Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Eskêl would've come from an "Old Pannonian Bulgar" or a "Central Danube language", not Daco-Bulgaric. Bear in mind that the Bulgar dialects spoken in Pannonia and Bulgaria would later (9 c.?) show some divergence, such as the merging of a~o and sr > str, both due to South Slavic influence.

I'm going to comment fully on your sound changes in a "while", since it's getting late in my place, but I don't think PT *o *ö (as in no. 3) are going to be diphthongised...

Also, *t *d should palatalise to *c *ɟ imho.

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

I mainly copied sound changes in Turkic loanwords in Hungarian, and some characteristics of Chuvash. Palatalization of t and d seem to be late, and was in progress in Volga Bulgar, and I assumed a change due to contact with Eastern Romance.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

*c also occured from palatalisation in Oghur loanwords in Hungarian; compare Magy. tyúk ( < *tiukug?) < PT *tiakïgu with Chuvash чăх.

I would also suggest palatalisation triggered by final i (and its loss afterwards), e.g. *yėti > Esk. d'et' (apostrophes indicate palatalisation).

Just to summarise a few of my proposed sound-changes:

Oghur changes :
PT *ĺ > Esk. l
*ŕ > r

*d > r
*c > š (as evidenced by Magy. sátor)
*-t- stays so (look at the previous word)
*lc > lč or č (Magy. gyümölcs)
(č would also retain its affricativity in the clusters nč, rč.
*rd >*dd ( > tt?)
-k,g,q,ğ- > y or Ø
Opening of long mid-vowels.

I now doubt the lenition -m- > v happening too in Eskel; gyümölcs retains -m-.

I just read that Codex Cumanicus uses -tur- for the present tense. Don't known if it also holds for Danubian Bulgar.

I'll write more once I get my hands on my laptop.

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

This book explains very completely Hungarian phonological and morphological history:

https://btk.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/40 ... etebol.pdf

You might especially want to give its phonological history, specifically those that occurred after the settlement of Pannonia (i.e. between Old (attested) Hungarian and Modern Hungarian) a look.

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

*c > š (as evidenced by Magy. sátor)
*-t- stays so (look at the previous word)
*lc > lč or č (Magy. gyümölcs)
(č would also retain its affricativity in the clusters nč, rč.
This may be a dialectal difference, since there are words beginning from s- and cs- both descended from *č-; in clusters it occasionally changes into s as in koporsó 'coffin' < *Kapïrčak. The lenition/spirantization of final k is another mystery, which can be reconstructed based on Chuvash and Mongolian correspondences, see ON THE CHUVASH GUTTURAL STOPS IN THE FINAL POSITION. Also the development of initial *j- was *ʤ and was matched by Old Hungarian *d' for the lack of *ʤ or *ʒ; and it was still *ʤ in Volga Bulgarian.
Last edited by Zythros Jubi on 22 Jan 2020 14:35, edited 1 time in total.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Cardinal Ordinal (*-m-či) Distributional & Times (every X; <Oghuz) Fractional Collective (*-isi)
1 bir alomoč biryšer / (back formation or ordinal variant) biryš
2 jýk teverymyč jykyšer žárom (half) jykyš
3 öč öčömöč öčöšer öčöm öčöš
4 tövert tövertymyč tövertyšer tövertym tövertyš
5 býl býlymyč býlyšer býlym býlyš
6 álot altomoč altošar altom altoš
7 žýc žycymyč žycyšer žycym žycyš
8 sekyr sekrymyč sekryšer sekrym sekryš
9 takor takromoš takrošer takrom takroš
10 ván vánomoš vánošar vánom vánoš
11 vántabir vántabirymyš vántabiryšer vántabirym vántabiryš
20 žírym žírmymyč žírmyšer vántajýkym žírmyš
30 vator vatromoč vatrošar vatrom vatroš
40 hyryk hyrkymyč hyrkyšer hyrkym hyrkyš
50 jyllű jyllűmöč jyllüšer jyllűm jyllüš
60 atmol atmolomoč atmološar atmolom atmološ
70 žítmyl žítmylymyč žítmylyšer žítmylym žítmylyš
80 sekrén sekrénymyč sekrényšer sekrénym sekrényš
90 takrán takránomoč takránošar takránom takránoš
100 žür žürömöč žüröšer žüröm žüröš
1000 mon monomoč monošar monom monoš
10000 ván mon ván monomoč ván monošar ván monom ván monoš
100000 žür mon
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

