Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 671
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Davush »

My recent foray into creating a diachronically derived PIE language (Indo-Mesopotamian) has inspired some ideas for Qutrussan. Qutrussan has now been totally reenvisioned, and the new inspiration has allowed me to move closer to what the original idea behind Qutrussan was.

Some of you might remember that Qutrussan was originally inspired by a fusion of archaic/early IE features with Semitic features. As time went on however, the language moved further away from this vision until I was no longer happy with it.

With my new-found inspiration from Indo-Mesopotamian, I have decided to essentially merge Qutrussan and Mesopotamian into a single idea in a new setting. Indo-Mesopotamian was quickly becoming too time-consuming and tedious (not being a PIE scholar and all) – if nothing else, conlanging should be fun!

Qutrussan Revisited

The language described here is Classical Qutrussan, spoken in Upper Mesopotamia, roughly contemporaneous with Classical Syriac (4th-8th Centuries AD), and also written in Syriac script. Before this period, it is very sparsely attested in writing, if these fragments can even be said to be the ancestor of Qutrussan. There is some evidence of a non-Semitic, non-Anatolian language (mostly in the form of personal and place names) which may be Qutrussan in origin, attested via the languages of ancient Mesopotamia, particularly during the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Qutrussan has gained a lot of attention due to its uncertain classification. Various theories have been proposed, claiming it is a (highly divergent) IE language, Semitic, Hurro-Urartian, or even Sumerian. It appears to share several features with Anatolian languages, and quite a few roots which could reasonably be IE. This has led to claims that Qutrussan is a divergent descendent of the sparsely-attested Indo-Mesopotamian language. However, parts of its morphology appear more Semitic and there are also many Semitic-looking roots. Nonetheless, a direct connection with Proto-Semitic now appears untenable and these are more likely areal influences. Alternatively, others claim it was once a more widespread trans-Tigro-Euphratic language, possibly related to or in close contact with Sumerian.

If Qutrussan is indeed an IE language, it is unlikely that this could ever be firmly proven, given the time distance between the attested Anatolian languages and the much later attestation of Classical Qutrussan, as well as its isolation from the rest of IE. Another theory holds that it is an IE language which branched off earlier than Anatolian (which some have used as evidence for the PIE ‘Anatolian homeland’ theory), explaining its highly divergent nature, but time has since obscured any firm connection. If the trans-Tigro-Euphratic theory is true, this would indicate a relatively large group of speakers dispersed throughout the Tigris-Euphrates region contemporary with Sumerian and later Akkadian, indicating a more southern origin which later became confined to Upper Mesopotamia.

Whatever the case, it is now more commonly regarded as an isolate, with many layers of borrowings and influences from the surrounding languages.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Creyeditor »

I am looking forward to see more examples [:)]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 671
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Davush »

Creyeditor wrote: 06 Feb 2020 19:48 I am looking forward to see more examples [:)]
Thanks!

Phonology and Orthography

I won’t spend too long on the phonology, because everybody gets bored with phonological inventories. Diachronic quirks and other interesting features will be discussed in more detail as they appear. Phonology is discussed in relation to orthography.

Some Background

Classical Qutrussan is attested entirely in Syriac script. There are a few fragments of Old Qutrussan, with earliest being from the end of the Imperial Aramaic (c. 330BC) period. Interestingly, these old fragments are spread over a larger area across the Upper Mesopotamian plains, although Classical Qutrussan is centred along the Khabur river.

Qutrussans were likely part of, or allied to the Aramaean Osroene Kingdom (132BC – 241AD), which then became a Roman colony around 214AD and adopted Christianity very early. Its main city appears to have been Circesium (Qerqesīn in Syriac) at the junction of the Khabur and Euphrates. Scholars have attempted to link the name Qutrus to Qerqesīn / Qarqūsyōn, with Qutrus likely being an adaption of the Latin word ‘castrum’, referring to the city’s fortress (Castrum Circense). Another possible etymology is that it is shares a root with qūṣ (fortress), which may be a PIE or even Tigro-Euphratic root (compare Kuwait, the diminutive of the Arabic root kūt also meaning ‘fortress’, only attested in the place names Kuwait/Kūt).

Situated where it is, Qutrussan was heavily influenced by Old Syriac centred in/around Edessa and as such adopted the Esṭrangēlā style of Syriac script. Qutrussans likely later went with the Jacobites of Edessa, being in closer contact with Western Syriac speakers than Eastern. (The board seems to be displaying different Syriac scripts depending on browser, however.)

The phonology of Classical Qutrussan was relatively well suited to the script, with almost no modifications being necessary. The earliest writings show that Qutrussan used the matres lectionis inconsistently as in Syriac. By around 450AD, Qutrussan spelling had become more standardised. Long vowels were always represented by ālēp, yōd, waw, as well as some short vowels in some circumstances. Western Syriac did not develop vowel diacritics until around 900AD (borrowed from Greek) when the Serṭā script also developed, which later stages of Qutrussan adopt, but the spelling here is that of pre-diacritics. Thus the spelling is somewhat defective.

Phonology and Orthography

Classical Qutrussan has a fortis-lenis distinction in stops and the affricate. Word-initially and finally, this distinction is neutralised to plain unvoiced stops. Between vowels, the fortis series are realised as unvoiced-geminates. The lenis series were likely singleton unvoiced stops which were allophonically voiced or fricativised between unstressed syllables and after long vowels/dipthongs. In the orthography, the lenis series are represented by the Syriac voiced series, but later writings also indicate fricativisation of lenis stops, a similar development which occurred in Syriac.

Consonants

Fortis Stops: /pː tː kː qː qʷː/ ܦ ܛ ܟ ܩ ܩܘ

Lenis Stops: /p t k q qʷ/ ܒ ܕ ܓ ܩ ܩܘ

Interestingly, Qutrussan /tː/ is not represented by taw, but by ṭēt, which was emphatic /tˤ/ in Syriac. Taw is reserved for the affricate.

As can be seen, /qː q qʷː qʷ/ do not have separate fortis-lenis characters. In later writing, the fortis series between vowels are indicated by the addition of the quššāyā (hard) diacritic, or by qōp-kāp

/qː qʷː/ ܩܿ ܩ݁ܘ or ܩܟ ܩܟܘ

As can also be seen, labialisation is indicated with waw. In more plene writing styles, it sometimes takes the quššāya (soft) diacritic to indicate its consonantal value, disambiguating it from vocalic waw.

Word-initially and finally, only the fortis series are used for all stops.

The Affricate: /tsː ts tsʷː tsʷ/ ܬ ܙ ܬܒ ܙܒ

The fortis affricate uses taw while the lenis uses zayn, perhaps indicating lenis /ts tsʷ/ also had allophonic voicing to [dz dzʷ] intervocalically. There was considerably confusion/ambiguity in early writings, with ṣādē sometimes also being used. Alternatively, taw may be used with the addition of quššāya for the fortis series, and plain taw for lenis instead of zayn.

That taw is used for the affricate, and ṭēt for the stop is not surprising, when considering taw could also represent /θ/ in Syriac. This indicates that Qutrussan fortis /tː/ was perceived as 'stronger' than /ts/.

Nasals: /m n/ ܡ ܢ

Fricatives: /s ʃ ħ ħʷ (ʕ) (h)/ ܣ ܫ ܚ ܚܘ ܥ ܗ

/ʕ h/ are marginal phonemes in Qutrussan. It is likely that Qutrussan did possess /ʕ/ at some point, but this was lost, and later regained via Syriac borrowings. It is unclear whether non-Syriac words written with /ʕ/ are etymological, or a later development in spelling. Some paradigms indicate it was once a phoneme, but is now often unpronounced.

/h/ only appears initially and finally. In both cases, it is often unpronounced.

All fricatives except /ʕ h/ can appear geminate, indicated by quššāya. Geminate /s/ often uses ṣādē between vowels. Singleton /ħ ħʷ/ are also sometimes represented by /ʕ ʕʷ/ after long vowels and between unstressed vowels, indicating that this was a lenis allophone.

Word-finally and in the clusters /st sq sqʷ sr sħ/, /s/ is often ṣādē instead of semkat.

Liquids: /r l/ ܪ ܠ (Geminate indicated quššāya)

Glides: /w j/ ܘ ܝ (Never appear geminate)

Vowels

In the early stages, there is considerable variation as to how vowels were written. By about 450AD, the representation of vowels becomes more standardised, albeit with some variation.

The long vowels /aː iː uː eː oː/ are always represented.

ālēp ܐ /aː/
yōd ܝ /iː eː/
waw ܘ /uː oː/

As can be seen, /iː eː/ and /uː oː/ are not distinguished in the pre-diacritic system.

/ai au/ are also always represented by ālēp-yōd and ālēp-waw: ܐܝ ܐܘ

The short vowels /a i u/ are generally not indicated word-medially. Word-initially and finally, in monosyllabic words and in some suffixes they also use ālēp, yōd, waw. These sometimes appear with the rukkākha (soft) diacritic to indicate they are short.

Word-final /a/ and /as/ commonly use heh and heh-semkat/ṣādē instead of 'ayin.

Word-final /is us/ also indicate the vowel: yōd-ṣādē, waw-ṣādē. ܝܨ ܘܨ

Word-initial 'Ayin in non-Syriac loans tends to represent either /wa/ or /u/, indicating that /ʕʷ/ was perhaps present in Old Qutrussan.

Word-initial vowels are always preceded by ālēp (except /a aː/ which is already ālēp):

/a~aː i~iː~eː~ai u~uː~o~au/ ܐ ܐܝ ܐܘ

So, Qutrus is written: ܩܛܪܘܨ (q-ṭ-r-w-s) with the first short /u/ absent, and final /us/ represented by -wṣ.

As can be seen, the semi-defective spelling system results in quite a lot of ambiguity particularly regarding short vowels. Fortunately, later texts such as fully-pointed Qutrussan translations of the Syriac Peshitta have helped, although some have argued that these represent a later, post-900AD pronunciation, which might have changed slightly from Classical Qutrussan of c. 300-900AD.

There are a number of few spelling conventions and quirks in various declension paradigms which will be best covered as they arise.
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 671
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Davush »

More Background

Classical Qutrussan was likely already an archaic form of the language by the time of its standardisation. Several elements can be seen to change over-time, particularly post-10th C when full diacritic marking became established.

Nouns

Grammar and morphology is still very much a work in progress, and will be updated as more Qutrussan is discovered. [;)]

Qutrussan nouns are categorised as either Qutrussan (inherited) or Syriac (loaned). The two behave somewhat differently, although occasionally a Syriac-loan is inflected as an inherited noun, and less often vice-versa.

Inherited nouns display two genders: common and neuter. The common-neuter distinction is often used to support the argument that Qutrussan is a descendent of Indo-Mesopotamian, which developed alongside Anatolian sharing such characteristic features. While most nouns referring to people are common gender, the distinction is now purely grammatical.

Syriac-loans, and possibly even loans from earlier Semitic languages, retain the masculine-feminine distinction.

Qutrussan nouns also display at least three cases: nominative, accusative and genitive. It has been proposed that neuter nouns actually inflect in an ergative-absolutive system. Only common gender nouns are considered in this post.

Common Gender Nouns

The majority of common gender nouns end in an unstressed -Vs (-as -is -us). It is likely that this final -s was already being lost by the 5-6th C, evidenced by the plene spelling of -as -is -us (ܗܨ ܝܨ ܘܨ / -hṣ -yṣ -wṣ ) indicating the -s was perhaps orthographic addition. In several cases, the -s is commonly unwritten.

Some common gender nouns:

ܚܟܣܗܨ ḫáksas ‘entrance’
ܡܝܢܗܨ mḗnas ‘woman’
ܩܬܠܼܗܨ qutállas ‘jug’
ܨܘܚ݁ܗܨ ṣwáḫḫas ‘person’
ܫܝܣܗܨ šīsas ‘fellow, companion’
ܗܨܪܦܗܣ haṣrúppas leftovers, crumbs
ܘܫܿܘܡܗܨ uššūmas 'haggard/demented person'

And two nouns in -us:
ܛܩܘܨ túqqus 'demon'
ܝܡܨܟܘܨ imṣúkkus 'New Year'

Note that words beginning with unstressed iCC- and uCC- are usually written with initial yōd and waw, indicating that this may have been consonantal, i.e. imsúkkus /jəmtsúkkus ~ imtsúkkus/ and uššūmas /wəʃʃúːmas ~ uʃʃúːmas/. /jə wə/ are often pronounced if preceding word ends in a vowel. Similarly, words with unstressed initial aCC- are written with heh, which was likely unpronounced, i.e. haṣruppas /hatsrúppas ~ atsrúppas/. Occasionally, heh is also seen for the vowel in iCC- and uCC-.

The accusative is generally unproblematic: it replaces final -s with -m. In Syriac script, the vowel of the nominative stem is removed before mīm:

ḫáksam, mēnam, qutállam, ṣwáḫḫam, šīsam
ܚܟܣܡ ܡܝܢܡ ܩܬܠ݂ܡ ܨܘܚܿܡ ܫܝܣܡ

túqqum, imṣúkkum
ܛܩ݁ܡ ܝܡܨܟܡ

The common-gender accusative was likely already archaic by the time of Classical Qutrussan, and it is frequently replaced by nominative forms as will be seen.

The genitive, however, is a bit more complex as ablaut and stress-changes result in a Semitic-looking stem alternation in some words. Generally, the genitive suffix -ás (-ís -ús) is always stressed, coupled with reduction or elision of stem vowels.

A basic principle is that long ē ī ay > i, and ō ū aw > u in gen. stems. Long ā is more unpredictable, usually becoming short i/a or eliding entirely. Also -wa > u.

ḫáksas > ḫaksás
mḗnas > minás
qutállas > qutallás
ṣwáḫḫas > ṣuḫḫás
šīsas > šisás
haṣrúppas > haṣruppás
uššūmas > uššumás

túqqus > tuqqús
imṣúkkus > imṣukkús

Although the genitive indicated in the orthography uses a short-vowel, there is evidence that this was already becoming a long vowel, often with -s dropping:

ḫaksás > ḫaksā

In later writings, the genitive becomes almost entirely replaced by an analytic construction.

Syriac Spelling of Genitives

The genitive ending is spelled ālēp-semkat (or waw/yōd-semkat for -us -is nouns). Occasionally, the ālēp is seen with a rukkākha diacritic, or not written, indicating it was short.

In addition, the syāme diacritic (used for orthographically ambiguous plurals in Syriac) is used in Qutrussan to indicate the genitive. It is placed above the ālēp/waw/yōd before semkat, except if:

The genitive contains an initial cluster, these are written with an initial ālēp-syāme, perhaps indicating a short /ə/ preceded the cluster, i.e. mnās /ᵊmnās/, qtallás /ᵊqtallás/, etc.

Genitives in Syriac Script:

ܚܟܣܐ݃ܣ
ܐ݃ܡܢܐܣ
ܐ݃ܩܛܠ݂ܐܣ
ܐ݃ܨܚܐܣ
ܐ݃ܫܣܐܣ
ܗܨܪܦܐ݃ܣ
ܘܫܡܐ݃ܣ
ܛܩ݁ܘ݃ܣ
ܝܡܨܟܘ݃ܣ


Noun-Genitive phrases generally appear in the Semitic order of Possessed-Possessee. There are some fossilised phrases where the genitive precedes the noun. When the possessed occurs in the nominative, the final -s is usually not written, e.g.:

qutállah minás /qutálla minás/ ܩܬܠܼܗ ܐ݃ܡܢܐܣ ‘the woman’s jug’
haṣrúppah šisás /hatsrúppa ʃisás/ ܗܨܪܦܗ ܐ݃ܫܣܐܣ 'the fellow's leftovers'
túqquh uššumás /túqqu uʃmás/ ܛܩܘ ܘܫܿܡܐ݃ܣ 'the old haggard's demon'

This is sometimes called the construct-nominative, borrowing Semitic terminology.

Some Possible Etymologies

IE?
ḫáksas: < ? cognate with Hittite: āska- ‘gateway’ from *Hos-ko.
qutállas: < ? cognate with Hittite: akutalla- ‘water-container’ from *h1egʷʰ-dló-
ṣwáḫḫas: < ? cognate with Hittite: antuḫsa- ‘person’ from *h1ndʰueh2so-
haṣrúppas < ? cognate with Hittite: turúppa- 'pastry-offering'

Sumerian?
mēnas: < nin ‘lady, sister’
šīsas: < šeš ‘brother’

Sumerian via Akkadian?
túqqus: < Akk: utukku via Sum: u-dug 'demon'
imṣúkkus: < Akk: zammukku via Sum: zà-mu.k 'New Year'
Last edited by Davush on 21 Feb 2020 16:53, edited 1 time in total.
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 671
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Davush »

Common Gender Plurals

Common gender plurals are perhaps the most complex part of Qutrussan nominal morphology, employing something similar to Semitic-style 'broken' plurals (i.e. templatic morphology).

Initially, these plurals (as well as other parts of the morphology) led scholars to believe Qutrussan was Semitic, however broken plurals are rare in Syriac, being mostly found in Arabic, which pre-Qutrussan likely had little contact with. Therefore these are likely a Qutrussan innovation. Nonetheless, both Syriac and Akkadian do have some stress/syllable-defined stem alternations, and Qutrussan seems to have undergone similar processes.

Generally, singular stems in the shape CvCC- become CvːCC-, and add the unstressed plural marker .

ē ay > iyā and ō aw > wā (or uwā)

ḫárrus > ḫrārē 'grind-stone'
ḫáksas > ḫkāsē 'entrance'

ḫōlis > ḫwālē 'throat'
ʕáwris > ʕwārē 'animal'

Some nouns gain an extra <n> in the plural, called N-Stem Plurals.

šīsas > šsáynē 'fellow'
uššūmas > šušmáwnē 'old haggards'
mēnas > mnáynē

Noun stems with more than one syllable also become re-syllabified. Geminates are often broken up. Geminate stops /pp tt kk/, however, do not allow sequences such as pāpē. The second element becomes -n. In this way, they can also be considered a variant of N-Stem plurals.

lulímmis > lulmīmē 'deer, stag'
haṣrúppas > haṣarpōnē 'leftovers' (not *haṣarpōpē)

Qutrussan generally disallows sequences of two long vowels, as final is unstressed, this likely means Qutrussan has a marginal short /e/.

The origin of N-Stem plurals has generated some interesting theories. Some have theorised that it actually reflects the Sumerian plural marker -ene, which has survived in a few words, although this is tenuous at best. Others maintain it reflects the R/N-stem class of Hittite nouns which are mostly neuter, and somehow became generalised into a plural marker on some common gender nouns.

Some words, such as ʕáwris are spelled with ʕayin. Etymological ʕayin (i.e. not from Syriac loans) is unpronounced, often indicated by a rukkākha. However, in some settings a spelling-pronunciation or hypercorrection may have partially restored it.

The accusative plural removes from the plural stem, replacing it with -aym. Like the accusative singular, this was already archaic.

lulímmim > lulmīmaym
ḫōlim > ḫwālaym
ḫárrum > ḫrāraym
ʕáwrim > ʕwāraym
šīsam > šsáynaym
uššūmam > šušmáwnaym

The genitive plural replaces the of the plural stem with -iyas.

Nom. Sg. > Nom Pl. : Gen. Pl.

lulímmis > lulmīmē : lulmīmiyas
ḫōlis > ḫwālē : ḫwāliyas
ḫáksas > ḫkāsē : ḫkāsiyas
ʕáwris > ʕwārē : ʕwāriyas
mēnas > mnáynē : mnáyniyas

etc.

Syriac Loans

Qutrussan has many Syriac loans, which are treated as a separate inflectional class. In addition, there are layers of borrowings from earlier forms of Aramaic although these have usually become Qutrussan-icised and are treated as inherited nouns.

By the Classical Syriac period, most nouns end in in Syriac and are borrowed as such, although this is realised as short /a/ in Qutrussan, but spelled/transliterated according to the Syriac.

Syriac nouns also maintain the masculine-feminine distinction. Feminine nouns will be dealt with later. Where Syriac has non-final ā, this is usually represented by ō (waw) in Qutrussan, matching the Syriac pronunciation by this period. Earlier writing usually maintain the original Syriac spelling, although these later conform to Qutrussan conventions.

The nom. sg. of these replaces for . In Syriac, both -ā/-ē are represented by ālēp. The plural has syāme. While syāme can be placed over any letter in Syriac, it is more usual to place it over the ālēp in Qutrussan. Due to these vowels not being stressed in Syriac, Qutrussan gains a marginal short /e/, due to de-lengthening in unstressed, word-final position. It is also possible Syriac final was realised as short /ɔ/.

ܡܠܟܐ ܡܠܟܐ݃ malkā : malkē /málka~málkɔ - málke(ː)/ 'king'
ܠܫܿܘܢܐ ܠܫܿܘܢܐ݃ liššōnā : liššōnē /lɪʃʃɔːna~lɪʃʃɔːnɔ - lɪʃʃɔːne(ː)/ 'language'

The genitive singular is -ás, and the plural -ēyas (spelled alep-yod-semkat-syāme, which would ordinarily yield -āyas, but the alep of the pl. is retained). Syriac loans generally do not show stem reduction.

malkā > malkás : malkēyas ܡܠܟܐܣ ܡܠܟܐܝ݃ܣ
liššōnā > liššōnás : liššōnēyas ܠܫܿܘ݂ܢܐܣ ܠܫܿܘ݂ܢܐܝ݃ܣ

Some possible etymologies:

lulímmis < ? Sum/Akk: lulim 'deer'
ḫárrus < ? related to PIE root *h2erh3- 'to plough' or similar
ʿáwris < ? Sum: ur 'dog'
Last edited by Davush on 22 Feb 2020 09:58, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Void
sinic
sinic
Posts: 300
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 16:15
Location: Taqlarmakan

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Void »

This is very impressive. This inspires me to interject a (con)language isolate with a heavy local substrate somewhere as well.
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 671
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Davush »

Void wrote: 15 Feb 2020 01:08 This is very impressive. This inspires me to interject a (con)language isolate with a heavy local substrate somewhere as well.
Thanks! The idea is that Qutrussan is a 'mystery' Mesopotamian language of sorts. Whether or not it's actually an isolate is unclear, as parts of it seem reminiscent of IE or related to other neighbouring languages, while other parts are not easily explained, so although it might be IE or related to neighbouring languages, this can't be proven. This leads us to...

The Gutian Theory

One theory attempts to connect Qutrussan speakers to the historical Gutians. The Gutians were likely IE speakers who ruled over Sumer for a period (2135 – 2055BC). The mythological eponymous ancestor of Qutrussan speakers, Qūt, has been noted as possibly reflecting the Guti (Kuti/Quti). The place name Qutrus itself could reflect a conflation with the name Qūt and the Latin ‘Castrum’ (Qatru(m)s > Qūtrus > Qutrus). This theory would account for the large number of Akkadian and early Semitic loanwords in Qutrussan, as well as proposed Sumerian roots (although presumably via Akkadian).

Another theory is that Qutrussan is the result of a mixed-language situation. It is possible that early-IE was present in Southern Mesopotamia (as some scholars have proposed, i.e. Whitaker) and that intermarrying and extended contact led to groups of people being native speakers of both this early-IE and Sumerian, with the resulting language not clearly belonging to either. This theory could also hold true for the Gutian scenario, but at a later date.

Neuter Nouns

Qutrussan noun inflection is the part of the language which gives strongest evidence for an IE connection. The stressed genitive endings in -ás and the accusatives in -m are both familiar to the IE group. (Although Akkadian also has accusative -am). The Common-Neuter distinction in Qutrussan is also present in Anatolian, although with significant differences. Verbs, however, are less easily connected to IE paradigms as will be seen in further posts.

Many neuter nouns in the singular end in -ḫ /ħ/:

ܨܩܐܡܚ ṣqāmaḫ region, land
ܦܣܐܡܚ psāmaḫ house
ܚܘܿܪܣܚ ḫwársaḫ rainy season
ܣܡܿܐܠܘܚ sammāluḫ orchard
ܪܐܬܚ rātaḫ storm


This is reminiscent of the PIE -h2 suffix which has been argued to have formed collective nouns (later becoming plural in most IE). If this is indeed the origin of Qutrussan nouns in -ḫ, then presumably -h2 collectives became generalised as singulars in Qutrussan. Indeed, the semantics of many neuter nouns in -ḫ can be explained via a collective.

Neuter nouns, similar to Anatolian, do not have a separate accusative form.

The plural takes the stressed suffix -ōn, often with a change in stem (CCVC-aḫ > CVCC-ōn):

ṣqāmaḫ > ṣaqmōn ܨܩܡܘܢ
psāmaḫ > pasmōn ܦܣܡܘܢ
ḫwársaḫ > ḫursōn ܚܪܣܘܢ
sammāluḫ > samlōn ܣܡܠܘܢ
rātaḫ > irtōn ܐܪܬܘܢ

The genitive sg. simply adds -as to the sg., without stress change:

ṣqāmaḫ > ṣqāmaḫas ܨܩܐܡܚܨ
psāmaḫ > psāmaḫas ܦܣܐܡܚܨ
ḫwársaḫ > ḫwársaḫas ܚܘܪܣܚܨ
sammāluh > sammāluḫas ܣܡܿܐܠܚܨ
rātaḫ > rātaḫas ܪܐܬܚܨ

The genitive pl. takes the plural stem and replaces -ōn with -ánnas:

ṣaqmánnas, pasmánnas, ḫursánnas, samlánnas, irtánnas
ܨܩܡܢ݃ܨ ܦܣܡܢ݃ܨ ܚܘܪܣܢ݃ܨ ܣܡܠܢ݃ܨ ܐܪܬܢ݃ܨ

The plural of neuter nouns is used less often. It usually has more specificity, occuring with demonstatives and such. I.e. in sentences such as ‘orchards are beautiful’ where no particular orchards are referred to, the singular is preferred.

There are other noun endings which occur primarily in the neuter, these will be covered later.

A PIE Origin for Neuters?

Some have attempted to connect Qutrussan -ḫ neuters to PIE forms. One explanation is that -h2 > -ḫ became very productive at an early stage in Qutrussan, attaching more or less freely to nouns. These were originally collective, but the meaning was then generalised into a singular:


E.g.
‘land’ > ‘areas of land’ > ‘region'
‘rain’ > ‘rains’ > ‘rainy season’
‘tree’ > ‘trees’ > ‘orchard’

The new plural would then be an innovation, perhaps via something such as -ẃ̥n being generalised onto neuter nouns and reanalysed as a plural. Some have noted the presence of -n in neuter nouns and N-stem common gender nouns. The shape of the plural root is also more IE looking, which perhaps hints that the root is better preserved if they are indeed from PIE.
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by gestaltist »

I’m really enjoying this. Sounds like Qutrussan is right at home on Earth. It’s even more fun than the previous iteration.
User avatar
GoshDiggityDangit
greek
greek
Posts: 549
Joined: 18 Dec 2018 21:27
Location: Oakwood OH, USA
Contact:

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by GoshDiggityDangit »

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but is Qutrussan a living language?
“Like billowing clouds, Like the incessant gurgle of the brook,
The longing of the spirit can never be stilled.” ― St. Hildegard von Bingen
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 671
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Davush »

gestaltist wrote: 15 Feb 2020 20:52 I’m really enjoying this. Sounds like Qutrussan is right at home on Earth. It’s even more fun than the previous iteration.
Thanks! I am enjoying the setting [:D]
GoshDiggityDangit wrote: 16 Feb 2020 02:10 I apologize if this is a stupid question, but is Qutrussan a living language?
Good question! I haven't given it much thought (yet), but I imagine it would continue to present day. Maybe I'll get round to modern Qutrussan.

Some More Neuter Stuff

Other common endings for neuter nouns are -nnaḫ, -ōnaḫ and -ānaḫ in the singular:

ínnaḫ 'road, path'
aššōnaḫ 'cloud'
irmānaḫ 'pregnancy'

The plural usually just removes these endings:

aššōn 'clouds'
irmān 'pregnancies'

Nouns in -nnaḫ often have -ān in the plural. ínnaḫ is slightly irregular:

ínnaḫ : iyān

The genitive singular adds unstressed -as as usual across the Neuter paradigms:

ínnaḫas, aššōnaḫas, irmānaḫas

The genitive plural of -ōn is usually -ōnas. Others take -ánnas:

aššōnas, irmánnas, iyánnas (irreg.)

These nouns more strongly evidence that singulative -aḫ was a suffix, with the plural root being the 'original'.

Some have noticed the similarity between Qutrussan neuters and Hittite R/N-Stem nouns. A proposed reconstruction for aššōnaḫ 'cloud' on the basis of its similarity to Hittite šarāwar (oblique stem šaraun-) (storm cloud) is that at some point, the N of the oblique stem became generalised throughout the paradigm. This was concomitant with the addition of singulative *h2 (-aḫ). Assuming Hittite šarāwar can be reconstructed as PIE sr-ó-wṛ, pre-Qutrussan would have:

sró-wṛ : sró-wṇ > sró-wṇ-h2 (oblique stem generalised + singulative h2) > ᵊsrōnaḫ > ᵊššōnaḫ

The form without the singulative was then reanalysed as plural: sró-wṇ > aššōn.

This -ōn would then have become analysed as a plural marker across neuter nouns, as seen in words like ṣaqmōn, pasmōn. In some words, the neuter plural in -ān/-ōn is also a plurale tantum.

(Of course, it could also be the case that these have nothing to do with PIE as few roots can be reconstructed securely and this development is rather unique, but the little evidence does seem quite strong.)

Pronouns

Qutrussan pronouns have lead to great speculation, with earlier theories claiming that the pronominal system is clearly Semitic in origin, although this now seems unlikely.

Pronouns have Nominative, Emphatic, Oblique, Genitive and Suffixed-Possessive forms. The 3rd person does not distinguish gender/animacy, although the Syriac 3p. pronouns have been borrowed as (he) and (she) with restricted use.

Nominative and Emphatic

1sg: hanūk – húkkil
2sg: haṣūk – húṣṣil
3sg: ās - āsil (3m: hō~haw, 3f: hē~hay)

1pl: hawās – wássil *
2pl: haṣwās - ṣwássil
3pl: áysas - hēsil

* The 1pl alternates between hawās-ḫanās, presumably via influence of Syriac aḫnā, and the Oblique form hánnas.
The initial h- in pronouns is purely orthographic, being unpronounced.

Oblique

1sg: hāk
2sg: hās
3sg: hān

1pl: hánnas
2pl: háṣṣus
3pl: hēn

The oblique forms are often suffixed to prepositions among other things, in which case the orthographic h- (which is unpronounced anyway) is dropped, or replaced with n-.

Genitive and Suffixed Possessives

1sg: ākas –kil
2sg: āṣas -ṣil
3sg: āsas -san~-sal

1pl: wāsas -wal
2pl: ṣwāsas -ṣul
3pl: áysas -yal

At first glance, the 1sg hanūk and some 3p forms (hān, hēn) seems to have much in common with Semitic, e.g. Akkadian 1sg anāku, Hebrew anokhi, etc. However the discovery of Hittite with ūk complicated the matter. Others have suggested that (ha)nūk and (ha)şūk reflect Sumerian <ñu zu>, and oblique hān Sumerian <ane>.

The initial ha- /a/ of the pronouns could be a later addition under Semitic influence where ha- became a prefixed demonstrative of sorts. Hē, Hō and Ḫanās are more clearly Syriac borrowings. The odd looking suffixed possessives in -l are reminiscent of Anatolian forms in -ēl, but are otherwise unfamiliar.
User avatar
WeepingElf
greek
greek
Posts: 531
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by WeepingElf »

I like this. Historical linguists would probably get headaches trying to classify this - parts of the morphology are quite clearly IE, other parts just as clearly Semitic, etc. - reminds me of the contentions about Etruscan, which some people believe to be related to IE (some even claim that it was an Anatolian language descending from Luwian, which is IMHO utter bullfrogs, though).
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
My conlang pages
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 671
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Qutrussan Revisited: A Tigro-Euphratic Language?

Post by Davush »

WeepingElf wrote: 18 Feb 2020 19:59 I like this. Historical linguists would probably get headaches trying to classify this - parts of the morphology are quite clearly IE, other parts just as clearly Semitic, etc. - reminds me of the contentions about Etruscan, which some people believe to be related to IE (some even claim that it was an Anatolian language descending from Luwian, which is IMHO utter bullfrogs, though).
Thanks! It seems the general idea is succeeding then... [:D] I have never really explored Etruscan, but it could be an interesting source of inspiration!

[Update: Common Gender Plurals are now more non-concatenative, see relevant thread.]

Verbs

This post is only an initial sketch, so it will be expanded as it becomes fine-tuned.

Qutrussan verbal morphology has puzzled scholars since its discovery. Many parts show extensive ablaut or templatic processes, leading to early conclusions that Qutrussan was Semitic. However a closer look reveals that Qutrussan ablaut functions quite differently from neighbouring Semitic. Some forms look vaguely IE, and some roots do indeed appear close to IE (especially Anatolian), but the morphological processes seem difficult to describe from an IE perspective.

This post will cover the simple past and the imperfect of transitive verbs. Verbs inflect for person/number: 1sg, 2sg, 3sg, 1pl, 2pl, 3pl. Unlike Semitic, the 2nd and 3rd persons do not distinguish gender on the verb..

The simple past is characterised by the personal suffixes:

1sg: ā-tak
2sg: ā-tas
3sg: ā-tan
1pl: a-tān
2pl: a-tās
3pl: a-tēn

And the simple past stem is often CvCC- or vC-

miḫl- 'to smash, break, destroy'
ܡܚܠܐܬܟ miḫlātak 'I broke'
ܡܚܠܐܬܨ miḫlātas 'You broke'
ܡܚܠܐܬܢ miḫlātan 'He/She broke'
ܡܚܠܬܐܢ miḫlatān 'We broke'
ܡܚܠܬܐܨ miḫlatās 'You broke'
ܡܚܠܬܝܢ miḫlatēn 'They broke'

(C)VC- stems have -at- before the personal suffixes in the plural forms:

ap- 'to take, seize'
apātak, apātas, apātan, apattān, apattās, apattēn
ܐܦܐܬܟ ܐܦܐܬܨ ܐܦܐܬܢ ܐܦܬܿܐܢ ܐܦܬܿܐܣ ܐܦܬܿܝܢ

qun- 'to kill'
qunātak, qunātas, qunātan, qunattān, qunattās, qunattēn
ܩܘܢܐܬܟ ܩܘܢܐܬܨ ܩܘܢܐܬܢ ܩܘܢܬܿܐܢ ܩܘܢܬܿܐܨ ܩܘܢܬܿܝܢ

Imperfect stems generally show CCvC-.

past: miḫl- imperfect: mḫál-

mḫállik
mḫállis
mḫálli
mḫállu(wa)
mḫálluṣ(a)
mḫallḗn

ܡܚܠܿܟ ܡܚܠܿܨ ܡܚܠܿܝ ܡܚܠܿܘܘܐ ܡܚܠܿܘܨܐ ܡܚܠܿܝܢ

Past stems such as ap- and qun- geminate the final consonant, sometimes with ablaut:

ap- : app-
qun-: qwann-


áppik, áppis, áppi, áppuwa, áppuṣa, appēn
ܐܦܿܟ ܐܦܿܨ ܐܦܝ ܐܦܿܘܘܐ ܐܦܿܘܨܐ ܐܦܿܝܢ

qwánnik, qwánnis, qwánni, qwánnuwa, qwánnuṣa, *qunnēn
ܩܘܢܿܟ ܩܘܢܿܨ ܩܘܢܿܝ ܩܘܢܿܘܘܐ ܩܘܢܿܘܨܐ ܩܘܢܿܝܢ

*Note that unstressed -wa- > -u- is a synchronic sound change still in operation.

Qutrussan is largely SVO, so now we can make some sentences!

Šīsas miḫlātan qutállam
ܫܝܣܨ ܡܚܠܐܬܢ ܩܘܬܠܡ
The fellow smashed the jug

Mnáynē miḫlatēn ḫrāraym
ܡܢܐܝܢܐ݃ ܡܚܠܬܝܢ ܚܪܐܪܐ݃ܡ
The women smashed the grind-stones

Hanūk qunātak túqqum
ܗܢܘܟ ܩܘ݂ܢܐܬܟ ܬܘܩ݁ܘܡ
I killed the demon

Malkā áppi ši-ḫáksa tqūqaym
ܡܠܟܐ ܐܦܿܝ ܫܐܚܟܣܗ ܛܩܘܩܐܡ
The king is/was taking the demons to the entrance

(Hēn) appēn ši-psāmaḥ minás qutállam
ܗܝܢ ܐܦܿܝܢ ܫܦܣܐܡܚ ܡܢܐܨ ܩܘܬܠܿܡ
They are/were taking the jug to the woman's house
Post Reply