ProtoLanguage-2.htm, 2 of 5


Tlazoltéotl

THE PROTO-LANGUAGE

(PART TWO)

by Patrick C. Ryan

(12/30/2000)

Copyright 1998 Patrick C. Ryan


    C. Grammar



      1. A great number of the world's languages have roots of the form: CVC;

      2. Since all human languages are descended from the Proto-Language, these CVC roots may be analyzed with an acceptable degree of probability into the constituent CV segments from which they derive;



        a. At this time, I have analyzed roots in Afrasian, Indo-European, Basque, Nama, (Sino-)Tibetan, Hurrian, Sumerian, Altaic, and Uralic --- and I have found that, without exception, all those which I am able to analyze are compounds of two nominal elements:



          1) either of the type Noun + Noun, where the first Noun qualifies the second Noun adjectivally (e.g. a common designation for "people", PL RO-M[H]O {"raise[d]-wanderer"="grown human"); or,



            a) exx.: IE *re/o(:)m-, "man", in Latin Ro:ma: and Ro:mulus, "little man"; Egyptian in rmT, "man/men"; Sumerian rum, "*man" [Jaritz #1 reads rum, and means "man"]; lum, "*manliness" [Jaritz #935 means "manliness", and reads lum]; cf. also lam-3, "spouse" [Jaritz #922 reads lam-3, and means "spouse"]; Romany rom, "man, husband"; Burushaski rôm, "clan, tribe, community").



          2) of the type Noun + Noun, where the first Noun qualifies the second Noun adverbally, i.e. as an Object, either direct or indirect, since the second Noun functions like a participle (e.g. p[?]fe-re, "incise", cited above);



            a) Interestingly, Klimov (see below) assigns OV word-order to "active" languages (Klimov 1977: 316), which has been shown with high probability to be the earliest state of Indo-European (Lehmann 1974: 238-51). Sumerian, the world's oldest written language, is OV as well;



          3) from this analysis, we may conclude with confidence that the Proto-Language was of the syntactic type called OV, one that has a word order in which Objects precede their Verbs (Lehmann 1978: 57-139);



            a) a second characteristic of OV languages is that Adjectives precede their Nouns; and though the Proto-Language did not have a special form for either Adjectives or Verbs, the analysis of the compounds clearly indicates that the first nominal component of each compound qualified the second one, either adjectivally or adverbally;



      3. The recently deceased Russian linguist Georgij Klimov developed a theory of evolutionary language development, in which he formulated profiles of languages at various stages of complexity, which he termed: types;



        a. in an English summary (Klimov 1983: 221-23), distinguished five language types based on content-oriented typology: nominative, ergative, active, class, and neutral. The last three, which, in his view, are progressively earlier, have relevance for the Proto-Language.



          1) describing the "active-type", Klimov states: "The organizational principles of the active system lexical vocabulary are characterized by the existence of a latent nominal classification differentiating between active ("animate") and inactive ("inanimate") nouns(1)";

          2) Klimov further formulates that "... verbs are broken down into active and stative(2) classes. The corresponding syntactical correlates are the opposition and distinction between near and distant objects(3)";

          3) Klimov also indicates that "the Aktionsart(4) gradation of the verb in lieu of temporal ones constitute(s) a specific morphological character of the active systems" (Klimov 1983: 222);



      4. The Sentence



        a) Language serves two primary purposes:



          1) to call attention to something in the environment:



            a) for this, a one word sentence(A) suffices: R[H]E! = "look, it is raining"; "it looks like it will rain"; "it looks like it has rained".



          2) to convey new information by linking together a Topic and a Comment(5):



            a) for this, the minimum sentence is two words: RA R[H]E. = "the tree is/has fallen // will fall".

            b) two words, consisting of a Topic and a Comment, constitute a Statement;



              1)) although there are tonal languages, in which the use of tone has been extended to other purposes, the earliest employment of Tone was to delimit the Statement. What Lehmann found for the earliest Indo-European applies equally well to the Proto-Language: "...intonation of the sentence was characterized by initial high pitch, with the voice trailing off at the end (Lehmann 1978:52; also 49-52)".



                a)) the Statement began with a high-level tone (Mandarin Chinese first tone, designated by a macron over the vowel but here, for webpurposes, by the acute accent), and ended with a high-falling tone (Mandarin fourth tone, designated by a grave accent over vowel), as in Mandarin Chinese: tá qù, "he goes".

                b)) the statement cited above under 2))a)), will have been realized as: RÁ R[H]È, using the same notation.

              2)) this tonal pattern for two-element Statements provided the mechanism for the Proto-Language to distinguish between purely nominal expressions, most often belonging to the Topic (KX[H]É, "deer") and "verbal" expressions, most often belonging to the Comment (KX[H]È, "run"), by virtue of differential tonal accentuation.



                a)) although I am characterizing the commentual form as "verbal" for convenience of translation, its essential nature was nominal: KX[H]È, really "the running one". As Lehmann has demonstrated for IE (Lehmann 1978:33-34, Note 1), a nominal sentence must be supposed, which had the order topic-predicate substantive (comment); and "Predicate noun and adjective sentences are accordingly parallel with sentences containing verbs in having the 'verbal element` at the end of the sentence (Lehmann 1978:34)."



              3)) combined with acoustic volume (which I indicate by a quotation mark for greater visibility and clarity), which indicated plurality, this made the following statements possible:



                #1. M[H]Ó KX[H]È, "the man runs";

                #2. "M[H]Ó KX[H]È, "the men run";

                #3. M[H]Ó "KX[H]È, "the man runs repeatedly";

                #4. "M[H]Ó "KX[H]È, "the men run repeatedly".



              4)) from this simple pattern, a mechanism for distinguishing momentary and durative verbal ideas was developed by a process which will be explained:

                a)) While statements like those above, consisting of what we would interpret as nominal subjects and intransitive verbs were unlikely to form closer associations, this was not true of similar phrases. Consider these statements:



                  #1. T[?]Á R[H]À, "(he) trembles (the hand flies)(6)";

                  #2. "T[?]Á R[H]À, "(they) tremble";

                  #3. T[?]Á "R[H]À, "(he) trembles repeatedly";

                  #4. "T[?]Á "R[H]À, "(they) tremble repeatedly".

                b)) Statements 1 and 4 contrasted minimally while Statements 2 and 3 contrasted maximally;



                  1))) a corollary of A.1.a.2) ("phonological systems tend toward 'maximal differentiation'") is that maximally contrasting forms are preferred to minimally contrasting forms if no additional expenditure of effort is necessitated;

                  2))) #2. "T[?]Á-R[H]À, literally "the hands fly", was re-interpreted to "(he) is/has been/will be trembling [durative]"; and 3. T[?]Á- "R[H]À,, literally "the hand flies repeatedly", was re-interpreted to "(he) had/has/will have trembled (or shattered = shaken apart) [momentary]". These arbitrary re-interpretations cannot be rationalized only observed. The durational status of the "verbal" activity came to be indicated by the stress-accentual status of the object (first syllable of the compound): plural object = durative; singular object = momentary.

                  3))) The pattern formed by these "verbal" compounds was analogously extended to nominal compounds:



                    #1. "RÓ-M[H]Ó, "raised [durative = grown] human = adult"; but

                    #2. RÓ "M[H]Ó, "raised [momentary] human".

                  In the second phrase, we have the equivalent of a relative clause: "the human who was/is/will be(ing) raised (at one time)".

                  4))) Since the stress-accent could no longer be used to indicate pure nominal plurality, new compounds were formed to more closely define quantities when desired:



                    a)))) by combining the simplex with formants which were interpreted distributionally.



    5. Formants

      a. HHA, "water, many (animate)"; ¿A, "stone, much (inanimate)" (INDEFINITE PLURAL); R[H]E, "rain, indefinite quantity (animate)"; RE, "scratch, indefinite quantity (inanimate)" (small INDEFINITE PLURAL); F[H]A, "(hunting) pack (animate)"; FA, "palm, number (inanimate)" (small DEFINITE PLURAL); X[H]O, "fish, very large quantity (animate)"; XA, "larynx, press together, very large amount (inanimate)" (LARGE INDEFINITE PLURAL); T[H]O, "tribe, large quantity (animate)"; T[?]O, "torso, large amount (inanimate)" (LARGE DEFINITE PLURAL);

      b. S[H]E, "(unattached) male, one individual (animate)"; SE, "seed, one single (inanimate)"; (INDEFINITE SINGULAR); N[H]A, "wave, a(n) (animate)"; NA, "rock, a(n) (inanimate)" (DEFINITE SINGULAR)

      c. P[H]A, "flea, small (animate)"; P[?]A, "buttocks, half, small amount (inanimate)"(DIMINUTIVE); R[H]O, "antelope, spring" / RO, "lip, raise" (AUGMENTATIVE);

      d. in addition, HA, "air, hollow (animate)" (FEMININE); and,

      e. REDUPLICATION was used for universality ("all") and ("every").



        1) But since the Comment was itself nominal, forming these compounds with the "verbal"element of the Statement produced what we interpret as aspectual modifications. I think that the connections between the "nominal" and "verbal" interpretations are basically self-explanatory when viewed in the context of the following table:

    "Nominal"
    Significance         		PL F O R M A N T "Verbal"
    Significance
    DEFINITE
    SINGULAR
    ANIMATE: N[H]A, "wave, a(n), undulate"




    INANIMATE: NA, "rock, a(n), be inside"
    		 INGRESSIVE
    (intrans.: "start to . . ." )




    INGRESSIVE
    (trans.: "start to . . .")
    INDEFINITE
    SINGULAR
    ANIMATE: S[H]E, "(unattached) male, one individual, be alone"



    INANIMATE: SE, "seed, one single, emit forcefully"
    		SINGULATIVE
    (intrans.: ". . . once")




    SINGULATIVE
    transitive: ". . . once")
    SMALL
    DEFINITE
    PLURAL
    ANIMATE: F[H]A, "(hunting) pack"



    INANIMATE: FA, "palm, number"
    		IMPERFECTIVE
    (intransitive: ". . . ing")



    IMPERFECTIVE
    (transitive: ". . . ing")
    SMALL
    INDEFINITE
    PLURAL
    ANIMATE: R[H]E, "rain, indefinite quantity, fall"



    INANIMATE: RE, "fingernail, scratch, indef. amount, make"
    		TRANSFORMATIVE
    (intrans.: "become . . .")



    FACTITIVE
    transitive: "make . . .")
    LARGE
    DEFINITE
    PLURAL
    ANIMATE:T[H]O, "tribe, large quantity"



    INANIMATE: T[?]O, "lump, large amount"
    		ITERATIVE
    (intr.: ". . . repeatedly")



    ITERATIVE
    (tr.: ". . . repeatedly")
    LARGE
    INDEFINITE
    PLURAL
    ANIMATE: X[H]A, "fish, very large quantity"




    INANIMATE: XA, "larynx, press together, very large amount"
    		INTENSIVE
    (intransitive: ". . . energetically")



    INTENSIVE
    (transitive: " . . energetically")
    INDEFINITE
    PLURAL
    ANIMATE: HHA, "water, many, move"



    INANIMATE: ¿A, "stone, much"
    		PERFECTIVE
    (intr. ". . . completely")



    PERFECTIVE
    (tr.: ". . . completely")
    UNIVERSAL
    PLURAL


    "CV-CV, "all";

    CV-"CV, "every"
    REDUPLICATION
    		GNOMIC



    "CV-CV, "always . . . (state)";

    CV-"CV, "always . . . ing"
    DIMINUTIVE /
    PARTITIVE
    "small, part of"
    ANIMATE: P[H]A, "flea, small quantity"



    INANIMATE: P[?]A, "buttocks, half, small amount"
    		DIMINUTIVE
    (intr.: ". . . a little")



    DIMINUTIVE
    (trans.: ". . . a little")
    AUGMENTATIVE /
    COMPARATIVE
    "large, more"
    ANIMATE: R[H]O, "antelope, spring"



    INANIMATE: RO, "lip, raise"
    		FREQUENTATIVE
    (intrans.: ". . . often")



    FREQUENTATIVE
    (transitive: ". . . often")


    In their original significance, the basic three: (F[H]A/)FA (imperfective), (HHA/)¿A, (perfective) and (T[H]O/)T[?]O (iterative) can best be seen in Japanese.

    While these formants began as "inflections", they often reached lexical status. A very well-represented inflected root in IE, from which many original inflections have reached lexical status is *k(h)e:(i)-, "set in motion, be in motion" (PL KX[H]E, "deer, run").



    Two other formants were in use at a very early date:

    "Nominal"
    Significance         		PL F O R M A N T "Verbal"
    Significance
    FEMININE




    LOCATIVE
    ANIMATE: HA, "air, hollow"



    INANIMATE: ?A, "forehead, near"
    		 STATIVE
    (intransitive)



    STATIVE
    (transitive)



    And finally, two formants that were also very important:

    "Nominal"
    Significance         		PL F O R M A N T "Verbal"
    Significance
    COMPLETIVE /
    SUPERLATIVE

    K[H]E-¿E, "shadow-like = gray";

    K[H]E-¿E-M[H]O, "overall gray = black"

    M[H]O, "wander, overall"
    		 PERFECT PARTICIPLE

    K[H]E, "alter";


    K[H]E-M[H]O, "alter-overall = altered";

    DIFFERENTIATION


    T[?]O, "torso";

    T[?]O-¿E, "organ"

    ¿E, "abdomen, voice, word, -like"
    		 PROGRESSIVE
    PARTICIPLE

    T[?]O, "put together";

    T[?]O-¿E, "putting together"



      f. There seems to be a pattern of these formants drawing the stress-accent to the right (second syllable) when applied to Comments ("verbals") but not drawing it to the right (remains on the first syllable) when attached to Topical elements ("nominals").

        1) With these developments, the stage was set for evolution to the next type postulated by Klimov: the class-type.



Some readers might be interested in a timetable of evolutionary language developments before proceeding further.



END OF PART TWO








or


return to HOME PAGE ?




return to The Proto-Language

(PART ONE) ?


(PART TWO) ?





BIBLIOGRAPHY







the latest revision of this document can be found at
HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Forum/2803/ProtoLanguage-2.htm


Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947
PROTO-LANGUAGE@email.msn.com




1.

We have seen that the Proto-Language distinguished between animates with initial aspiration and inanimates with no aspiration (or glottalization) of the initial consonant.

2.

From nominals ending in -E and -O, active "verbals" are derived (see above). From nouns ending in -A, stative "verbals" are derived: e.g. ?A, "be present".

3.

Objects are arranged serially in order of relative "distance": i.e., the direct "object" of a "transitive verb" immediately precedes it after any "less near" (prepositional) objects". The "subject" of a "stative" or "intransitive verb" immediately precedes its predicate. The subject of a "transitive verb" is leftmost in the sentence.

4.

The Proto-Language made use of the stress-accent to indicate plurality on the natural basis that increased volume signifies greater importance or quantity, e.g. KX[H]E, "deer (singular)", "KX[H]E, "deer (plural)".

5.

It is obvious that Topic corresponds substantially to our modern terminology of "noun" and Comment to "verb". For a different terminology but a related concept of analysis, one might like to read Sandra A. Thompson's "Modern English From a Typological Point of View: Some Implications of the Function of Word Order", 1978, Linguistische Berichte 54, pp. 19-35; in which she suggests that lexical class membership may not be primarily semantic but rather based on discourse properties. The idea here is that nouns introduce participants or props into discourse ("Topic"), and verbs assert the occurrence of an event ("Comment").

6.

IE 3. (der-), dra:-, *tremble; Egyptian d3, shake, tremble

A.

In a very interesting article, EVOLUTION, COMMUNICATION AND THE PROPER FUNCTION OF LANGUAGE: A discussion of Millikan in the light of pragmatics and of the psychology of mindreading*, which will appear in Peter Carruthers and Andrew Chamberlain (eds.) Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Social Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Gloria Origgi and Dan Sperber eloquently describe the one-element sentence phase I postulate: