How do speakers of languages usually come up with names for their languages? A few trips to Wiktionary tells me that several languages do it with a combination of "place/tribe name + word/suffix meaning 'language' or 'of/pertaining to'", and often, the autonym for the language is the same as the autonym for the language's speakers. For example:
English (English): From Old English Ænglisc/Englisc, from Ængle/Engle (name of a Germanic tribe) + -isc (of, pertaining to; forms word denoting ethnicity or nationality)
français (French): From Old French françois/franceis, from France (France, the country) + -ois (used to form nationalities and languages)
italiano (Italian): From Italia (Italy) + -ano (coming from, related to)
中文 (Chinese): From 中 (middle; first character of 中国, meaning "China") + 文 (language; writing)
However, some are formed in different ways, for example:
español (Spanish): From Provençal espaignol, from Vulagar Latin Hispaniolus, from Latin Hispanus (Spanish, Hispanic) + olus (diminutive suffix)
Deutsch (German): From Old High German diutisk/diutisc (popular, vernacular)
Lallans (Scots): From lawlands (lowlands of Scotland)
This information is a bit biased, because Wiktionary doesn't really give much information about the etymologies of the autonyms of non-Indo-European languages, so tell me, is there any other "normal" way for languages to form autonyms?
In Vrkhazhian, they call their language Ashdu Yat-Vrkhazh "Mouth of the Great Land" of which Yat is a Middle Vrkhazhian word for "land", and Vrkhazh a Middle Vrkhazhian word for "great, large, significant"
Fixed. I created a corresponding thread in the Conlang Section.
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com
Well, in Ancient Egyptian, the autonym means "Mouth of the Black Land", where "black" references the soil.
Some people call that "whitewashing" (i.e saying some white people don't want to admit that Egyptians were non-white) and that it is actually referring to the skin colour... evidence they suggest is the use of a heiroglyph...
I disbelieve the latter meaning, for good reason.
If your a white man surrounded by other white men, are you going to consider yourself "THE White Man"? Would you even need to distinguish yourself by skin colour?
Likewise, Egyptian weren't the only black people in Africa...
Also, the Egyptians were probably brown-skinned too. They probably didn't even perceive themselves as black or white skinned, given the paintings featuring them.
Ah, that makes sense. Anyway, the reason I'm asking this question is that I'm actually trying to figure out how to come up with a name for my conlang. Right now, I'm thinking of two options: I could make up a name for the region in which the conlang's speakers would live, and then have a compound word composed of that name and the word for "language", or I could have a compound word composed of the words for "homeland" and "language". I'm leaning towards the second one.
You don't have to use "language"... you could have "tongue" or "mouth".
As for land, you could describe a distinct feature.
"Language of the Men of Tall Hats" or "Mouth of the Turtlefishers" or "Tongue of the Coarse Sands"
Ahzoh wrote:If your a white man surrounded by other white men, are you going to consider yourself "THE White Man"? Would you even need to distinguish yourself by skin colour?
Likewise, Egyptian weren't the only black people in Africa...
Also, the Egyptians were probably brown-skinned too. They probably didn't even perceive themselves as black or white skinned, given the paintings featuring them.
Ancient Egypt was an empire that did empire things, like trading and letting in immigrants. They had people of many different skin colors.
Ahzoh wrote:If your a white man surrounded by other white men, are you going to consider yourself "THE White Man"? Would you even need to distinguish yourself by skin colour?
Likewise, Egyptian weren't the only black people in Africa...
Also, the Egyptians were probably brown-skinned too. They probably didn't even perceive themselves as black or white skinned, given the paintings featuring them.
Ancient Egypt was an empire that did empire things, like trading and letting in immigrants. They had people of many different skin colors.
Regardless, it is unlikely that they would distinguish themselves by skin colour like that...
The fact they were multiracial would further adds to my point...
Besides, if they calling themselves that because of skin color, why don't they use it towards other tribes who are black skinned?
On further speculation: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_ ... ersy#Kemet
I'm just saying your initial post made it sound like there was such a thing as an "egyptian race" at that time, which there wasn't. And you obviously realize that. Now, for some real contribution from me:
The traditional autonym of the Kets is kə́nasiŋ, which is a nominalized plural form of kəˀn, meaning 'bright' or 'illuminated'. The use of this term is significant for mythological reasons (Georg says it refers to the fact that they are illuminated by the *sun*, i.e. they are earth dwellers, rather than ghosts or something).
I can't believe nobody (besides the native name of German) has mentioned the common practice of simply using the word for people or person either for the name of the people, the language, or both. Seems ridiculously common.
There is for example deutsch (German) ← Proto-Germanic *þiudiskaz, from *þeudō people and suffix meaning -ish – cognate of Dutch. And there inuktitut – like the people.
Is there any way to filter this sort of stuff on WALS or any sister site?
Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ 
