Urusu Linua
Urusu Linua
Urusu Linua (Under Construction)
Urusu Linua (ɯz̠ɯf lima) is a remote language. Y'all should be at least somewhat familiar with the workings: it's my speedlang entry! Nonetheless it is necessary for me to restate its essentials, and explain in the inner workings of the language.
Phonology:
/n/ <n>
/t k ʔ/ <t k '>
/s z̠ ɮ/ <s r l>
/j w/ <y~i w~u>
/a i ɯ/ <a i u>
/a˥ a˩ ã˥ ã˩/ <á a ã́ ã> *in phonetic transcriptions, low tone is often omitted, unless necessary
Couple of questions we need to answer when we get an inventory like this: where the heck did it come from? Why the heck is it like this?
Let's start answering this by looking at the more even proto-inventory:
/m m' n n'/ <m m' n n'>
/p t k b d g ʔ/ <p t k b d g '>
/f v s z ɬ ɮ x/ <f v s z lh l x>
/j w/ <y w>
/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>
Now, several problems exist with this specific reconstruction. One is that it is based partially on hunches, educated guesses as to why the language phonology and morphophonology is unusual. The second is that this language is largely based on internal reconstruction, due to the paucity of related languages. That isn't to say there is no hope. There is even less than that for this reconstruction. The last is that it is dependent on a single undeciphered, and indecipherable inscription. But you might be asking, how does an undeciphered inscription provide evidence or disproof of this theory. The inscription has 23* characters. They have tentatively been given names based off of what their original character might be. The inscription, (UTD, RTL) transcribed is roughly
Dragon, dragon, insect, insect, dragon, fish, dragon, insect, fish, net, net, fish, dragon, net, fish, man, spider, man, man, net, fish, insect, dragon, fish
The problem is two-fold. The Urusu are the only people who have been situated in their area for the last 4 millenia, as confirmed by genetic haplogroup data, which suggests they are the first immigrants to the region, which opened up, following the Ice Age. The next problem is that no matter how the text is parsed, if we start off with the assumption that it is neither a logography, nor a syllabary, it will never follow the phonotactics of Urusu Linua. The inscription has been dated around 2000 years BP.
Diachronic evaluation of the proto-inventory is difficult, especially given the paucity of records. But the author of this reconstruction suggests that the inventory was largely pared down by lenitive processes. The mid-high vowels are assumed to have merged with the high vowels, such that /o/ > /u/, and /e/ > /i/. The voiced consonants are believed to have merged with voiceless consonants when geminated and disappeared when ungeminated. At the same time, a Grassmann-like law was operating to prevent the creation of triphthongs, and devoiced plosives and nasals. /p/ appears to have fused with /f/, both of which merged into /v/, and afterwards promptly disappeared, along with /x/, leading to the lengthening of the vowel prior, which was lost as well. /ɬ ɮ/ merged together. Glottalized nasals eventually developed into high tone, and the bilabial nasal led to nasalization of the previous vowel. /n'/ eventually merged with /n'/ and the bilabial nasals where lost, making the distinction phonemic
*errata: 24 symbols.
Urusu Linua (ɯz̠ɯf lima) is a remote language. Y'all should be at least somewhat familiar with the workings: it's my speedlang entry! Nonetheless it is necessary for me to restate its essentials, and explain in the inner workings of the language.
Phonology:
/n/ <n>
/t k ʔ/ <t k '>
/s z̠ ɮ/ <s r l>
/j w/ <y~i w~u>
/a i ɯ/ <a i u>
/a˥ a˩ ã˥ ã˩/ <á a ã́ ã> *in phonetic transcriptions, low tone is often omitted, unless necessary
Couple of questions we need to answer when we get an inventory like this: where the heck did it come from? Why the heck is it like this?
Let's start answering this by looking at the more even proto-inventory:
/m m' n n'/ <m m' n n'>
/p t k b d g ʔ/ <p t k b d g '>
/f v s z ɬ ɮ x/ <f v s z lh l x>
/j w/ <y w>
/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>
Now, several problems exist with this specific reconstruction. One is that it is based partially on hunches, educated guesses as to why the language phonology and morphophonology is unusual. The second is that this language is largely based on internal reconstruction, due to the paucity of related languages. That isn't to say there is no hope. There is even less than that for this reconstruction. The last is that it is dependent on a single undeciphered, and indecipherable inscription. But you might be asking, how does an undeciphered inscription provide evidence or disproof of this theory. The inscription has 23* characters. They have tentatively been given names based off of what their original character might be. The inscription, (UTD, RTL) transcribed is roughly
Dragon, dragon, insect, insect, dragon, fish, dragon, insect, fish, net, net, fish, dragon, net, fish, man, spider, man, man, net, fish, insect, dragon, fish
The problem is two-fold. The Urusu are the only people who have been situated in their area for the last 4 millenia, as confirmed by genetic haplogroup data, which suggests they are the first immigrants to the region, which opened up, following the Ice Age. The next problem is that no matter how the text is parsed, if we start off with the assumption that it is neither a logography, nor a syllabary, it will never follow the phonotactics of Urusu Linua. The inscription has been dated around 2000 years BP.
Diachronic evaluation of the proto-inventory is difficult, especially given the paucity of records. But the author of this reconstruction suggests that the inventory was largely pared down by lenitive processes. The mid-high vowels are assumed to have merged with the high vowels, such that /o/ > /u/, and /e/ > /i/. The voiced consonants are believed to have merged with voiceless consonants when geminated and disappeared when ungeminated. At the same time, a Grassmann-like law was operating to prevent the creation of triphthongs, and devoiced plosives and nasals. /p/ appears to have fused with /f/, both of which merged into /v/, and afterwards promptly disappeared, along with /x/, leading to the lengthening of the vowel prior, which was lost as well. /ɬ ɮ/ merged together. Glottalized nasals eventually developed into high tone, and the bilabial nasal led to nasalization of the previous vowel. /n'/ eventually merged with /n'/ and the bilabial nasals where lost, making the distinction phonemic
*errata: 24 symbols.
Last edited by qwed117 on 05 Jul 2016 04:20, edited 2 times in total.
Spoiler:
Re: Urusu Linua
Is there some reason why the [m] in the lang's name is analysed /nu/ instead of /m/?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Urusu Linua
What do you mean by that?qwed117 wrote: Urusu Linua (ɯz̠ɯf lima) is a remote language.
I'm confused. Why include it if there's supposedly less than no hope for it?qwed117 wrote: Now, several problems exist with this specific reconstruction. One is that it is based partially on hunches, educated guesses as to why the language phonology and morphophonology is unusual. The second is that this language is largely based on internal reconstruction, due to the paucity of related languages. That isn't to say there is no hope. There is even less than that for this reconstruction. The last is that it is dependent on a single undeciphered, and indecipherable inscription.
I might be wrong, but I count 24 "characters". Also, I'm confused again. How can we assume it's neither logographic nor a syllabary?qwed117 wrote: But you might be asking, how does an undeciphered inscription provide evidence or disproof of this theory. The inscription has 23 characters. They have tentatively been given names based off of what their original character might be. The inscription, (UTD, RTL) transcribed is roughly
Dragon, dragon, insect, insect, dragon, fish, dragon, insect, fish, net, net, fish, dragon, net, fish, man, spider, man, man, net, fish, insect, dragon, fish
The problem is two-fold. The Urusu are the only people who have been situated in their area for the last 4 millenia, as confirmed by genetic haplogroup data, which suggests they are the first immigrants to the region, which opened up, following the Ice Age. The next problem is that no matter how the text is parsed, if we start off with the assumption that it is neither a logography, nor a syllabary, it will never follow the phonotactics of Urusu Linua. The inscription has been dated around 2000 years BP.
Re: Urusu Linua
Remote language is a term used in my conworld to describe several types of language distributions. It is used in contrast to a spread language (or broad language)shimobaatar wrote:What do you mean by that?qwed117 wrote: Urusu Linua (ɯz̠ɯf lima) is a remote language.
1) Small language families
Ex. Chonan, Andamanese
2) Isolates with minimal prehistoric attestation
Ex. Haida,
3) Isolates with a single lineage
Ex. Basque-Aquitainian
I see all the other queries, but I'm unable to respond to them right now. I'll try and get to them tomorrow
Spoiler:
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Urusu Linua
Ahh, got it! And no worries, take your time.qwed117 wrote: Remote language is a term used in my conworld to describe several types of language distributions. It is used in contrast to a spread language (or broad language)
1) Small language families
Ex. Chonan, Andamanese
2) Isolates with minimal prehistoric attestation
Ex. Haida,
3) Isolates with a single lineage
Ex. Basque-Aquitainian
I see all the other queries, but I'm unable to respond to them right now. I'll try and get to them tomorrow
Re: Urusu Linua
It's part of a declension pattern characterized by a floating semivowel. This semivowel is usually "absorbed", leaving traces in other consonants. In rare words, the semivowel returns. I likely will be discussing it later.Omzinesý wrote:Is there some reason why the [m] in the lang's name is analysed /nu/ instead of /m/?
I also was hoping that someone would take a long hard look at the name of the language.
Last edited by qwed117 on 05 Jul 2016 06:38, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:
Re: Urusu Linua
While there is minimal expectation that this reconstruction will pan out as more texts are found (maybe), this remains the only reconstruction that explains several aberrant forms, especially in verbal conjugations. I will attempt to discuss them later, but I just need more time. As I mentioned earlier, this language is a "remote language", more specifically of type 2 (or possibly 3). Comparative methods don't really work here, as a result. Internal reconstruction produces wobbly results that aren't necessarily synchronous.shimobaatar wrote:I'm confused. Why include it if there's supposedly less than no hope for it?qwed117 wrote: Now, several problems exist with this specific reconstruction. One is that it is based partially on hunches, educated guesses as to why the language phonology and morphophonology is unusual. The second is that this language is largely based on internal reconstruction, due to the paucity of related languages. That isn't to say there is no hope. There is even less than that for this reconstruction. The last is that it is dependent on a single undeciphered, and indecipherable inscription.
Spoiler:
Re: Urusu Linua
Listed as erratashimobaatar wrote:qwed117 wrote:I might be wrong, but I count 24 "characters". Also, I'm confused again. How can we assume it's neither logographic nor a syllabary?qwed117 wrote: But you might be asking, how does an undeciphered inscription provide evidence or disproof of this theory. The inscription has 23 characters. They have tentatively been given names based off of what their original character might be. The inscription, (UTD, RTL) transcribed is roughly
Dragon, dragon, insect, insect, dragon, fish, dragon, insect, fish, net, net, fish, dragon, net, fish, man, spider, man, man, net, fish, insect, dragon, fish
The problem is two-fold. The Urusu are the only people who have been situated in their area for the last 4 millenia, as confirmed by genetic haplogroup data, which suggests they are the first immigrants to the region, which opened up, following the Ice Age. The next problem is that no matter how the text is parsed, if we start off with the assumption that it is neither a logography, nor a syllabary, it will never follow the phonotactics of Urusu Linua. The inscription has been dated around 2000 years BP.
We can assume it's not logographic through the large repetition of symbols multiple times. Urusu Linua has no distinct reduplicatory processes. In addition, there are too few characters for a logography. The syllabary hypothesis would be negated by the non-existance of C1VC1, however VC initials do exist, which could show the existence of C1[+voice]VC1[+voice] > C1[+voice]VC1[-voice] > VC1[-voice], but that implies that all the doubled symbols would have to be voiced.
Spoiler:
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Urusu Linua
I look forward to that!qwed117 wrote: It's part of a declension pattern characterized by a floating semivowel. This semivowel is usually "absorbed", leaving traces in other consonants. In rare words, the semivowel returns. I likely will be discussing it later.
I guess there's something I'm missing.qwed117 wrote: I also was hoping that someone would take a long hard look at the name of the language.
Ah, OK. Take however much time you need, of course!qwed117 wrote: While there is minimal expectation that this reconstruction will pan out as more texts are found (maybe), this remains the only reconstruction that explains several aberrant forms, especially in verbal conjugations. I will attempt to discuss them later, but I just need more time. As I mentioned earlier, this language is a "remote language", more specifically of type 2 (or possibly 3). Comparative methods don't really work here, as a result. Internal reconstruction produces wobbly results that aren't necessarily synchronous.
Re: Urusu Linua
So, I'm deciding to come back to this project. I always had a soft spot for this project, but I never really knew what to do with this project, especially given the backstory that I was planning to have for this. I guess I went to far in the backstory that I didn't really know what I was doing. I think I'll be making more of the language than before. I also plan to input more topic-comment, and other methods of marking in my language. I'll be changing the inventory so consonant mutation is not the primary component of the declension. I know you'll all be sad about that, but I think it made the language too exotic. Anyways to get started on reviving this thing, I'll clean up the inventory, adding new phonemes. I might even bring in ideas from my other speedlang
/n t k ʔ/ <n t k '>
/s z̠ l h/ <s r l h>
/a i ɯ ə/ <a i u e>
/ʲ ʷ ᵊ/ <j w h̠>
/a˥ a˩ ã˥ ã˩/ <á a ã́ ã>1
1 This series does not occur on the schwa
The phonotactics are a bland (C)(L)VC(L)
I guess the next thing to show is the declensions from the speedlang thread and show how they've changed
I guess (or at least, I hope) you're all wondering what the purpose of h̠ is.
h̠ is an "a-coloring" morpheme, along the lines of h1 in PIE. h̠ has the effect of 1) uvularizing velars 2) preventing further coloring of consonants 3) lengthening vowels and a-coloring vowels 4) serving as an internal buttress for a couple of rare periods, when two vowels appear together, appearing as h, but lacking appearance elsewhere morphemically. It is always lost word finally
for example take
/n t k ʔ/ <n t k '>
/s z̠ l h/ <s r l h>
/a i ɯ ə/ <a i u e>
/ʲ ʷ ᵊ/ <j w h̠>
/a˥ a˩ ã˥ ã˩/ <á a ã́ ã>1
1 This series does not occur on the schwa
The phonotactics are a bland (C)(L)VC(L)
I guess the next thing to show is the declensions from the speedlang thread and show how they've changed
Code: Select all
NOM /kaz̞/ [kaɹ] "car" (Loan from English)
ACC /ki̯az̞/ [t͡ʃæz̞]
COM /kaz̞i̯/ [kaʒ]
LOC /ku̯az̞/ [paɹ]
INS /kau̯z̞/ [koɹ]
GEN /kaz̞u̯/ [kaw]
PRP /ikaz̞/ [ikaɹ]
Code: Select all
NOM /kaz̞/ [kaɹ] "car" (Loan from English)
ACC /kaz̞i̯/ [kaʒ]
COM /kaz̞i̯əi̯/ [kaʒai]
LOC /kau̯z̞ə/ [koɹə]
INS /kau̯z̞ɯu̯/ [koɹu]
GEN /kaz̞u̯/ [kav]
PRP /ikaz̞/ [ikaɹ]
h̠ is an "a-coloring" morpheme, along the lines of h1 in PIE. h̠ has the effect of 1) uvularizing velars 2) preventing further coloring of consonants 3) lengthening vowels and a-coloring vowels 4) serving as an internal buttress for a couple of rare periods, when two vowels appear together, appearing as h, but lacking appearance elsewhere morphemically. It is always lost word finally
for example take
Code: Select all
NOM /kakəa̯/ [kakə] "feces"
ACC /kakəa̯i̯/ [kakə]
COM /kakəa̯i̯əi̯/ [kakəhai]
LOC /kakəu̯a̯ə/ [kakauhə]
INS /kakəu̯a̯ɯu̯/ [kakauhu]
GEN /kakəa̯u̯/ [kakə]
PRP /ikakəa̯/ [ikakə]
Spoiler:
Re: Urusu Linua
I've made a slight change to how h̠ colors morphemes. The most recent table is below
Code: Select all
NOM /kakəa̯/ [kaka] "feces"
ACC /kakəa̯i̯/ [kakə]
COM /kakəa̯i̯əi̯/ [kakəhai]
LOC /kakəu̯a̯ə/ [kakauhə]
INS /kakəu̯a̯ɯu̯/ [kakauhu]
GEN /kakəa̯u̯/ [kakə]
PRP /ikakəa̯/ [ikaka]
Spoiler:
Re: Urusu Linua
I guess it's time to mention the consonant "mutations" of the language
Code: Select all
∅ ʲ ʷ ʱ
n ɲ m g
t ts t
k tʃ p k
ʔ ʔʲ ʔʷ ɦ
s ʃ f s
z ʒ w ɹ
l ʎ v l
h ç ʍ h
a e o a
i ɪj ɪw i
ɯ ɨ u ɯ
ə aj aw a
Spoiler: