu, ruwe.. (Axunašin) lüva la, lüvalaz, lüviz...(Obenzayet)
From such work we can reconstruct not only the sounds and the lexical items of the protolanguage, but whole inflectional paradigms.
Sound changes may obscure earlier morphological rules and make them unproductive, creating irregular paradigms. For instance, the proto-Eastern pattern of short root vowels in the singular and long vowels or diphthongs in the plural, with a uniform set of case endings, has become confused in almost every Eastern language, so that Caďinor, for instance, has ten nominal declensions where proto-Eastern has just three.
Language is tolerant of a certain amount of irregularity; but often a paradigm will be regularized, approximating an existing regular paradigm, or creating a new one. Cuêzi, for instance, has made the declension of pronouns resemble that of the nouns.
The classical form of such readjustment is analogy: one set of forms is made to resemble another, usually more common set. The first adjectival declension in Cuêzi, for instance, over time absorbed a feature of the second and third, namely the identity of masculine and neuter forms.
Writing tends to standardize a language, as speakers of different dialects write in a standard orthography, and a literary standard is consciously imitated. Philologists bless and curse writing: it is their only record of language in former times, but it also obscures linguistic change. The extreme case is Axunášin, which was written using the phonetic glyphs of ancient times even as the language radically changed. (It uses a morphosyllabic script, but this nonetheless encodes much phonetic information.) The result is that we know Old Xurnese only through reconstructions.
Another major source of linguistic change is borrowing. The most familiar cases are lexical borrowing and loan-translation, seen in the hundreds of Caďinor words which derive from Cuêzi. Once borrowed, of course, the word undergoes the linguistic changes of the recipient language. Languages, especially in prolonged bilingual situations, are also known to borrow syntax, morphology, and even phonetics, to the point of obscuring actual paths of derivation; this helps explain why Verdurian scholars have not recognized the affinity of the Čia-Ša languages to their own.
By the time of the invasion, the Easterners were familiar with the horse, with bronze-working, the bow and arrow, and at least the beginnings of agriculture. None of these technologies were their own invention; the Kagöt had domesticated the horse, while the other technologies were first developed by the Wede:i. Theirs was the first "barbarian invasion" of the plains; and yet it differed from those which the nomads of the steppes unleashed centuries later on their civilized descendants. The Easterners lived in the temperate forests and grasslands of Bolon, not on the steppe; and they had not mastered the use of horses in battle. The Wede:i describe them riding their horses to the very edge of their enemies' cities, then dismounting to make their attack on foot. Their military advantage was speed and the war-readiness of the entire adult male population.
Much of our information on the Easterners derives from the linguistic reconstruction described in this chapter. Not surprisingly, for instance, there are no reconstructed words for reading or writing: the Easterners were illiterate. Nor are there words for 'city', 'temple', 'bridge,' or other tell-tales of urbanization. More interestingly, there exist only a bare minimum of agricultural terms (and no words for 'plow', 'farm', 'crop', or 'harvest'); while words such as *onkou 'herd', *tsērer 'tend', *yagem 'hunt' bespeak a familiarity with animal-herding and hunting. Probably the Easterners, like some American Indian tribes, would plant gardens (*ktats) to supplement what they could gain from herding, hunting, and gathering. Most likely they had no permanent settlements (and indeed there are no reconstructed words for 'city' or 'town').
A number of religious words have been reconstructed, including *nūmiu 'god', *fakus 'shrine', *nēr and *ɣrem 'holy', *fants 'spirit'. And the name of one god can be confidently reconstructed: *Endānor— the source for the Verdurian Enäron, the pre-Endajué Xurnese Inbámu, and even the Cuzeian Eīledan. No other names of gods can be reconstructed, from which some scholars have concluded that the Easterners were monotheists. But only the Cuzeians, among the ancient Eastern peoples, are known to be monotheists; and Cuzeian religion derives from that of the ilii. It seems more likely that each clan had its own gods, and perhaps occasionally abandoned one god for another; so only the chief of the gods was remembered by all the peoples (and among the Axunašin he did not even retain his rank; Inbámu holds a subsidiary position to Meša).
Quite a few animal and plant names can be reconstructed, including *bēts 'cock', *bōna 'cow', *ksūta 'pig', *feɣends 'deer', *mots 'sheep', *tīpal 'horse', *ures 'bear', *ɣaprou 'goat', *abrēna 'oats', *akrens 'maple', *grēlu 'wheat', *xogre 'barley'; not to mention *ɣolps 'fruit' and *xufs 'egg'. *ɣāti 'pot' and *ɣipam 'boil' point to an acquaintance with cooking. (Naturally all these terms refer to Almean plants and animals, for which I have supplied the closest terrestrial equivalent.)
Environmental terms include *ayti 'pond', *luti 'meadow', *bāruma 'mountain', and *gēlere 'river'; the absence of any common term for 'sea' confirms the inland origin of the Easterners. (Caďinor and Cuêzi adapted *sīwai 'lake' to mean 'sea'; Axunašin borrowed a Wede:i word, go:rtu.) The existence of *rūts 'ice' and *nīkte 'snow' is also suitable for Bolon.