On the problem of lenition/spirantization of final k, the book (about Hungarian sound changes) explained it as a postpositional vowel *u/ü after the stem, i.e. *seregü > sereg, *d’ürük > gyürű (how come the g is preserved in the former case?). Something similar had happened in Mongolian/Mongolic, e.g. köke 'blue' vs. adag (the word corresponding to Turkic 'foot', meaning is forgotten). But why not **kökü in the first case?
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

I suppose y reflects PT *ẹ and *é?

Some suggestions:

a) The cluster -lt is more likely to be simplified (due to closeness of place of articulation) than be broken up. Thus *altı > át
b) Perhaps retain öé (and oá) as a "novelty" of Eskel, or simplify them to é and á (as in Hungarian)? -öve- seems too "Chuvash-y". For example, *töört could be töéd, tüéd, or téd.
c) *otuz shows a short o?

To summarise these changes (and others):
1 bir
2 jýk
3 öč
4 töéd
5 býl
6 át
7 žýc
8 sér
9 tór
10 ván
20 žírym
30 otor
40 heré
50 jyllű
60 atmyl
70 žítmyl
80 sérén
90 tórón
100 žür
1000 mí / mín / míg
(how come the g is preserved in the former case?)
I've always just taken it as one of those irregularly-occuring sound change.

P.S. do you speak Hungarian, or had to struggle with Google Translate to get the book?

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

I've tried to learn some Hungarian on Duolingo, but have almost forgotten. I have to use Google Translate.
As for the diphthongization, the result is probably a merger of *oo and *aa plus *öö and *ee is expected except initially, where *o becomes *va and *ö becomes *ve (the same for long counterparts, becoming *vaa and *vee). And IMHO intervocalic *k would be preserved while *q<*x would be eliminated or become v/j. I'm not sure what happened to *lk *rk and *lg *rg etc.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

I doubt that short *o and *ö would get diphthongised, given their monophthong reflexes in Late Bulgar as seen from the attestments as well as the borrowings to Hungarian and Slavic.

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Actually, Dybo noted that even some root beginning with *u was changed to va-, and speculated a Danube Bulgar origin. I suppose this can be accounted for by dialectal differences.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

I wonder whether Proto-Turkic suffix had variant forms: for locative and ablative, it's *-tA and *-tAn after n/l/r and *-dA and *-dAn otherwise (how about after voiceless consonants)? Likewise, past tense suffix *-dI- was *-tI- after n/l/r, but again, what was the case after voiceless consonants?
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Chuvash only shows -t- after n/l/r, and shows an -r- after voiceless consonants. Curiously, Bashkir has -lA for locative and -nAn for ablative after a final vowel; in Kazakh it's -dA and -dAn, and -nAn only occurs after a nasal. Is -nAn a Kipchak feature (which was borrowed into Azeri)? I've seen a paper +nAn as ablative case suffix in Hungarian and Turkic languages, CSÁKI ÉVA, which claims that We suppose it as a borrowed case marker in Hungarian that was used mainly in the form +nAn especially in Kipchak Turkic (among others Cumanian) lanuages.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Only *-dA and *-di existed in Proto-Turkic; I'm not aware of *-tA/i- existing in any Turkic language except before voiceless consonants (but then *-dA/i would still be the underlying form).

I'm not aware of any -nan suffix in Hungarian...

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

IIRC Old (Orkhon) Turkic shows -tA/-tI after n/l/r; maybe there was no mimal pairs between nd/nt ld/lt rd/rt?
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Zythros Jubi wrote:
29 Jan 2020 14:55
IIRC Old (Orkhon) Turkic shows -tA/-tI after n/l/r; maybe there was no mimal pairs between nd/nt ld/lt rd/rt?
That's what I think happened:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tur ... characters

It also seemed that nd ld rd were single glyphs in Orkhon Turkic. Reminds me of Brahmic...

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

I've shared my current document about this conlang on Google Drive, mainly focusing on morphology and vocabulary:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vK60GD ... sp=sharing
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Fejezetek a magyar nyelv történetéből wrote: Az archaikus peremnyelvjárásokban és nyelvszigeteken egyes fonémák hiányoznak a rendszerből (pl. a gy és a ty Felsőőrön és a csángóban, a cs és dzs a csángóban és Szlavóniában stb.), de általában elmondható, hogy ezek a rendszerek megszűnőben vannak, esetleg már ki is haltak.
In Csango dialect, gy, ty and cs are all missing.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Az ősmagyar kor hangtani jelenségei körében kétségtelennek tűnik a változatok megléte.
Bizonyos hangeltolódások kétirányú megfelelései arra utalnak, hogy a szókezdő zárhangok
spirantizálódása egyes szavakban nem történt meg, ezekben a csoportnyelvszokás megtartotta
az eredeti hangot (ugyanabban a szóban: hajlik ~ kajla, huny ~ N. kum; különböző szavakban:
por, para, de: fej, fül).
Az az ősmagyar korban lejátszódó és valószínűleg hosszan elnyúló folyamat, melynek so-
rán az egykori, örökölt sz, s, cs, szj, csj hangok (szókezdő és szó belseji helyzetben egyaránt)
végül sz, s, cs-ként maradtak meg a nyelvben, bizonyára nyelvjárási változatok sokaságát
eredményezte. A finnugor szókezdő szj részben sz, részben s hanggá vált, létrehozva így egy
sz-ező és egy s-ező változatot (szer ~ sor, szem ~ sömör). E folyamatsorba tartozik a finnugor
csj alakulástörténete is. E hangnak a magyarban szintén kétféle változási iránya figyelhető
meg: csj > cs, illetőleg csj > s (csíp, csók, csomó ~ sír, süly). A kettősség ugyanazon szóban
is megfigyelhető: csillog ~ sajog. Létezett tehát egy s-ező és egy cs-ző nyelvjárási csoport,
amely a török jövevényszavakat is a maga „szája íze szerint” vette át. A cs-ző nyelvjárás a
bejövő cs-t és s-et tartalmazó szavakat cs-vel veszi át: csalán, csipa, ács (az átadó törökben is
cs volt), vagy helyettesíti: bocsát, bölcső, gyümölcs (az átadó törökben s volt). Az s-ező
nyelvjárás viszont mindenütt s-et használ: saru, sajt, keselyű (az átadó nyelvben ezek cs-vel
hangzottak), sárkány, sár, sörte (ezek pedig s-sel). A nyelvjárási különbség ugyanazon szó-
ban is megmutatkozik: kicsi ~ kis, csekély ~ sekély.
The irregularity of Hungarian historical phonology (in which a proto-phoneme has several outcomes without a certain rule) is explained by dialect missing here, i.e. some dialect preserved initial p, and k before back vowels; and some dialects turn *ʧ into *ʃ, others preserving it; some dialects turn *ɕ into *s and others into *ʃ; and there is also alternation between *ŋ~g~ɣ (cf. -k, -g, -γ > u ~ü).
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

This conlang (hereafter CB)'s TMA system is inspired by Old Hungarian: telicity (telic/atelic) opposition is shown by prefixes, and present/past opposition is shown by -dI suffixes. Gerstner et al. analysed the Old Hungarian system as composed by 5 tenses: simple present, simple past/narrative, present perfect, past imperfect and past perfect.

Simple present describes an action or an event that is happening or yet to happen (e.g. mond 'he/she says'). Simple past/narrative is often used in story-telling (hence the later name), and describes an action/event happened before speaking, whether completed or not (e.g. monda 'he/she said'). Present perfect describes an action/event that has an effect at the time of speaking (e.g. mondott 'he/she has said'). Past imperfect is used for a past continuing action; when used for instant verbs, it denotes that the action/event is going to begin (e.g. mond vala 'he/she was saying'). Past perfect is used for an action completed when speaking (e.g. mondott vala 'he/she had said').

In accord with Helimski's "Onogur Sprachbund" analysis, CB ought to have a similar system, as Oghuric languages spoken in Carpathian Basin did. The Old Hungarian aspect and tense system might have been influenced by Old Turkic and vala may be a parallel form of Old Turkic *er-ti 'was', in which both the main verb and the auxilliary verb can take the -DI- suffix, the former conveying perfectiveness and the latter past tense, cf. below (among languages of Volga-Kama area):
Spoiler:
(14) Tatár
a. aldӛm ’vevék’
b. aldӛm idĕ ’vevék vala’
(15) Mari
a. tolӛnam ’jöttem’
b. tolӛnam ӛl’e ’jöttem vala’
(16) Udmurt
a. mịniśkem ’mentem’
b. mịniśkem val ’mentem vala’
In addition, Old Turkic marked mood on the auxilliary verb:
Spoiler:
(13) te-di-miz är-sär (Chuastuanift)
say-PAST/PERF-1PL AUX-SUBJ
'We would have said'
With respect to personal suffixes, the system is like this:
Egyszerű jelen: mond-unk, kér-ünk (simple pres.)
Egyszerű/elbeszélő múlt: mond-á-nk, kér-é-nk (simple past/narrative)
Befejezett jelen: mond-t-unk, kér-t-ünk (pres. perf.)
Befejezetlen (folyamatos) múlt: mond-unk val-a, kér-ünk val-a (past imperf.)
Befejezett múlt: mond-t-unk val-a, kér-t-ünk val-a (past. perf.)
The -t- infix was likely influenced by Old Turkic -DI-, it was originally perfective suffix and became past suffix in modern Hungarian, while past was expressed by -á/é[1].
Ezt a lépést a paradigma két irányban való analógiás kiterjesztése követte. Az egyik új fejlemény a paradigmában a befejezett aspektusú véges igének befejezetlen véges igével való felcserélése, azaz, a folyamatos múlt kialakítása lehetett. Másrészt a befejezett múlt idejű paradigma létrejötte a -t aspektusjel elvonását, azaz, a befejezett jelen idejű paradigma kialakítását is lehetővé tette:
mentem vala (személyragos igenév + létige)
újraelemzés: mentem vala (személyragos befejezett ige + múlt idejű segédige)
analógiás kiterjesztés: megyek vala (személyragos befejezetlen ige + múlt idejű segédige) replacement of perfective verb by imperfective form
elvonás: mentem (személyragos befejezett ige) removal of auxilliary verb
As for the variation in OT suffix -DA-/-DAn-/-DI-, the suffix is -t- after stem ending in l/n/r, while it is -d- after others: bul-tum 'I found', kälür-tüm 'I had brought'; sülä-dim 'I led an army', sanč-dïm 'I stabbed him with a lance', buz-dum 'I smashed', udïma-dïm 'I did not sleep', coinciding with Modern Chuvash distribution of -t- and -r-. [2]

References:
[1] Az ótörök–ősmagyar kontaktus nyomai az ómagyar igeidő-rendszerben és a birtokos szerkezetben, E. Kiss Katalin, in Agyagási Klára – Hegedűs Attila – É. Kiss Katalin (szerk.) 2013. Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 2.

[2]THE KHAZARIAN LETTER FROM KIEV AND ITS ATTESTATION IN RUNIFORM SCRIPT, L. Ligeti, Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Tomus 31 (1-4) pp. 5-18 (1981)
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Post Reply