Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

[Zythros Jubi]

I know that this Turklang is on hiatus for a while, but just want to drop some stuff here:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43391366
https://www.christopherculver.com/langu ... uvash.html

Well, do you have ideas about a group of Chamic langs (all open syllables like Malagasy, presumably) spoken on Indian Ocean islands? Is it logical for them to use a Brahmic-derived (Indic) script while being Muslim? Recently I'm reading From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects but have no particular ideas as of now. Perhaps an early diverged language like Acehnese, spoken by first-millennium Chams who managed to travel west to Mauritius, Reunion and Seychelles. I also recommend Malagasy Dialects and the Peopling of Madagascar, but it still remains a mystery how those people moved to Madagascar; one of the hypotheses is that South Kalimantan peoples were taken as slaves by Malay-speaking sailors (many of which came from Banjar region). Another seems to say that the ancestor of the Malagasy first moved to southern Sumatra and were in contact with local Malays for some centuries. I wonder if they're any archaeological evidence supporting this.

As for this conlang, the name may change to Sékyl /sɛːkel/ in concordance with Székely, due to (folk etymological) links to the word szék 'seat; chair', from old Turkic *seki or *sekü, which becomes sék in the conlang (due to complementary lengthening); kyl is the word for house. I currently use e and y to represent /ɛ~æ/ and /e/ respectively, and acutes to represent long vowels; the resulting orthography is a blend of Czech-Slovak and Hungarian styles. BTW the 3sg/pl possessive suffix for singular noun is now -a/-e (as in Hungarian) after consonants, but -j after vowels (and -š for kinship terms and some inalienable possessives), and almost all instances of high short vowel at the end of stems (of native stock) are eliminated; the attributive/adj. forming suffix for nouns is -i (as in Hungarian), from a weakening (by analogy) form of *-ki. I got inspiration for this from Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence and Coexistence.. As for periodization of this conlang, here's a reference, The Periodization and Sources of Chuvash Linguistic History:

Ancient Bulgarian. This is the period when the Bulgarian dialects develop-
ed within the LAT unity. This lasted from the first centuries В. C. until
the beginning of the 4th century A. D. when the Ancient Bulgarian tribes
together with other Western Turks moved to the West.

Old Bulgarian. Old Bulgarian can be divided into two sub-periods. Early
Old Bulgarian lasted from the appearance of the Onogur-Bulgarian tribes
in Khazakhstan around the middle of the 4th century, until the dissolution
of the Great Bulgarian Empire around 670. Late Old Bulgarian can be
further subdivided. LOB I lasted until the 9th century. This is an important
turning-point in the history of the Old Bulgarian people. The Turkish-
speaking Bulgars living in the Balkans were rapidly assimilated by the
Slavs towards the end of the 8th century (see pp. 147-161). The Magyars
living in close contact with the Onogur-Bulgarian people conquered the
Carpathian basin and lost contact with them (for more detail, see pp. 141-
147). The Volga Bulgars slowly moved to the north and founded the Volga
Bulgarian Empire in the 0th century, firat under Khazar supremacy. Late
Old Bulgarian II is the period between the 9th century and the Mongolian
conquest in 1286/1236. The Khazar Empire, in which Bulgarian-speaking
groups played an important role, ceased to exist in the 10th century. We
have, however, no reliable data on the fate of the inhabitants of the Khazar
Empire.

Middle Bulgarian begins with the destruction of the Volga Bulgarian
Empire. During the reign of the Golden Horde we have to reckon with the
matisive immigration of Kipchak tribes. Some Volga Bulgarian groups
weie Tataricized, while others evaded the Kipchak intrusion, but got into
close contact with the Finno-Ugric people living in the forests. This is the
time when the formation of the present Chuvash language began. Early
Middle Bulgarian lasted until the organization of the Kazan Khanate in
the 1430s. In Late Middle Bulgarian, the influence of the Kipchak-Tatar
grew considerably. Late Middle Bulgarian lasted until the fall of Kazan
in 1551/1552.

New Bulgarian can also be called Chuvash if we speak about the periodi-
zation of the history of the language. In fact, the Tatars of the Kazan
territory called themselves Bulgars until recent times, for ethnically, and
in respect of political tradition they had much in common with the Bulgars.
Though the influence of the Kipchak-Tatar language did not diminish in.
the new Bulgarian period, the Russian influence grew significantly. The
Christianization of the Chuvash began. Early New Bulgarian or Early
Chuvash is the period from the fall of Kazan until the first written source
in the Chuvash language: 1723, the compilation of Strahlenberg's word-list
(published in 1730). The second sub-period lasted until the formation of the
Chuvash literary language at about the end of the 19th century. After
the October Revolution, Modern Chuvash began to develop.

I'm hesitant about how to name the Oghur languages spoken in Danube and Carpathian basins; the former is Danube Bulgar (DB), but we don't have much information about the later. A Russian study referred the language of Nagy-Szent-Miklos Treasure as Avar [1]; besides, we don't know the relationship between Kabar, Khalyzian etc. and DB, whether they form a dialect continuum and so on. Anyway, the point of divergence (depart) is around 9th century, or from the beginning of LOB II period.
In my internal history, LOB II period is characterized by heavy contact with South Slavic and Hungarian, and lasts until the formation of the Kingdom of Hungary around 1000, when Kabar-Khalysian tribes from Bihar migrated to Transylvania as border guards, contacting with earlier Danube Bulgar refugees(?) as well as descendents of Avars. Thus began the Early MB period, when the Székely society began to form its unique identity as an autonomous entity within Hungary, and Rovas script was developed; the Slavic varieties in contact became mainly East Slavic in what was later Moldavia; dialect leveling (as well as further convergence with Hungarian and Eastern Romance) began, and Slavic influence diminished. Late MB period starts in mid-12th century due to Mongolian invasions, after that the Kipchak and Mongolic influence expanded; there was also genetic exchange with Transylvanian Saxons (Teutonic Knights), and Middle High German loanwords entered the language. Next it's Early NB period after the Battle of Mohacs, and the main source of contact shifted to Ottoman Turkic and Romanian again. Late NB starts around 1710s, when Habsburg rule was consolidated, and a new wave of German and Latin loanwords entered. Modern Sekyl starts from about 1850s, when modern orthography had appeared.

[1] Аварская надпись на сосуде из клада Надь-Сент-Миклош, Мудрак О.А. (Москва)

[Zythros Jubi]

Thus, in the language of the Iranian Khalaj (Iranian speakers living on the shores of the Caspian Sea), which according to Indo-Europeanists retains quite useful information and material in its phonetic, grammatical and lexical peculiarities, we find a iterative marker, or more precisely one of plural number, in ‑gäl, cf. čän ‘eye’ – čängäl ‘eyes’, däs ‘hand’ – däsgäl ‘hands’, lïng ‘leg’ – lïnggäl ‘legs’. Scholars trace this plural suffix back to an independent word meaning ‘band, group’; Iranian Khalaj gala ‘much, many’, Talyshi gälä ‘group, herd’, Ishkashimi qala ‘herd, flock, crowd’. This underscores once more the correctness of the observation by B. A. Serebrennikov and other linguists that, "the mutability of languages’ morphological type inevitably comes from the phenomenon that initially there are no affixes (formants), and these arise from nearby, independent words" (Čikobava 1952).

What language on earth is this Iranian Khalaj, which is identified as a spurious language by Wikipedia? However, I'll probably the suffix -kal/kel for plural nouns.

[dva_arla]

]Is it logical for them to use a Brahmic-derived (Indic) script while being Muslim?

The Bengalis and (most relevant to conlang at hand) Maldivians does. Even the Chams have their own Brahmic script. The Arabic script doesn't really get that much of a following in "peripheral" (South and Eastern) India and mainland Southeast Asia.

Perhaps an early diverged language like Acehnese, spoken by first-millennium Chams who managed to travel west to Mauritius, Reunion and Seychelles.

The Acehnese aren't as seafaring as the Bugis of Sulawesi/Celebes though... You might want to look at the Bugis and their language.

Any ideas about an Austronesian language spoken in mainland Australia, by settlers from Sulawesi or the Moluccan islands?

By the way, was it the Acehnese who migrated to Champa, or was it the other way around? (I have heard theories of both sort, that includes refugees fleeing either way)

it still remains a mystery how those people moved to Madagascar; one of the hypotheses is that South Kalimantan peoples were taken as slaves by Malay-speaking sailors (many of which came from Banjar region). Another seems to say that the ancestor of the Malagasy first moved to southern Sumatra and were in contact with local Malays for some centuries.

The Austronesians have the sea in their blood... how do you think they managed to reach as far as the Easter Islands? Though that was around 3000-2000 B.C. it seems; by the time Malagasy etnogenesis happened (3-10 c. A.D. per Wikipedia), the Austronesians, except those living in small islands and major ports, must have waned out their "seafaring spirit" as they get somewhat more settled.

Thus, in the language of the Iranian Khalaj (Iranian speakers living on the shores of the Caspian Sea), which according to Indo-Europeanists retains quite useful information and material in its phonetic, grammatical and lexical peculiarities, we find a iterative marker, or more precisely one of plural number, in ‑gäl, cf. čän ‘eye’ – čängäl ‘eyes’, däs ‘hand’ – däsgäl ‘hands’, lïng ‘leg’ – lïnggäl ‘legs’. Scholars trace this plural suffix back to an independent word meaning ‘band, group’; Iranian Khalaj gala ‘much, many’, Talyshi gälä ‘group, herd’, Ishkashimi qala ‘herd, flock, crowd’. This underscores once more the correctness of the observation by B. A. Serebrennikov and other linguists that, "the mutability of languages’ morphological type inevitably comes from the phenomenon that initially there are no affixes (formants), and these arise from nearby, independent words" (Čikobava 1952).

Also Sarikoli plural suffix -χejl (that I happened to stumble on while looking for clues to proceed with my "reconstruction" of Modern Khotanese) ... any connection to Persian خیلی ?

Anyway, -kel is an Iranian suffix. You might want to use the Oghuric equivalent of the word for Eskyl.

[Zythros Jubi]

By the way, was it the Acehnese who migrated to Champa, or was it the other way around? (I have heard theories of both sort, that includes refugees fleeing either way)

Recently I read From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects by Graham Thurgood, who reconstructed Proto-Chamic. There are many Mon-Khmer loanword in all Chamic languages including Acehnese, so it's certain that the Acehnese originated from Champa. But who were the first inhabitants of Aceh region? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samudera_Pasai_Sultanate was founded in 13th century, well after Acehnese exodus, but the official language or lingua franca was Malay instead of Aceh (why?). It suddenly came to me that a Chamic language with all open syllables would be exciting; Dhivehi/Maldivian is also full of open syllables IIRC. BTW was this phenomenon in Malagasy comes from contact with Bantu speakers? When it comes to geography, are Seychelles and Chagos Archipelago able to sustain a refugee population? (perhaps the civilization would degrade to simple fishing society there) Anyway, the first visitors to Chagos were Maldivians, but they found it to distant to be settled. Maybe the Malagasy and Comorians found it too far away for Seychelles as well? If so, the distribution can be limited to Mascarene Islands (how about settling in Agalega?), i.e. Reunion, Mauritius and Rodrigues, and such an area is small enough for a united feudal state.

The Acehnese aren't as seafaring as the Bugis of Sulawesi/Celebes though... You might want to look at the Bugis and their language.
Any ideas about an Austronesian language spoken in mainland Australia, by settlers from Sulawesi or the Moluccan islands?

The Buginese and Makassarese people had contract with Australian Aborigines, but they didn't seem to explore westwards. But their link with Australia is only commercial, but didn't attempt to colonize/settle there. The population of Kimberley plus Arnhem Land is too small, less than 100,000. However, I'm uncertain about the pre-contact size of population there (larger than now?); Kimberley alone is home to four language families, and used to be consisted of 50-60 languages. If a Makassarese/Buginese kingdom/sultanate or trade empire emerged at that time , encompassing most of Non-Pama-Nyungan speaking area in Australia and bringing rice cultivation as well as cities there, I suppose they would have been extinct sooner than in OTL, and a trading creole became a lingua franca; then perhaps this state would be taken as a protectorate by the Dutch, and so on.

From the Wikipedia entry on Trepanging:

To supply the markets of Southern China, Makassarese trepangers traded with Indigenous Australians of Arnhem Land from at least the 18th century or likely prior. This Macassan contact with Australia is the first recorded example of interaction between the inhabitants of the Australian continent and their Asian neighbours.[1]

This contact had a major impact on the Indigenous Australians. The Makassar exchanged goods such as cloth, tobacco, knives, rice and alcohol for the right to trepang coastal waters and employ local labour. Makassar pidgin became a lingua franca along the north coast among different Indigenous Australian groups who were brought into greater contact with each other by the seafaring Macassan culture.[1]

Archeological remains of Makasar contact, including trepang processing plants from the 18th and 19th centuries, are still found at Australian locations such as Port Essington and Groote Eylandt, and the Makasar-planted tamarind trees (native to Madagascar and East Africa).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makassan_ ... _Australia:

Language
A Makassan pidgin became a lingua franca along the north coast, not just between Makassan and Aboriginal people, but also between different Aboriginal groups, who were brought into greater contact with each other by the seafaring Makassar culture. Words from the Makassarese language (related to Javanese and Indonesian) can still be found in Aboriginal language varieties of the north coast; examples include rupiah (money), jama (work), and balanda (white person), which originally came to the Makassar language via the Malay 'orang belanda' (Dutch person).[37]

Religion
Regina Ganter and Peta Stephenson, drawing on the work of Ian Mcintosh (2000), argue that aspects of Islam were creatively adapted by the Yolngu, and Muslim references survive in certain ceremonies and Dreaming stories today.[38][39] Stephenson speculates that the Makassans may have also been the first to bring Islam to Australia.[40][better source needed]

According to anthropologist John Bradley from Monash University, "If you go to north-east Arnhem Land there is [a trace of Islam] in song, it is there in painting, it is there in dance, it is there in funeral rituals. It is patently obvious that there are borrowed items. With linguistic analysis as well, you're hearing hymns to Allah, or at least certain prayers to Allah."

A bit off-topic; please move to Beginner's Corner.

[Zythros Jubi]

First of all, orthography and phonology:

Letter Name Phonetic value
A a á ɑ
Á á vorom á äː
B b bé b
C c cé ʦ
Č č čé ʧ
D d dé d
E e é ɛ~æ
É é vorom é ɛː(E,S)/eː(W)
F f ef f
G g gé ɡ
H h há h
I i í i
Í í vorom í iː
J j jé j
K k ká k
L l el l
Ľ ľ eľ ʎ
M m em m
N n en n
Ň ň eň ɲ
O o ó o~ə(S)
Ó ó vorom ó oː
Ö ö ő ø~ə(S)
Ő ő vorom ő øː
P p pé p
Q q kú (k/kv)
R r er r
S s es s
Š š eš ʃ
T t té t
U u ú u
Ú ú vorom ú uː
Ü ü ű y
Ű ű vorom ű yː
V v vé v
W w dupla-vé (v)
X x iks (ks)
Y y ipsilon e(SE)/ø(W)/ɛ~ə(S)/ɨ(NE)
Ý ý vorom ipsilon eː(SE,S)/iː(W)/ɨː(NE)
Z z zé z
Ž ž žé ʒ

Note:
1. Letters Q, W, X are only used in loanwords and proper names;
2. "vorom" means "long";
3. E/W/S/SE/NE: Eastern/Western/Southern dialect, Southeastern/Northeastern subdialect;
4. Unstressed o/ø~e > ə in Southern dialect (with maximal German influence), and o/ø > ɤ/ɘ in some Western dialects;
5. Digraphs dz and dž are not regarded as letters.
6. In S. dialect, y and ö merged into one phoneme [ø~ə].

Phonology
Consonants
Bilabial Labiodental Alveolar Alveolo-Palatal Palatal Velar Glottal
Plosives p b t d k g
Fricatives s z š /ʃ/ ž /ʒ/ h
Affricates *f v c /ʦ/ *dz č /ʧ/ *dž /ʤ/
Nasals m n ň /ɲ/
Liquids l ľ /ʎ/
Trills/Taps r
Approximant j
* Mainly occurring in loanwords.

Vowels Monophthongs Long
Front Central Back Front Central Back
High i ü /y/ u í ű ú
Mid y /e/ ö /ø/ o /o/ ý ő ó
Mid-Low e /ɛ/ [ə] é
Low a /a/* a /ɑ/ á /aː/

* usually occurring in loanwords

[Salmoneus]

The Austronesians have the sea in their blood... how do you think they managed to reach as far as the Easter Islands?

Naively, I'd always assumed that this was because of boats, rather than just some innate racial superiority as you suggest.

Though that was around 3000-2000 B.C. it seems; by the time Malagasy etnogenesis happened (3-10 c. A.D. per Wikipedia), the Austronesians, except those living in small islands and major ports, must have waned out their "seafaring spirit" as they get somewhat more settled.

What? No, the settlement of Easter Island was around 1100 AD (give or take). The great Polynesian migrations were all around the 800-1400 AD time period.

The 'Austronesian expansions' aren't one thing, but consist of at least seven different things:

- the settlement of Taiwan (6000 BP?)
- the gradual settlement of the Philippines and Indonesia (5000-4000 BP?) (note the wide branching and difficulty of phylogenetic analysis, indicating a complicated and slow process)
- the Lapita/Oceanic expansions (3500-3000 BP)
- the Polynesian expansions (1500-500 BP)

along with the Chamorro expansion (~3500 BP but unrelated to Lapita and the Oceanic languages), the expansion of Malayic in Indonesia, the settlement of Madagascar and the settlement of Micronesia (date unknown; known dates suggest last 2000 years but this may be because older coastal sites are now underwater).

[Zythros Jubi]

Well, what are the closest languages to Chamorro? There seems to be none, just like Javanese.

[dva_arla]

The Austronesians have the sea in their blood... how do you think they managed to reach as far as the Easter Islands?

Naively, I'd always assumed that this was because of boats, rather than just some innate racial superiority as you suggest.

Ah, m8, you don't seem to get prose...

What? No, the settlement of Easter Island was around 1100 AD (give or take). The great Polynesian migrations were all around the 800-1400 AD time period.

The 'Austronesian expansions' aren't one thing, but consist of at least seven different things:

Beg to differ:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 008%29.png

The Polynesian expansion does indeed take place during the time-frame you mentioned, however it is to be noticed that Samoa and Tonga is settled as early as ~800 BC, and most relevantly to your conlang is the fact that the ancestors to the Malagasy arrived in 500 AD.

What I meant with the whole idiomatic "seafaring spirit" stuff is that societies in "mainlands" tend to lose interests in seafaring after settling down and "urbanising"; it is only after the cities develop ports and fleets that the seafaring (organised in nature i.e. utterly different from those of the canoe-sailors) continues. Of course, Austronesians (if you can still call them by said name) living in the smaller island still need boats to get through. I am fully aware that Austronesian expansion does not consist of merely one step.

Now, Kalimantan surely counts as a "mainland", and the Dayaks don't seem to be as keen to seafaring than their neighbouring Malays and Bugis (That, or they may have lost a past maritime tradition evidences allowing). Thereby, the theory you cited-- that of enslavement by sailors, seem plausible.

but the official language or lingua franca was Malay instead of Aceh (why?)

Because Malay was used by the more-powerful maritime Kingdom of Sriwijaya, hence making the language a lingua franca of nearly all of Nusantara (with the notable exception of Java where Javanese cultural hegemony remains steadfast). Even to this day many languages used in several ports in Celebes and the Moluccas are in fact Malay-based creoles.

The official language of Kievan Rus and the Serbian Empire was Old Church Slavonic a.k.a Mediaeval Bulgarian...

There are many Mon-Khmer loanword in all Chamic languages including Acehnese, so it's certain that the Acehnese originated from Champa.

Plausible, but still leaves some questions geographically, considering that the Chams would either have had to pass through the Straits before reaching Aceh, or (less likely) cross through the Malay Peninsula by-land. It would be nice to find evidence of an extinct Chamic language somewhere in the coasts of the Straits (N. Sumatra, Riau, Jambi, Johor, &c.)... If this migration did take place it must've happened fairly early (before the middle of the first millenium A.D.).

[Salmoneus]

The Austronesians have the sea in their blood... how do you think they managed to reach as far as the Easter Islands?

Naively, I'd always assumed that this was because of boats, rather than just some innate racial superiority as you suggest.

Ah, m8, you don't seem to get prose...

Ah, that's what it is. I've not encountered this "prose" business before, you're right. I thought it was just racist bullshitting, and that your reply was patronising bullshit, but I'm sure you're right, it's just "prose".

On the subject, "m8" (I'm sorry, I must have forgotten meeting you and befriending you, little sweetheart, my mistake I'm sure), of not getting things, I assume you haven't encountered quote tags before, and that's why you haven't understood that Zythros and I are different people (which I guess must make his last post, responding to me, very confusing to you!).

What? No, the settlement of Easter Island was around 1100 AD (give or take). The great Polynesian migrations were all around the 800-1400 AD time period.

The 'Austronesian expansions' aren't one thing, but consist of at least seven different things:

Beg to differ:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 008%29.png

So this is one of those "prose" things where "beg to differ" means "I agree with you entirely", yes?

Its settlement of Taiwan at 5000BP seems too late; my 6000 was a round and conservative number, but the consensus used to be for around 6500, and now (according to Blust, citing Tsang) has settled on around 5500 instead.

I suggested Philippine-Indonesian settlement between 5000 and 4000; the map thinks after 4200. Again, I was going for conservative round numbers, as apparently first settlement of the northern philippines is dated by some to the earlier half of that millennium. The map doesn't give an end point, and indeed I don't think we know one when it comes to southwest indonesia.

Regarding Lapita/Oceanic, the map gives dates between 3500 and 2800 for the westernmost and easternmost expansions respectively, entirely in agreement with the broad 3500-3000 period I gave.

For the Polynesian expansions, I give 1500-500, and the map gives 1300-800. I'm sure you understand that I was using round numbers, and also that there's a degree of uncertainty in some of these dates (in particular, I think the date for Hawai'i is a bit earlier than is now generally thought on the basis of carbon dating).

Likewise, the map and I agree on Chamorro, and I don't disagree with the map's dating of Micronesian, though I understand that this may be somewhat speculative.

The Polynesian expansion does indeed take place during the time-frame you mentioned, however it is to be noticed that Samoa and Tonga is settled as early as ~800 BC, and most relevantly to your conlang is the fact that the ancestors to the Malagasy arrived in 500 AD.

I don't see how this is 'differing'. [indeed, the dates for Samoa and Tonga are apparently a little on the late side - some have them as early around ~1000BC.

My point was simply that Austronesian seafaring expansions could not be ascribed to "blood" or "spirit" or "national character" or whatever, because those seafaring episodes were divided by hundreds or thousands of years and thousands of miles. Instead, I would suggest that the fact that several different Austronesian groups, at different points in time and space, have engaged in long-distance large-scale maritime expansion can be explained as largely a coincidence, on the basis of a) many of them living in insular environments, and b) their possessing a developed and developing naval technology.

What I meant with the whole idiomatic "seafaring spirit" stuff is that societies in "mainlands" tend to lose interests in seafaring after settling down and "urbanising"; it is only after the cities develop ports and fleets that the seafaring (organised in nature i.e. utterly different from those of the canoe-sailors) continues. Of course, Austronesians (if you can still call them by said name) living in the smaller island still need boats to get through. I am fully aware that Austronesian expansion does not consist of merely one step.

Yes, Austronesians continue to be Austronesians when they live on small islands; it's a linguistic term, not one relating to cultural type. And to say that "canoe-sailors" have non-"organised" seafaring is ridiculous, and stinks of the racist attitudes of the past. We in fact know that a lot of Austronesian sailing in the pre-urban period was extremely organised. For instance, not only did the Eastern Polynesians move entire populations across thousands of miles of ocean, but it appears that they maintained (with the exception of Easter Island) a linked and interdependent culture across those vast distances for several generations. Likewise the vast scales of the Oceanic and Micronesian expansions certainly does not seem like something 'disorganised'.

The question of urbanisation, however, doesn't seem that relevant; most Indonesians did not live in cities. What's more, "ports" and "fleets" aren't things that develop AFTER urbanisation - they're in many cases, certainly in this context, the prerequisites of urbanisation. Having fleets and ports is how people were able to support having cities.

Now, Kalimantan surely counts as a "mainland", and the Dayaks don't seem to be as keen to seafaring than their neighbouring Malays and Bugis (That, or they may have lost a past maritime tradition evidences allowing). Thereby, the theory you cited-- that of enslavement by sailors, seem plausible.

Again, not me. But it's worth pointing out that things may have happened that we don't know about. Apparently there are tribes in central, inland Borneo who appear related to the Buginese, while the East Barito people who probably moved to Madagascar now look to be related to, or at least to have had extensive early contact with, the Sama-Bajaw sea nomads in the Philippines. So we can't necessarily assume that we can divide tribes up into maritime and non-maritime tribes on the basis of their recent history.

[Salmoneus]

*sigh*

OK, I'm sorry for biting back. But come on, seriously, "m8, you don't seem to get prose"? Let's not have a flamewar, please.

[Zythros Jubi]

If this migration did take place it must've happened fairly early (before the middle of the first millenium A.D.).

Graham Thurgood dated that event after the sack of Indrapura in 982.

In addition, how possible is it for a Papuan language to be carried to Africa and Australia by sailors?


The Papuan Language of Tambora
Author(s): Mark Donohue
Source: Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Dec., 2007), pp. 520-537
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20172326

The affiliation of Tambora language remains a mystery. However since it's a commercial civilization like the island-city-states of Ternate and Tidore, their language may have had an opportunity to spread far away...

I'm recently considering making a conlang spoken in Reunion, Mauritius and Seychelles (even including Chagos Archipelago as well), supposed to be spoken by descendants of Northern Chams after the fall of Indrapura in 982 (as refugees). Assume that some of them managed to escape through Malaccas onto Sumatra, then discovered Chagos/Mauritius accidentally during an exploration. However, I'm uncertain about whether those islands are suitable for settlement, and what population could sustain in such an isolated environment (Chagos Archipelago, Seychelles, Mauritius and Reunion; especially the former two), and to what degree their society would be degraded (by level of civilization, e.g. the loss of domesticated animals except chicken in Polynesian societies). Will chiefdoms/state emerge in Mauritius and Reunion, and can they still use metals? How many kinds of domesticated animals will they bring there?

Despite the small size of these island, they may be accidentally discovered by passers-by; the explorers may have landed on Madagascar or even mainland East Africa first before moving to Mascarenes. What I intended is a mercantile, seafaring population with Indian-influenced feudal society; however the route of migration is not certain yet, esp. when it comes to Chagos Islands, which I originally considered to be a resting place and melting point of cultures, but they're too small.

Perhaps one can also make a Papuan conlang spoken elsewhere (Africa or Australia), given that Tambora was a seafaring/commercial civilisation. Or even more interestingly, some Papuans taken as slaves by Austronesian sailors to African islands, and the descendant of their language became the lingua franca of a community there, while the language itself became extinct in its homeland (Urheimat); is it possible?

PS: the definition of Papuan is simply non-Austronesian. So I can make it a priori as well?

[dva_arla]

The question of urbanisation, however, doesn't seem that relevant; most Indonesians did not live in cities. What's more, "ports" and "fleets" aren't things that develop AFTER urbanisation - they're in many cases, certainly in this context, the prerequisites of urbanisation. Having fleets and ports is how people were able to support having cities.

By "urbanisation" with quote-marks I also include village-dwelling and agriculture. I am unfortunately not aware of a term that describes succintly the transition to a more settled lifestyle.

Yes, Austronesians continue to be Austronesians when they live on small islands; it's a linguistic term, not one relating to cultural type.

Again, I am not aware of a term that covers Austronesians dwelling in the isles to the east as a whole...

And to say that "canoe-sailors" have non-"organised" seafaring is ridiculous, and stinks of the racist attitudes of the past.

I am not aware that my statement there carries racist undertones! My choice of words must have been imprecise. I used the phrase "canoe-sailors" in a prideful way (reminiscent of my ancestry -- there is an Indonesian nursery-song titled "My Ancestors are Sailors" mind you), but the "canoe" wasn't probably the ship I wanted to refer to; I was thinking of this marvel of ancient Nusantaran engineering:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JBIs95PuVmY/V ... tmu%2C.jpg

What is it called in English? The "rugged boat"? "Double-beamed boat"? I fear of causing once more another misunderstanding...

Non-organised was also not the proper term; it must then be said that Polynesian seafaring were rather communal, in comparison to the individualist mercantile shipping of mediaeval urban ports.


Anyway, I do apologise profusely, ZJ and Salmoneus, for any misunderstanding or perceived inhospitality on my part. As you said, I was truly a bit confused down there. And please do not take any statements of mine as indicative of chauvinism, especially the idiomatic "the sea in their blood"... You must recognise the expression "so-and-so has music/engineering/gardening in his/her blood"? That was what I meant.

[Zythros Jubi]

There's also a Rovas/Hungarian Runiform orthography for this conlang, but it is obsolete now, mostly used as a sign of nationalism and ethnic identity, or as decoration. Unfortunately, I have no input method of Rovas nor a font with this script.
Besides, verb conjugation is still difficult for me to design; I haven't even decided about grammatical categories (how many TAMs).

[Salmoneus]

The question of urbanisation, however, doesn't seem that relevant; most Indonesians did not live in cities. What's more, "ports" and "fleets" aren't things that develop AFTER urbanisation - they're in many cases, certainly in this context, the prerequisites of urbanisation. Having fleets and ports is how people were able to support having cities.

By "urbanisation" with quote-marks I also include village-dwelling and agriculture. I am unfortunately not aware of a term that describes succintly the transition to a more settled lifestyle.

Fair enough, but again, the settled lifestyle precedes naval expansion, rather than being the result of later 'settling down'. There are, admittedly, some 'sea nomad' groups, but just as land nomadism (pastoralism) is a development from settled agriculture, so too sea nomadism is a development from settled agriculture/pisciculture.

Similarly, there was never a stage in which Austronesians 'settled down' - they were always village-dwelling agriculturalists (a few non-sedentary tribes may be survivors of a pre-austronesian population; others, however, are known to have secondarily abandoned agriculture). Austronesians developed agriculture and large villages either when they still lived in Taiwan, or indeed perhaps more pobably when they still lived in China.

So rather than Austronesians coming from small islands, reaching 'mainlands', settling down, developing agriculture, and losing their boats (until they developed large city-ports), instead they came from the biggest mainland of all (China), and brought with them agriculture, large villages, other sedentary phenomena like pottery and complex social structures, AND boats.

Yes, Austronesians continue to be Austronesians when they live on small islands; it's a linguistic term, not one relating to cultural type.

Again, I am not aware of a term that covers Austronesians dwelling in the isles to the east as a whole...

I'm not sure who you mean by 'the isles to the east'. If you mean east of Indonesia, that's virtually identical with the term "Oceanic" (except for the Chamorro and Palauans, who are non-Oceanic).

And to say that "canoe-sailors" have non-"organised" seafaring is ridiculous, and stinks of the racist attitudes of the past.

I am not aware that my statement there carries racist undertones! My choice of words must have been imprecise.

Well, my point is just that the idea of distinguishing between civilised people, who are organised and developed, and primitive people, who aren't, while it obviously has an element of truth, is very often misapplied, and has a long history of being misapplied, including in this instance. It's very easy to see Polynesians as being, as they were traditionally seen, primitives - they didn't wear proper clothing, for one thing, and they sailed what looked like primitive boats. But in fact, they were a highly developed society with complicated economic and political structures, who accomplished vast maritime megaprojects, and whose naval technology was arguably more advanced than that found anywhere else in the world at the time (as late as the 19th century, traditional proas were still faster than European tea clippers).

I used the phrase "canoe-sailors" in a prideful way (reminiscent of my ancestry -- there is an Indonesian nursery-song titled "My Ancestors are Sailors" mind you), but the "canoe" wasn't probably the ship I wanted to refer to; I was thinking of this marvel of ancient Nusantaran engineering:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JBIs95PuVmY/V ... tmu%2C.jpg

What is it called in English? The "rugged boat"? "Double-beamed boat"? I fear of causing once more another misunderstanding...

That does indeed look like a canoe. Specifically, a double-outrigger canoe. Technically speaking, you could call it a trimaran, but that term is usually reserved for bigger vessels, with larger outriggers (or for high-tech modern sailing vessels).

[note that this is an extremely sophisticated vessel. Not only does it incorporate outrigger technology (which didn't make it to Europe until the 19th or 20th century), it's a double outrigger. Double outriggers were probably invented in Indonesia and never made it as far as the Oceanic people, who only had ever had single outriggers.]

Non-organised was also not the proper term; it must then be said that Polynesian seafaring were rather communal, in comparison to the individualist mercantile shipping of mediaeval urban ports.

OK - although 'communal' seems rather more organised than 'individualist'. However, I'm skeptical of this dichotomy too. Polynesian societies were complex, and exceptionally hierarchical (even touching an item that had once been touched by a king could bring divine retribution). They operated huge feudal systems marked by tributary relationships - their ships were less like 'communal' village enterprises, and more like consolidated royal navies. Micronesia was similar, though less extreme (though the Empire of Yap was immense). Melanesia, on the other hand, was for the most part extremely capitalist (which may be partly why Melanesian languages are more diverse) - status came from acquired wealth, and wealth came from individual, often international trading deals (passed on from father to son). Either way, the communal/individualist dichotomy doesn't seem that accurate. And likewise, I don't know about mediaeval Indonesian commerce, but in most places in the world (certainly mediaeval Europe) commercial shipping was not really that individualist: ships, when not owned by kinds and princes, tend to be owned by syndicates, and when they are owned by individuals they're often underwrited by, and paid for with loans from, syndicates. Those syndicates are in turn often strongly intertwined with, or even the same as, communal political structures (the 'corporation' in mediaeval europe). So from this side too, I think the dichotomy is strained; certainly I think things like "utterly different from" is entirely unmerited.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's not really a clear distinction here between a civilised west and a primitive east, with urban indonesia moving from the latter to the former at some point. Population densities may have been larger in Sri Vijaya, and its fleets therefore larger, but that doesn't mean that its social structures were fundamentally different from or more 'organised' ('individualistic', etc) than those of Yap or Tahiti.

Anyway, I do apologise profusely, ZJ and Salmoneus, for any misunderstanding or perceived inhospitality on my part. As you said, I was truly a bit confused down there. And please do not take any statements of mine as indicative of chauvinism, especially the idiomatic "the sea in their blood"... You must recognise the expression "so-and-so has music/engineering/gardening in his/her blood"? That was what I meant.

I recognise it, but I don't think it's a useful way of considering things, particularly when talking about groups rather than individuals (particularly when talking about a group like the Austronesians - who cover thousands of years, thousands of miles, hundreds if not thousands of languages and cultures, and indeed a great genetic diversity).

That said, I would probably have had less of a problem with your turn of phrase if I'd remembered your own origins.

[Salmoneus]

Well, what are the closest languages to Chamorro? There seems to be none, just like Javanese.

Chamorro is believed to have been settled early, probably from the west (and certainly not the east). A cultural key feature is that the Chamorro were reliant on rice, unlike all other Micronesians. Rice cultivation seems to have been lost by the time of Oceanic.

It's probably more basal than Javanese. AIUI, while the exact affiliations of Javanese haven't been untangled yet, there have been various prominent theories, all of which link it in to other western indonesian languages. Chamorro, on the other hand, AIUI is generally thought to be a basal branch of Malayo-Polynesian (or at least, basal once you get out of the Philippines, which seem to be complicated).

Indeed, it's possibly that Chamorro is an early migration out of the Philippines after all the other non-Philippine languages had moved into Indonesia (but before modern traits of, and branches within, Philippine languages were established).

[dva_arla]

There's also a Rovas/Hungarian Runiform orthography for this conlang, but it is obsolete now, mostly used as a sign of nationalism and ethnic identity, or as decoration. Unfortunately, I have no input method of Rovas nor a font with this script.
Besides, verb conjugation is still difficult for me to design; I haven't even decided about grammatical categories (how many TAMs).

TAMs?

As for verbal conjugations, Chuvash has a system using two sets of endings (vowel-harmony aside), the "Present" suffixes used for the present, future, optative, etc. and the "Past" suffixes used for the past, imperfect, pluperfect, and other past-related tense-aspects (you get my idea). To illustrate (with corresponding pseudo-PT forms):

Future

ĕślĕ-p *ilč-le-bi
ĕślĕ-n *ilč-le-[se]n 
ĕślĕ  *ilč-le
ĕślĕ-pĕr *ilč-le-biz
ĕślĕ-r  *ilč-le-[si]z
ĕślĕ-ś *ilč-le-?

Simple past/Preterite (unwitnessed/reported past, as in other Turkic language)

ĕśle-rĕ-m *ilč-le-di-m 
ĕśle-rĕ-n *ilč-le-di-[se]n/n
ĕśle-rĕ *ilč-le-di 
ĕśle-rĕ-mĕr *ilč-le-di-miz 
ĕśle-rĕ-r *ilč-le-di-[si]z
ĕśle-rĕ-ś *ilč-le-di-?

(note : the -r suffix becomes -t after stems ending in n, l, or t (kĕttĕm from kĕr- 'enter') -t patalalises in turn to -č (kĕččĕ).

Do keep in mind too, that Chuvash has two vowel-harmony alterations: a/e and ă/ĕ, the latter corresponding to Com.Turk u/i.

These two tenses are the most simply formed, and the other tenses are formed by adding other suffixes to the stem. To form the Present tense for instance, one infixes -at- / -et- (origin?), so that 'I/he work/am working' would be ĕśletĕp / ĕślet, and the "Imperfect" (witnessed past) is formed from the Preterite : ĕślettĕm / ĕśletčĕ.

The two sets of suffixes only differ in the 1s and 1p, and I suspect that this may either be :
1) a remnant of ergativity in the past tense : 1s pronoun nom. "I" = epĕ but the form used in the other cases has man- : gen. manăn / dat-acc. mana , etc. (I will go about cases preferably in the next post). The present 1s suffix then got generalised into the 1p, or that
2) the past endings might originate from possessive endings instead. A similar process took place with Karluk pro-verbs/gerunds.

The -rĕ of the past obviously corresponds to Common Turkic -di (rhotacism being one of the sound changes leading to Chuvash); this is also confirmed by its alteration with -t. The preterite -tt- must come from -lt-.

I'm at a loss for the origin of the 3p ending -ś. Final ś could come from č or lč, among other sounds, but none of thiese match with forms in other Turkic langugaes. Any ideas?

Now, this is what I imagine the corresponding Eskel conjugation to look like, without the 3p:

Present / Future :

elčep / elčem (thorugh levelling)
elčen
elč
elčever
elčer

Past :

1s could be elčezem or elčerem, depending on the outcome of intervocallic -d-. I'd go with the former for the time being.

elčezem
elčezen
elčez / elčéz?
elčezever*
elčezer

*I feel that this form would be quite unstable first-syllable-stressed. Perhaps elčezzer or elčzever?

To form the other tenses (and distinguish between the present and future), you might want to add in other suffixes.

By the way, no d' (or g') and t' in the phonological inventory?

[Zythros Jubi]

I mean TMA, tense, mood and aspect.

How to construct the present tense is a question: Turkic languages use various strategies. I read a German paper titled ZUM PRÄSENS DER NORDWESTLICHEN UND MITTELASIATISCHEN TÜRKSPRACHEN by LARS JOHANSON, but became more puzzled. It seems that a common strategy in Common Turkic was stem-A + turur + personal suffix; however in Uzbek, Uyghur and
Kazakh it's stem-A + personal pronoun (and stem-Ar + person for aorist). In colloquial Kazakh and Kumyk IIRC, the personal suffixes were shortened to -m (1sg), -s (2sg), and for Kumyk -t (3sg, <tur, cf. Uz. keladi, Uy. kelidu "he/she/it comes"). But in Oghuz languages it's -Ir (Azeri) and -Ar (Turkish), which seems to be more conservative, isn't it? (I'm not sure; turur is tur- plus -Ir, right?)


As for Chuvash, there are so-called present and future forms, and the former is formed by stem-A + tur + person while the latter is believed to come from stem-GU + person. According to Levitskaya 1961 some dialects also have -As- for future which comes from A-converb plus possessive -sI, also found in Turkish and Azeri.

I doubt that the PT formation of present tense can be reconstructed; the future, in general, originated somewhat later.

[Zythros Jubi]

If it were *ilč-le-bi, the modern reflex would've been -v-
Instead of -p.

In Bulgar, the nominative 1sg and 2sg was *bi/be and *si/se, the latter case coinciding with the oblique stem. It's unknown whether this is a conservative feature or an innovation. Chuvash esě doesn't show palatalization on s, which is curious but also explainable by analogy. As for personal suffix, I wonder how the CT possessive suffix *-m, *-ñ/g, *-ñIz/gIz are related to *ben, *sen and *siz (perhaps the 2pl used to be *sVñiz; but why was 1pl never *bVñiz and no such suffix for 1pl exists in known Turkic languages?); even for Chuvash the 2sg possessive suffix is -U (*-Ig). The practice of adding a pers. pron. after a verbal form is widespread, but is absent in Oghuz and Chuvash (at least synchronically; Turkish -sInIz may be a syncretism of *-sIn (2sg) and *-ñIz (original 2pl suffix). (Confusingly, Kazakh has -mIn for 1sg and -sIñ instead of -sIn for 2sg (familiar), e.g. süyemin 'I love', but süyesiñ 'you (familiar) love, cf. Uyghur söyimen and söyisen, where -men and -sen are invariable and identical to the pers. pron. itself.)

Just a wild guess, the PT form for 2sg pron. was *señ, but the stem was assimilated to *sen- in certain oblique cases, and generalized later, only leaving traces in personal (possessive) suffixes. Similarly 2pl might've been *señiz, therefore poss. *-ñIz. As for the reason why 1sg poss. suffix was *-m instead of *-n, I assume **-bVn > *-m. However, this hypothesis fails to explain the form for 1pl, esp. the b-m alternation. Kyrgyz, Yakut, Khakas, Tuva, Tatar and Bashkir always use reflex of *-bIz instead of *-mIz for 1pl poss.. Do we need to reconstruct a *beniz proto-form to derive an *-ib(V)niz > **inbiz (>*-ImIz/*-IbIz)?

If this conlang uses stem-A + (turur) + pers. pron. structure, I doubt whether it exists in PT since in languages like Uyghur and Tuva the pers. pron. acts as a clitic and is not subject to vowel harmony, unlike poss. suffixes. Oghuz languages use -Ir/Ar + personal suffix, which is persumably a weakened/shortened form of personal pronouns, e.g. Turkish biz > -Iz (the origin Azeri -UK is unclear; it occurs in several languages as past 1pl suffix), sen > -sIn (I forgot whether it's -n or -ng in Ottoman Turkish), ben > -m.

[Zythros Jubi]

(note : the -r suffix becomes -t after stems ending in n, l, or t (kĕttĕm from kĕr- 'enter') -t patalalises in turn to -č (kĕččĕ).

IIRC the Chuvash past suffix is -t after n, l and r and -r otherwise; how come it's -r after all other voiceless consonants? Chuvash d>r only works between vowels, doesn't it? It's definitely present in Volga Bulgar, but unattested in Danube Bulgar and Khazar (except for Liget's interpretation of a word "I have read" as <oqurïm>, a sign often used on letters and documents, cf. Chinese 已阅.)

One Volga Bulgar tombstone reads *dünya-ran köč-rü(wi) "(he has) departed from the world". The reconstruction *-rü(wi) comes from *-dUk, but it seems that Róna-Tas identified *-rü<*-di. *-dUk is used as a personal-enabled gerund in Turkish and Azeri (e.g. able to add possessive suffixes), and I don't know any usage in other languages. Perhaps the PT form for past suffix was always *-dI, and Chuvash has devoiced instances of *d after n, l and r (and rhotacize them after other cons.)?

[dva_arla]

I wonder how the CT possessive suffix *-m, *-ñ/g, *-ñIz/gIz are related to *ben, *sen and *siz (perhaps the 2pl used to be *sVñiz; but why was 1pl never *bVñiz and no such suffix for 1pl exists in known Turkic languages?)

As related as the PIE forms *eǵ- and *m- etc. Only the -iz can be pulled off as some sort of relation between the two (see below).

The practice of adding a pers. pron. after a verbal form is widespread, but is absent in Oghuz and Chuvash (at least synchronically; Turkish -sInIz may be a syncretism of *-sIn (2sg) and *-ñIz (original 2pl suffix). (Confusingly, Kazakh has -mIn for 1sg and -sIñ instead of -sIn for 2sg (familiar), e.g. süyemin 'I love', but süyesiñ 'you (familiar) love, cf. Uyghur söyimen and söyisen, where -men and -sen are invariable and identical to the pers. pron. itself.)

Only the Karluk languages manage to maintain a "transparent" relationship between the pronouns and conjugative suffixes (i.e. not obscure it with reductions etc.) It also ought to be considered that the possessive suffixes in some languages got mixed up into the conjugation as well, hence the past tenses of nearly all Turkic languages, and (Anatolian) Turkish -m in 1s present, for instance.

Just a wild guess, the PT form for 2sg pron. was *señ, but the stem was assimilated to *sen- in certain oblique cases, and generalized later, only leaving traces in personal (possessive) suffixes. Similarly 2pl might've been *señiz, therefore poss. *-ñIz. As for the reason why 1sg poss. suffix was *-m instead of *-n, I assume **-bVn > *-m. However, this hypothesis fails to explain the form for 1pl, esp. the b-m alternation. Kyrgyz, Yakut, Khakas, Tuva, Tatar and Bashkir always use reflex of *-bIz instead of *-mIz for 1pl poss.. Do we need to reconstruct a *beniz proto-form to derive an *-ib(V)niz > **inbiz (>*-ImIz/*-IbIz)?

The Turkic Languages (Johanson & Csató) asserts that the PT nominatives were 1s *bi and 2s *si. *be-n and *se-n were originally oblique stems (hence the -n) that in daughter languages were generalised into the nominative; the *i~e alteration being explained in the book as "umlaut" (other sources suggest vowel gradation). Apparently the plural pronouns preserve an "old suffix indicating plurality" *-z.

The forms *beniz and *señiz therefore becomes unnecessary (they seems to be rather "unprimitive" for a proto-language anyway).

However, this hypothesis fails to explain the form for 1pl, esp. the b-m alternation.

I would suggest that *-biz > *-miz is levelling due to influence from 1s -m.

and Chuvash has devoiced instances of *d after n, l and r (and rhotacize them after other cons.)?

"Devoiced" wouldn't be the right word... Chuvash has voiced allophones before sonorants, and if you listen to a recording of Chuvash you would find that their consonants (especially /p/) can be very clearly voiced at times.

I doubt that the PT formation of present tense can be reconstructed; the future, in general, originated somewhat later.

It seems that PT didn't conjugate to person and number, and only distinguished tense and perhaps mood (as in Japanese and Korean). It was only in the daughter languages that personal conjugation came to be (even Old Turkic had instances of unfused personal pronouns after verbs).