Family terms are numerous: *ɣīra 'wife', *mīdor 'mother', *pīdor 'father', *sādor 'sister', *baredū 'brother', *abor 'grandfather', *nepou 'nephew'; note also *nōs 'wedding', *kawma 'hearth'. The Obenzayet reflex of *ɣīra is ʔïra 'slave', which doesn't say much for position of women among the Easterners; that we can reconstruct *sinor 'mother-in-law' but no term for 'father-in-law' may indicate that the wives got their revenge by dominating their children's spouses. The similarity of many of these words may derive from adding a uniform 'kinship suffix' *-dor to babytalk expressions. (For this reason it has been suggested that *baredū derives from an earlier *bādor. There is however no philological evidence for this reconstruction.)
Words such as *anōr 'elder', whose cognates all name positions of respect, as well as *maks 'master', *mēdor 'noble', *londs 'honor', *ōps 'wealth' indicate that Eastern society was far from egalitarian; *ox 'gold' even suggests what the wealth consisted of. In compensation there was the concept, and let us hope the pracice, of *rāfs 'justice'.
The numbers from 1 to 10, and the number 100 (*sikātu) can be reconstructed; but no higher numbers.
As with all else in proto-Eastern, the phonological system represented below is a reconstruction, based on evidence in derived languages. It is a phonemic reconstruction, meaning that this is the set of sounds recognized as distinctive, and capable of disambiguating words. A phoneme generally has several allophones, different means of articulation which will nonetheless be recognized by the language's speakers as "the same sound." For instance, it is widely believed that proto-Eastern l had both clear (l) and dark (l) variants, as they have sometimes diverged in derived languages.
Consonants
Vowels
labial alveolar velar plosives p t k b d g fricatives f s x ɣ nasals m n laterals l approximants r
short long high i u ī ū mid e o ē ō low a ā
Diphthongs
aw ay ey oy
Details of articulation are all highly speculative; but it is likely that none of the stops were aspirated, and that the middle articulation was alveolar, as in English, rather than dental.
x is clearly an unvoiced velar fricative. ɣ is more controversial, as can be imagined, given its reflexes in Caďinor /q/, Cuêzi /r/, Axunašin /ɟ/, and Obenzayet /ʔ/. I have taken it as the voiced equivalent of x, /ɣ/— directly attested only in the Čia-Ša languages, but a possible ancestor of all these phonemes (much more so than Ružeon's ʀ/, or Sarileya's /h/).
(Sarileya adds an ŋ to the nasal series, more for reasons symmetry than for any solid philological reasons. One Verdurian scholar, Nařou, has perfected the symmetry of the system by removing Sarileya's h. But real-world languages are rarely quite this pretty (compare the lack of voiced th in pre-Hellenic Greek, or of voiced gh in German); and the derivation of /q/, /ɟ/, /r/, etc. from /h/ stretches credulity. )
The vowels can be taken as IPA /a e i o u/. The short vowels differed mainly in quantity, but perhaps also in quality; they may have been pronounced as in pot pet pit caught put.
aw /aw/, ay /aj/, ey /ej/, and oy /oj/ are the only true diphthongs. Where w and y occur with other vowels they are consonantal; where other vowels occur together (e.g. *lubeor 'love') they form separate syllables.
(The University's reconstruction differs from mine, in addition to the points already mentioned, in positing a three-way tonal distinction among the vowels (ā â a), and in adding a neutral vowel ə. The former I consider an unjustified echo of Cuêzi, and the latter an ashcan, into which are tossed all the difficult etymologies in Eastern.)
Typical proto-Eastern roots thus include *fwal-, *ugn-, *lād-, *bāɣor, *ksor-. Examples of prohibited roots: *stōr-, *psuna-, *nāmnōt-, *gɣīp, *xass-.
The following abbreviations are used below in the descriptions of sound changes:
F = front vowel (i, ī, e, ē)
B = back vowel (o, ō, u, ū)
H = high vowel (i, u, ī, ū)
S = any oral stop
N = any nasal (n, m)
# = word boundary
|
Cuêzi | ||
| 1. | ø → o / [x,Vs,l] _s#
ø → os / x_# | gēs → yēsos → yēzos
ox → oxos |
| 2. | ø → a / C_s#
ø → e / C_# | dots → dotas
anōr → nōre; dul → dule |
| 3. | t → ø / V_#
s → ø / F_# | xūnit → xūni
rugetes → ruyise |
| 4. | l → : / _[stop]
r → u / _[stop, s] | kalkou → cāco
dorsas → douzas |
| 5. | f → b / #_[ā,ī,ē,i]
f → v / V_V b → v / V_V s → z / V_V t → s / (V,#)_F k → s / _i(:) k → s / V_F g → y / _F x → c / _i | fāxes → bāxe
rāfs → rāfas → rāvas lēbes → lēve kisir → sizi tīnama → sīma kisir → sizi ɣrukek → rusê rugites → ruyise twixis → tici |
| 6. | ɣ → x / _[u,w]
n → ø / ɣ_ ɣ → ø / _r | ɣwanca → xuâca
neɣne → nere ɣrem → rēme |
| 7. | r → l / _w
r → l /_...r | bērwes → bēlue
mēruɣs → mēlure; krurs → kluros → cloros |
| 8. | k → ^ / _#
m → ^ / _# r → ø / F_# | pelek → pelê
yagem → yayê kisir → sizi |
| 9. | s → ø / #t_
k → u / #_t k → u / #_s | tsērer → tēre
ktānem → utāne ksūta → usūta |
| 10. | u → i / _s# | manus → manis |
| 11. | n → ^ / [stop,s]
n → : / V[velar]_ s → ø / yt_ s → ^ / Vt_ k → ^ / _s k → ^ / _t | londs → lôdas; sons → sonsas → sôsas
ugne → ūne; rakni → rāci aytsas → aytas → āetas xotsex → xôtex kreksir → crêsi dekt → dêt |
| 12. | ɣ → r | ɣay → rāe |
| 13. | r → u / [k,g,b]_
p → b / _r t → d / _r | abrēna → abuēna; xogre → xogue
prenam → brinâ tragem → drayê |
| 14. | e → i / _[nasal]
u → a / [ū,ō]Cn_# w → ø / #_ | prenam → brinâ
klāgūtu → clāgūta wenka → eîca |
| 15. | e → ei, a → ae
in monosyllables | ber → beire |
| 16. | aw → āu
ay → āe ey → ēi oy → ōu | tawka → tāuca
aytsas → āetas leyfs → lēivas nōyns → nōumas |
| 17. | u → ø / o_#
ū → u / _# | onkou → ôco
xēkū → xēcu |
| 18. | k → c
w → u i → y / V_V | klāger → clāyē
andwōr → aduōre meiu → meyu |
| 19. | combine double vowels | kwunas → cuunas → cūnas |
| 20. | eliminate ^'s from any word with long vowels | mēlatses → mēlâte → mēlate |
|
Caďinor | ||
| 1. | b → p / #_[ā,ē]
g → c / #_[ā,ē] d → ď / _[u,w] t → ť / _[u,w] p → f / _u | bāɣor → pahor
gēlere → celere dūna → ďun xūnitu → ȟuniť crepū → crefu |
| 2. | nɣ → k | benɣe → beke |
| 3. | ɣ → h / _w
/ V_V → k elsewhere | ɣwors → huros
froɣes → frohes ɣīra → kira |
| 4. | u → ø / _# | aytsanu → aestan |
| 5. | ø → o / C_s#
ø → o / C_th# | xūns → ȟunos
xūnthu → xūnth → ȟunoť |
| 6. | f → v / V_V
/ #_F s → z / _[+long,-low] | brefes → breves
feɣend → vehend sōl → zol |
| 7. | ts → st
gn → ng ks → sc | ktatsit → ctastit
ugne → unge ksorū → scoru |
| 8. | m → n / _# | prenam → prenan |
| 9. | k → c
x → i / V_# x → ȟ elsewhere | kisir → cisir
ktofex → ctovei rīxam → riȟan |
| 10. | Vowel harmony. | sikātu → secath; lāboni → labanis; grelū → grilu
A change of vowel was obligatory when root vowels differed by two steps of height (e.g. bāruma → parena); sporadic if they differed by just one (rugetes → rugites). A long vowel did not change; if there was no long vowel, the second was the more likely to change. An unusual example of both vowels changing is waruns → ueronos. There was no requirement for harmony between root and affixes. The rule was not productive in later Caďinor (as witness such words as maȟila, faliles).) |
| 11. | w → ø / V_V
aw →u ow → uo | sāwil → sael
tawka → tuca towram → tuoran |
| 12. | V:C → vCC / _V
C = [n, m, vls stop] | dēns → dēnos → dennos
pītir → pittir |
| 13. | ā → au / [-cons] C1_C2
C2 not fricative or m | nāre → naure
(tāsu → tas, rāma → rana) |
| 14. | ū → iu / [l, r] _ | lūbek → liubec |
| 15. | V: → V | lēbes → lebes |
| 16. | ay → ae | aytsas → aestas |
| 17. | y → i
w → u | yagem →iagen
waruns → ueronos |
|
Axunašin | ||
| 1. | r → ø / [u,i]_V
r → ø / V_(C)# | kura → xue
furam → šuem, anōr → emou |
| u → ø / i_ | fwaliu → weli | |
| 2. | x → š
ks, kt → x ts, tr → č | ex → eš
buks → bux aytsas → eče, tragem → čejim |
| 3. | t → ø / _# | ktult → xul |
| 4. | ng, gn, kn → nk | unge → unki, rakni → renki |
| 5. | f, ɣ → ø / _w
ɣ → j | ɣwex → weš
ɣīra → jire |
| 6. | n → m / V_(V,#) | ktānem → xamim |
| b → w / V_V
d → z / V_i d → v / V_V g → j / V_V S → [+vcd] / V_V (s,f) → [+vcd] / V_V | abor → ewu
kadir → kezi baredū → berivu klāger → laji nepou → nebou, ksūta → xude kisir → kizi, brefes → beivi | |
| 7. | Ns → z / _#
S[+vcd]s → z / _# p,f,r,l → ø / _# | dēns → deiz
kuwids → kuwiz ōps → us, dors → dus |
| 8. | l → r / #_
C → ø / #_l | lēbes → revi
plafes → lavi |
| f → š / #_V | far → šer | |
| rV → VV / C_
Vl → VV / _C | kreksir → kēxi → keixi
kalkou → kakou | |
| 9. | aw, au → o
ow, ou → ou ay, ey → ei oy → ui | maux → moš
towram → tourem ayka → eige kalkoyu → kakui |
| a → e
e → i / (syl)_ o → u | manau → menu
mōles → mouli ksorū → xuru | |
| ē → ei
ō → ou : → ø / (a,i,u)_ | dēns → deiz
dōns → douz bēgir → beji | |
| 10. | i, y → ø / _[č,j,š] | aytsas → eiče → eče |
| 11. | n → ø / _[t,č,z]
w → ø / C_ | fants → šeč
gwents → geč |
| e → ø / (u,o)_š | yāloex → yaluš | |
|
Obenzayet | ||
| 1. | l → ~ / B_C, B_s
S → [+vzd] / _u, _w n → ng / _[+vel] w → u / ɣ_ | ktult → kšuʔ, pols → pa tuli → ʔuli (except after y) ayku → aiku trankem → zrangkang ɣwanka→ ʔuangka |
| 2. | ɣ → ʔ
s → z / [+vcd]_# s → z / V_# wV → u / #_ x → k / #_ x → ʔ / _# t → ʔ / _# k → g / _# m → ng / _# | ɣīra → ʔïra
londs → lädz mōles → mäliz wenka → ungka xupe → ʔuba barex → baraʔ let → laʔ lūbek → lüvag ktānem → kšänang |
| 3. | p → b /V_V
t → d /V_V k → g /V_V b → v /V_V d → z /V_V g, x → ɣ /V_V s → h / V_V ø → a / [p,b,r]_[s,z]# | tīpal → tïbal
protes → vradiz sikātu → sigäʔu lūbor → lüvä lādam → läzang tragem → zraɣang kisir → kihia ōps → äpas |
| 4. | S, f → [+vcd+fric] / _r, _l
f → ø / _s f → h / elsewhere | predi → vrazi
olfs → alas firax → hiraʔ |
| 5. | st, ts → t / _V
kt, ks → kš [+vel]n → ngg n → " / _S | mēlastes → mälatiz
ktult → kšuʔ ugne → ungga fants → häts |
| 6. | y → i / _C
e → i / _z# | aystas → aitaz
bērwes → bä |
| 7. | e, o → a
ē, ō → ā : → " | prenam → vranang, mots → mats
mērir → märia, nōs → näz ksūteyē → kšüdayä |
| 8. | w → u → w → [+vzd] kš → kši / _# ʔ → ø / _C, C_ | nōwer → nä ɣayu → ʔai tawka → taʔa gēks→ gäkši lunɣa→ lungɣa →lunga, ɣuds → ʔudz |
| 9. | l → ʔ → r → a / _# | klāger → ɣ ka tawra → taʔa→ ta kisir → kihia |
|
Lufaša [sketch only; very inaccurate] | ||
| 1. | C → ø / _# | fawor → fawo→ fao |
| 2. | B → [+rnd] / _CnF
F → [-rnd] / _CnF | nokir → nök, nukir → nük
niwor → nio, newor → nuo |
| 3. | p → f / #_V
k → j / #_V | pakar → fak
kamar → jam |
| 4. | s → h / V_V
x → ø / V_V | tesi → tehi
taxor → tao |
| 5. | ay → ā
aw → ō | mayna → māna
mawna → mōna |
| 6. | V → [44] / [-voice]_
V → [22] / [+voice]_ V: → [53] / [-voice]_ V: → [12] / [+voice]_ | pakar → pāk
bakar → pak bākar → pàk bākar → bák |
| 7. | [+stop] → ø / _r, _l
[+stop] → h / k_ | praka → raka
krura → ȟur |
| 8. | ts → ch | tsayna → chāna → chàn |
| 9. | V → ø / _# | kalan → jala → jal |
| 10. | [+fric] → h / _#
w, y → [+vocalic] / _# C → [-voice] / _# | tafar → tah
fawor → fao, fayor → fai pabor → fap |
The examples are given in a two-line format, with English glosses on the second line. For instance:
| pE | Cuêzi | Caď | Axun | Oben | Lufaša | |
| *lūbek love |
lūve | liubec | ruwik desire |
lüvag love |
lü |
If no English gloss is given for a particular form (as for lūve, liubec, lü above), the gloss to the left should be understood. The proto-Eastern gloss should be taken as a conjecture, a plausible semantic source of the attested forms.
Actual reconstruction, of course, is based on more languages (though those listed are the chief ones used), on very many more words, and on all rather than single forms of those words.
pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben Lufaša -ek -ê -ec -ik -ag -am -â -an -em -ang -em -ê -en -im -ang -ir -i -ir -i -r -er -e -er -i -r
Examples of verbs:
pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben Lufaša *lūbek
lovelūve liubec ruwik
desirelüvag
lovelü *lādam
golāda laudan ravem läzang ra
come, go*ktānem
comeutāne ctanen xamim kšänang kha
bring*bektir
changebêti bectir
movebexi
becomebakšia
trekbök
wander*klāger
hitclāye
beatclager
floglaji
hitɣ laɣä
killkla
hit
But in Obenzayet semantic feminines like mïzr 'mother' take feminine adjectives, so that gender and declension class are separated. And Axunašin does not associate its gender classes with sex at all. It is difficult to decide which of these patterns, if any, reflects proto-Eastern usage. Since proto-Eastern adjectives had three declension patterns each, corresponding to the nominal declension classes, it seems certain that adjective agreement obtained. But whether the classes were identified with sex or not, or how grammatical/semantic clashes were resolved, is not known. (None of the Čia-Ša languages are inflected, so they are of no use in resolving the controversy. Some of the Sainor languages have five genders (masculine, feminine, animate, concrete, and abstract), but there has been so much rearrangement of the inflectional system, and such likelihood of influence from Lenani-Littoral (with four-gender pronominal systems) that they are not much help either.)
A nominal form in proto-Eastern breaks down into a root, stem vowel, and case ending. The stem vowel indicates both gender and number, and within each gender there are a few different possibilities for stem vowel. Some case endings are uniform across all nouns; some across a single gender; and a few vary somewhat depending on the stem vowel.
Thus there are several declension subclasses within each gender. The table below shows the subclasses, with the stem vowels for singular and plural, and their usual reflexes in the child languages. Following is a set of examples of each subclass.
pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben Masculine r i -re -or -(r) -a - i -as, -os -os -s, -z -z, -s a ay -as -as -e -az Neuter a uy -āu -us -o -a lo oy -o -o -ou -a lu uy -u -u -u -u li uy -iu -is -i -i lFeminine a ey -a -a -e -a e ey -e -e -i -a i ya -i -is -i -i
Some examples:
pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben Lufaša Masculine nouns *anōr
headmannōre anor
elderemou
old mananäraz
headmanno *ktats'
gardenutâtos ctastos xech
farmkšats
oasiskha
village*xūns
landxūnas ȟunos šuz
provinceʔünz
landhu *aytsas
summerāetas aestas eche aitaz aih *manus
handmanis manus menu manuz ma Neuter nouns *ksorū
darknessusolu scoru xuru
blackkšaru l
difficultykho
dark*yālo
kneeyālo iaulo yalou yäla lyak *meiu
watermeyu meis mii mai lme Feminine nouns *bāruma
mountainbārima parena borme bäruma bau *gēlere
riveryēore celere geili
streamgälara
riverge *maksei
mistressmâsei masceis mexi
ladymakšai
mistressmak
The table below shows masculine forms only. (The citation form for Cuêzi adjectives is normally the neuter (utûto 'bad'); but the masculine is given here to facilitate cross-language comparison.)
Examples of adjectives:
pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben -r -re -r -(r) -a -l -le -l -l -l -n -ne -n -m -n -t -te -t - -ʔ -es -e -es -i -iz -is -i -is -i -iz
pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben Lufaša *uwel
olduele
used upuil
oldwel u lalü *ktult
evilutûte
badcťelt
evilxul kšut
wickedkhuk
greedy*lēbes
newlēve lebe revi läviz le *sidis
thirstysidi sidis sizi siziz si
Lufaša is omitted from these lists, as it is not an inflected language.
As noted above, nominal forms can be divided into root, stem vowel, and case ending. The case endings are very nearly uniform within each gender; Verdurian scholars have worked very hard to eliminate the irregularities, and have had the honesty not to succeed. The regularity cannot be coincidence, however.
When the case endings are displayed by gender, there is clearly revealed an agglutinative system on its way to becoming an inflectional one. The uniform dative ending -nu, for instance, was clearly once an independent morpheme.
case M (s/pl) N F nominative s/t u - accusative - m a genitive ex/ē ex/ē ē dative nu nu nu ablative tu tu di instrumental ko ko ru locative aw aw w
The greater variation in the nominative, genitive, and accusative, which vary by gender and number, is striking compared to the uniformity within genders (and between masculine and neuter) observed in the oblique cases. No doubt at some earlier stage in the language there were just three cases, and the remaining case endings developed from postpositions.
The number distinctions that exist (e.g. the ex/ē alternation in the genitive) can be plausibly assigned to sound changes; almost certainly the reconstructed system derives from an earlier one in which plurality was indicated exclusively by the stem vowel. For that matter, a listing of the singular and plural stem vowels strongly suggests that the stem vowel was once invariable, and was followed by a plural morpheme -y-.
M N F - i o oy a ey r i u uy e ey a ay i uy i ya u uy
In general, the similarities between masculine and neuter suggest that these were one gender at some early stage of the language. (The masculine nouns in -u have become neuter in Caďinor, which suggests that this confusion survived in some form till after dialectalization.) The variation seen in the ablative and instrumental between masculine and feminine (tu/di, ko/ru) is hard to explain; the first perhaps derives from some sound change or vowel harmony rule; the second seems suppletive.
The nominative/accusative distinction is signalled very differently in the masculine and feminine (presence or absence of a morph) and neuter (different morphs). This has led some to posit that proto-Eastern once had a mixed-case system, nominative-accusative for animate (masculine and feminine) nouns, ablative-ergative for inanimate (neuter) ones.
The relative regularity of the proto-Eastern system has been largely lost in the descendent languages, a casualty of sound changes, reinterpretations, and loss of the more regular cases. Only in Obenzayet can one still synchronically distinguish case ending from stem vowel; in all the other languages shown (and all the more so their modern descendants, such as Verdurian) the stem vowel and case ending have merged into a single inflection which expresses case and number.
In Obenzayet, the a-a sequences are actually written ä.
Note on *xūns— If the root ends in -s or -x, the s.nom. is the same as the accusative; if the root ends in -m, the s.nom. ends in -ns.
case pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom anō-r nōr-e anor emou- sin-a-a s. gen anō-r-ex nōr-ex anor-ei emou-riš sin-a-aʔ s. acc anō-r nōr- anor- emou- sin-a- s. dat anō-r-nu nōr-nu anor-an s. abl anō-r-tu nōr-tu anor-oť s. ins anō-r-ko nōr-co sin-a-ka s. loc anō-r-aw emou-ro sin-a-ra lpl. nom anō-i-t nōi- anor-it emou-i sin-i-ʔ pl. gen anō-i-ē nōi-ē anor-ie emou-rei sin-i-ä pl. acc anō-i nōi-i anor-i emou-i sin-i- pl. dat anō-i-nu nōi-nu anor-in pl. abl anō-i-tu nōi-tu anor-iť pl. ins anō-i-ko nōi-co sin-i-ga pl. loc anō-i-aw sin-i-a lcase pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom xūn-s xūn-as ȟun-os šuz- ʔün-z s. gen xūn-ex xūn-ex ȟun-ei šum-iš ʔün-aʔ s. acc xūn- xūn- ȟun- šum- ʔün- s. dat xūn-nu xūn-nu ȟun-an s. abl xūn-tu xūn-tu ȟun-oť s. ins xūn-ko xūn-co ʔüng-ka s. loc xūn-aw šum-o ʔün-a lpl. nom xūn-i-t xūn-i ȟun-it šum-i ʔün-i-ʔ pl. gen xūn-i-ē xūn-iē ȟun-ie šum-ei ʔün-i-ä pl. acc xūn-i- xūn-i ȟun-i šum-i ʔün-i- pl. dat xūn-i-nu xūn-inu ȟun-in pl. abl xūn-i-tu xūn-itu ȟun-iť pl. ins xūn-i-ko xūn-ico ʔün-i-ga pl. loc xūn-i-aw ʔün-i-a lcase pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom ayts-a-s āet-as aest-as eč-e ait-a-z s. gen ayts-a-ex āet-ex aest-ai eč-eš ait-a-aʔ s. acc ayts-a- āet-a aest-a eč-e ait-a- s. dat ayts-a-nu āet-anu aest-an s. abl ayts-a-tu āet-atu aest-ať s. ins ayts-a-ko āet-aco ait-a-ga s. loc ayts-a-aw eč-eo ait-a-a lpl. nom ayts-ay-t āet-āe aest-ait eč-ei ait-ai-ʔ pl. gen ayts-ay-ē āet-aē aest-aie eč-iei ait-ay-ä pl. acc ayts-ay- āet-āe aest-ai eč-ei ait-ai- pl. dat ayts-ay-nu āet-ānu aest-ain pl. abl ayts-ay-tu āet-ātu aest-aiť pl. ins ayts-ay-ko āet-āco ait-ai-ga pl. loc ayts-ay-aw ait-ay-a l
case pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom ksor-ū usol-u scor-u xur-u kšar-u- ls. gen ksor-u-ex usol-ex scor-ui xur-uš kšar-u-aʔ s. acc ksor-u-m usol-u scor-um xur-um kšar-u-ng s. dat ksor-u-nu usol-nu scor-un s. abl ksor-u-tu usol-tu scor-uť s. ins ksor-u-ko usol-uco kšar-u-ga s. loc ksor-u-aw xur-o kšar-u-a lpl. nom ksor-uy-u usol-ū scor-ui xur-ui kšar-ui- lpl. gen ksor-uy-ē usol-uē scor-uie xur-iei kšar-uy-ä pl. acc ksor-uy-m usol-ū scor-uim xur-uim kšar-ui-ng pl. dat ksor-uy-nu usol-ūna scor-uin pl. abl ksor-uy-tu usol-ūta scor-uiť pl. ins ksor-uy-ko usol-ūco kšar-ui-ka pl. loc ksor-uy-aw kšar-uy-a lcase pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom me-i-u me-yu me-is wel-i ma-i- ls. gen me-i-ex me-yex me-ii wel-iš ma-y-aʔ s. acc me-i-m me-i me-im wel-im ma-i-ng s. dat me-i-nu me-inu me-in s. abl me-i-tu me-itu me-iť s. ins me-i-ko me-ico ma-i-ga s. loc me-i-aw wel-o ma-y-a lplural— like ksorū case pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom yāl-o-u yāl-o iaul-o yal-ou yäl-a- ls. gen yāl-o-ex yāl-ex iaul-oi yal-uš yäl-a-aʔ s. acc yāl-o-m yāl-o iaul-om yal-um yäl-a-ng s. dat yāl-o-nu yāl-onu iaul-on s. abl yāl-o-tu yāl-otu iaul-oť s. ins yāl-o-ko yāl-oco yäl-a-ga s. loc yāl-o-w yal-o yäl-a-a lpl. nom yāl-oy-u yāl-ō iaul-oi yal-ui yäl-ai- lpl. gen yāl-oy-ē yāl-oē iaul-oie yal-iei yäl-ay-ä pl. acc yāl-oy-m yāl-ō iaul-oim yal-uim yäl-ai-ng pl. dat yāl-oy-nu yāl-ōna iaul-oin pl. abl yāl-oy-tu yāl-ōta iaul-oiť pl. ins yāl-oy-ko yāl-ōco yäl-ai-ga pl. loc yāl-oy-aw yäl-ay-a l
case pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom ɣīr-a- rīd-a kir-a jir-e ʔïr-a- s. gen ɣīr-a-ē rīd-aē kir-ae jir-ei ʔïr-a-aʔ s. acc ɣīr-a-a rīd-ā kir-aa jir-a ʔïr-a-a s. dat ɣīr-a-nu rīd-anu kir-an s. abl ɣīr-a-di rīd-adi kir-ad s. ins ɣīr-a-ru rīd-alu ʔïr-a-ru s. loc ɣīr-a-w jir-u ʔïr-a- lpl. nom ɣīr-ey-t rīd-ē kir-et jir-ei ʔïr-ai-ʔ pl. gen ɣīr-ey-ē rīd-eē kir-eie jir-iei ʔïr-ay-ä pl. acc ɣīr-ey-m rīd-ē kir-eim jir-eim ʔïr-ai-ng pl. dat ɣīr-ey-nu rīd-ēnu kir-ein pl. abl ɣīr-ey-di rīd-ēdi kir-eid pl. ins ɣīr-ey-ru rīd-ēlu ʔïr-ai-ru pl. loc ɣīr-ey-aw ʔïr-ai- lcase pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom makse-i- mâse-i masce-is mex-i makša-i- s. gen makse-i-ē mâse-yē masce-ie mex-iei makša-y-aʔ s. acc makse-i-a mâse-a masce-ia mex-ie makša-y-a s. dat makse-i-nu mâse-inu masce-in s. abl makse-i-di mâse-idi masce-id s. ins makse-i-ru mâse-iu makša-i-ru s. loc makse-i-w mex-u makša-i- lpl. nom makse-ya-t mâse-ā masce-ia mex-ei makša-ya-ʔ pl. gen makse-ya-ē mâse-aē masce-iae mex-iei makša-y-ä pl. acc makse-ya-m mâse-ā masce-iam mex-iem makša-ya-ng pl. dat makse-ya-nu mâse-ānu masce-ian pl. abl makse-ya-di mâse-ādi masce-iad pl. ins makse-ya-ru mâse-ālu makša-ya-ru pl. loc makse-ya-aw makša-ya- lcase pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom gēler-e yēor-e celer-e geil-i gälar-a- s. gen gēler-e-ē yēor-eē celer-ei geil-iei gälar-a-aʔ s. acc gēler-e-a yēor-ê celer-ea geil-ie gälar-a-a s. dat gēler-e-nu yēor-inu celer-en s. abl gēler-e-di yēor-edi celer-ed s. ins gēler-e-ru yēor-elu gälar-a-ru s. loc gēler-e-w geil-u gälar-a- l(plural— like ɣīra)
The following table lists, for the three proto-Eastern adjectival classes, the singular and plural stem vowels for each gender; plus the comparative and superlative suffixes.
m n f comp sup sg pl sg pl sg pl cons. - i o oy a ey or atses -es e ey e ey e ey eor ekses -is i uy i uy i ya ior iksis
The masculine nom.s. -s ending is applied only to the -es and -is declensions, not to the consonantal declension. It should also be noted that the final consonant in the consonantal declension is part of the root: compare nominal *anōr/*anōit, adjectival *sōl/*sōlit; the s.nom. forms of the latter adjective in all three genders are *sōl, *sōlou, *sōla.
I have not given comparative tables of declension here for the adjectives; they would take an inordinate amount of space for very little additional information.
Since such widely separated languages as Caďinor, Obenzayet, and Losainor have comparative and superlative forms, it seems certain that proto-Eastern had them as well; but our reconstructions are more tentative here, since they are not inherited by all languages— Axunašin does not have them, and Cuêzi has only the superlatives (but with a comparative meaning). Moreover there is some puzzling variation in the descendant languages; no one knows, for instance, why the -es adjectives have a comparative -eďes in Caďinor.
All the older attested Eastern languages (Cuêzi, Caďinor, Axunašin) are inflected, with fairly free order; it seems likely that proto-Eastern had the same properties. Adjectives normally follow the noun in Cuêzi, Caďinor, and Obenzayet, and precede it in Axunašin and Lufaša. The usual assumption is that adjectives were postnominal in proto-Eastern as well; but the distribution noted could well be areal (north = postnominal, south = prenominal), leaving the question open for the protolanguage.
No locative forms are shown; none of the Eastern languages which still have a locative (e.g. Obenzayet and Axunašin) have one for the pronouns, and a locative use for pronouns is hard to come by anyway.
Unusually for proto-Eastern, the pronominal accusatives are normally formed by suppletion rather than by inflection. Some of the child languages have tossed out the suppletive forms (cf. Obenzayet lala 'thee', formed on the analogy of tala 'him/her'); others have increased the variation (see for instance the declension of Caďinor seo 'I'). Cuêzi has modified a number of forms to make them conform better to the nominal declensions. For all these reasons the reconstruction of the proto-Eastern forms is more speculative than elsewhere. Very likely the forms were less regular than shown here; and very probably the pronouns changed over time, as well as across dialects.
I pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben nom sewo sēo seo siu sa lagen seway soex eae (ir) sa laiacc etu etu eth id aʔu dat sewnu sēnu seon abl sewtu sētu ed ins sewko sēco sa lʔuthou pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben nom let led let li laʔ gen leway loex leae (rir) la laiacc ēɣ ēr ek ej la ladat lenu linu len abl letu letu leth ins leko leco laga he/she pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben nom taw tāu tu to ta lgen taway tāuex tuae toiš ta laiacc tawa tāua tua toe ta ladat tawnu tāunu tun abl tawtu tāutu toth ins tawko tāuco ta lʔawe pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben nom tāsu tazū tas taz tähu gen tayē tazuē taie tiei tahä acc taym tāe taim teim taing dat tānu tānu taun abl tātu tātu tad ins tayko tāco taika you pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben nom maux māux muȟ moš mauʔ gen muyē muē muie miei muyä acc muym mū muim muim muing dat muynu mūna muin abl muytu mūta muoth ins muyko mūco muika they pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben nom kayu cayū cai kei kai lgen kayē cayuē caie kiei kayä acc kaym caē caim keim kaing dat kaynu caēnu cain abl kaytu caētu caith ins kayko caēco kaika who pE Cuêzi Caď Axun Oben s. nom ɣayu rāe kae jei ʔai ls. gen ɣayex rāex kaie jeiš ʔayä s. acc ɣay rā kaeth jem ʔaing s. dat ɣaynu rāenu kaen s. abl ɣaytu rāetu kaeth s. ins ɣayko rāeco ʔaika s. loc ɣayaw ʔaya lpl. nom ɣaɣe radē kahe ʔuyu pl. gen ɣaɣaē radaē kahie ʔuyä pl. acc ɣaɣam rade kaham ʔuing pl. dat ɣaɣanu radanu kahan pl. abl ɣaɣatu radatu kahath pl. ins ɣaɣako radaco ʔuika pl. loc ɣaɣeaw ʔuya l
Verbs are conjugated by person and number. The personal endings are similar in all tenses. In the present tense, for instance, the endings all follow the pattern
1s awV 2s ewVs 3s et 1p Vwmu 2p Vwsi 3p Vntu
The vowel V varies by conjugation. The endings are similar in the other tenses, and it is tempting to derive the endings from a previous morpheme sequence
tense + plural + pronoun
e.g. V w mu
Ružeon went so far as to reconstruct the clitic pronouns *wo, *su, *tu, *mu, *si, and *ntu, and claimed that *wo was a worn down form of *sewo, *tu of *taw 'he/she', and *mu of *maux— accidentally shifted to the first person! The speculation here runs well beyond the facts. Ružeon is very free with reconstructed -u's, since Caďinor was known to have lost them. Cuêzi generally kept them; Ružeon explains their absence in the Cuêzi 1s and 2s by the frequency of use of these forms, but this explanation seems ad hoc, and their absence from Obenzayet drives the nails in the coffin. A more careful reconstruction (at the pre-proto-Eastern level) would be *AV, *sV, *tV, *mu, *si, *ntu, where A represents an unknown approximant and V unknown vowels. But even these may well be wrong; sound changes may have rendered the original clitics unrecoverable through internal reconstruction.
Almeologist Nikolai Echternacht has offered the fascinating suggestion that the origin of the verbal endings lies not with the pronouns but with the nominal system. In his view, directional affixes have been reinterpreted as personal: