The Kovur Languages of Yantas

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

So, I've spent some time thinking about what sorts of sounds the Kovur (the second sapient species on my conworld Yantas alongside humans, descended from a wolf-like species) might be able to produce and what they might not be able to pronounce. I'm hand-waving some of it, to be completely honest, but at least some of it does have a reason behind it.

I'm still filling this out as I go, but for consonants, I'm working with something like this:

Code: Select all


+-----------------------+----------+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+----------------------+
|                       |  Labial  |                 Coronal                          |                         Dorsal                  |        Laryngeal     |
|                       +----------+----------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------+------------+---------+
|                       | Bilabial | Bidental |      Alveolar     |     Retroflex     |      Palatal      |       Velar       | Uvular  | Pharyngeal | Glottal |
|                       +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+---------+
|                       |          |          | Laminal | Apical  | Laminal | Apical  |  Front  |  Back   |  Front  |  Back   |         |            |         |
+---------+-------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+---------+
|         |    Nasal    |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
|         |    Stop     |  p • b   |  ʭ •     |  t̻ • d̻  |  t̺ • d̺  |  ṯ • ḏ  |  ʈ • ɖ  |  ȶ • ȡ  |  c • ɟ  |  k̟ • ɡ  |  k • ɡ  |  q • ɢ  |   ʡ •      |  ʔ •    |
| Central |  Affricate  |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
|         |  Fricative  |          |  h̪͆ • ɦ̪͆   |  θ •    |  θ •    |  θ̱ •    |    • ɻ˔  |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
|         | Approximant |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
|         |    Flap     |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
+---------+-------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+---------+
|         |  Affricate  |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
| Lateral |  Fricative  |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
|         | Approximant |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
|         |    Flap     |          |          |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |            |         |
+---------+-------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------------+---------+

The phonological space is largely similar to that of human speech, but with a few key differences:

1) There are no sibilants
2) In place of the labiodentals and the dentals are the bidentals
3) There are a greater number of possible POA distinctions amongst the dorsal consonants
4) There are no trills

A few other thoughts I had on top of that were:

1) While there are five different dorsal POAs, no Kovur language constrasts more than four of them phonemically
2) The number of phonemic contrasts amongst the coronals, especially of the plosives, is much lower, with most languages only having one or two sets of coronals (if more coronal POAs are used, then the sounds are typically fricatives).
3) Lateral fricatives are cross-linguistically more common amongst the Kovur than they are amongst humans, as are aspirated fricatives.
4) Labialisation does occur, but there is only of the compressed variety, not protrusion.

I had briefly given some thought to tone as well, thinking that the Kovur should be able to distinguish up to seven levels of pitch, as opposed the five of human languages. I was also thinking that tone should be cross-linguistically more common amongst the Kovur.

I'll have to fill out the consonant chart and work on the vowels, but it's been nice to finally make a start on this [:)]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Right, so finished the consonant chart:

Image

Flaps can only be produced with the front of the tongue or with the lips, hence their lack of appearance any further back in the mouth. What are grouped as "flaps" in the above table in the uvular and pharyngeal columns are actually trills, the only place where the Kovur are capable of producing such sounds.

Laterals, similarly, can only be produced with the body of the tongue, although uvular laterals are deemed impossible and don't occur in any of Kovur language even allophonically.



Moving on to vowels, I was thinking that with the extra horizontal space, the Kovur might be capable of distinguishing more vowels by means of frontness (so where in human languages we have front, near-front, central, near-back and back, the Kovur vowel space might be divided into front, near-front, front-central, central, back-central, near-back and back). The number of vowel heights might remain about the same, but as in human languages, the ability to distinguish between frontness would decrease as the vowels become lower (so while you might get languages that distinguish up the four high vowels on the basis of frontness, most languages will have a single low vowel).
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

So, the Kovur vowel space is divided up as follows:

Image

(I'm hoping this diagram makes sense. It's supposed to show the approximate distances at given heights and frontnesses between which vowels are considered too similar to distinguish clearly. So, for example, no language distinguishes between [i i̞ e] on a phonemic level, but could quite easily distinguish phonemic /i/ and /e/ with [i̞] being an allophone of one or the other, or both)



As in human languages, there are broadly seven levels of height in which vowels can fill the space (from bottom to top: open, near-open, open-mid, mid, close-mid, near-close, and close), although no Kovur language is known to distinguish more than four levels of height for vowels of the same frontness.

The Kovur, however, are capable of producing and distinguishing a greater number of vowels based on frontness (from right to left: back, near-back, back-central, central, front-central, near-front, and front), although again, there do seem to be physical limits on how many vowels fill the space at given heights (four vowels can be distinguished for close, near-close and close-mid, three can be distinguished for mid and open-mid, and two can be distinguished for near-open and open).

Kovur vowels can also be rounded, but even for back vowels, rounded vowels are rarer than their non-rounded counterparts (in the vast majority of Kovur languages, the back vowels are non-rounded by default, with the compressed rounded forms often only appearing where their is a phonemically distinct non-rounded counterpart as well). The number of distinctions made amongst rounded vowels is also considerably lower. For a given level of frontness, no language makes more than three height distinctions, the number of possible vowel heights collapses from seven to four (open, open-mid, close-mid, and close), and the number of frontness distinctions for each height also decreases (one for open vowels, two for close-mid vowels, and three for both open-mid and open vowels).

As with non-rounded vowels, no Kovur language makes full use of this vowel space, with no language contrasting rounded vowels at more than three different heights for the same level of frontess (with the exception of the open vowel space, which may be considered front or back).

This means that no language spoken by the Kovur contrasts a) more than thirteen short, non-rounded monophthongs, and b) more than eight short, rounded monophthongs. An extremely vowel-heavy language, for example, might have the following vowels:

Image

and:

Image



Languages with as few as three vowels exist amongst the Kovur, but they are at the extreme, with languages containing between five (two front, one central, two back, and one low) and seven (two front, two central, two back, and one low) being much more common.





I'm also looking at nasalised vowels, and different phonations as well.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Trying to construct a sort of Bricka-esque series of possible vowel inventories that might be employed in the Kovur languages, and this is what I have so far for the non-rounded vowels:

Image

There are several variants not covered there. For example, in the four-vowel system the mid-vowel can either be primarily central, or primarily front, i.e. /e/. Similarly, the central vowels can be higher or lower, primarily, depending on the language, e.g. in five vowel systems we might have an intermediate variant that has /i e ɘ ɯ a/ as opposed to the /i e ɨ ɯ a/ shown above.



There are a number of patterns going on in the addition of vowels:

1) The higher vowel is filled out before the lower vowel space
2) The front vowel space is filled out before the back vowel space (the main rule here is that "more back" is added after "front" at a given height, whether that be a central vowel or a back vowel)
3) Vowels are equal to or more than vowels at immediately lower levels in number
4) Font vowels are equal to or more than "more back" vowels in number



The addition of rounded vowels would largely follow the same patterns, i.e.

1) No rounded vowel can appear without a non-rounded counterpart
2) High rounded vowels appear before lower rounded vowels
3) Front rounded vowels appear before less front rounded vowels

But I honestly don't know when to start including them. At least amongst (human) natlangs (Zuberoan Basque), they seem to start appearing once there are five other vowels in the space (that is to say, they're the sixth vowel), and that doesn't actually seem unreasonable. What I might do is have them appear in place of additional central vowels, so an additional six-vowel system would be /i e y ɯ ɤ a/. After that I assume I'd continue adding them in place of additional central vowels, such that you wouldn't see a rounded vowel and a central vowel together until hitting /i e y ɨ ɘ ɯ ɤ a/, with /i e ɛ a y ø ɨ ɘ ɜ ɯ ɤ ʌ ɑ/appearing as a sort of, "okay, now start adding central vowels again before adding rounded vowels" point.

This may require a bit more thought...
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Just to throw some names at the Kovur language families:

I've separated Mistaya and Hungas into eastern and western regions for the sake of convenience. Language that are outside of those regions, that aren't being named, are all marked in a very light grey, with oceans, seas and lakes marked in white.

The names appear in a sort of "simplified" romanisation that excludes a number of diacritics that are otherwise used in transcribing Kovur languages (this differs in a number of ways from romanisations for human languages, e.g. Kovur lateral fricatives are transcribed as if they were sibilants).

Language Families of Eastern Mistaya

Image

EM1 (dark green): Lhigar languages
EM2 (pink): Qubris languages
EM3 (red): Mawena languages
EM4 (dark brown): Atringu languages
EM5 (blue): Ruoc languages
EM6 (dark grey): Klarra languages
EM7 (light grey): Pazu languages
EM8 (light purple in the mountains): Ngauta languages
EM9 (dark purple in the mountains): Isapa languages
EM10 (light green): Obalka languages
EM11 (yellow): Muktas languages
EM12 (dark grey surrounded by red): Moalak languages
EM13 (dark blue surrounded by red and dark brown): Aqiva languages
EM14 (purple in brown): Lamsaj languages
EM15 (pink surrounded by brown and blue): Urlyat languages



Languages of Western Mistaya

Image

WM1 (light green in the north): Zangi languages
WM2 (dark purple): Afana languages
WM3 (light orange): Drama languages
WM4 (red): Jalim languages
WM5 (dark green): Tadaz languages
WM6 (dark blue): Murkra languages
WM7 (dark orange): Gilyats languages
WM8 (teal?): Otkeni languages
WM9 (light grey): Igle languages
WM10 (dark grey): Pasaka languages
WM11 (yellow): Weilung languages
WM12 (dark brown): Ifan languages
WM13 (pink): Tupenga languages
WM14 (light green): Lumis languages
WM15 (light brown): Veyac languages
WM16 (orange surounded by red and dark green): Pitrea languages
WM17 (light green north of yellow): Yukta languages
WM18 (green surrounded by grey and brown): Karpin languages
WM19 (orange surrounded by grey and brown): Sakan languages
WM20 (red in light green): Jurbiya languages
WM21 (blue in light green): Amana languages


That gives a total of 36 language families in Mistaya



Language Families of Eastern Hungas

Image

EH1 (light brown): Muala languages
EH2 (light orange): Syaoku languages
EH3 (light blue): Qindra languages
EH4 (purple): Kolek languages
EH5 (red): Tivvi languages
EH6 (light green): Fang languages
EH7 (dark blue): Kupu languages
EH8 (dark grey): Engma languages
EH9 (dark brown): Pakku languages
EH10 (yellow): Gadiga languages
EH11 (sandy): Ratim languages
EH12 (pink): Pawa languages
EH13 (dark green): Alama languages
EH14 (yellow in the mountains): Luobi languages
EH15 (red in the mountains): Jinga languages
EH16 (blue in the mountains): Awwak languages
EH17 (orange in the mountains): Komon languages
EH18 (dark grey in the mountains): Doniyo languages
EH19 (dark green in red): Rastas languages
EH20 (red in yellow): Umilya languages



Languages of Western Hungas and Konyur

Image

WH1 (purple): Mitsai languages
WH2 (green): Naruop languages
WH3 (yellow): Bonbon languages
WH4 (red): Niavol languages
WH5 (orange): Zyen languages
WH6 (blue): Holdrin languages

That gives a total of 26 language families in Hungas and Konyur.

In total, this means that there are 62 Kovur language families, compared to 81 human language families, giving a total of 143 language families on Yantas as a whole (excluding any isolates that may exist at the time, and the language families of Velkasta [which I still have to work on])
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Clio
sinic
sinic
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by Clio »

I enjoyed reading through these thoughts a lot. Your Bricka-style tables were fun to look at, and they give a good sense of how the Kovur can use their larger vowel space to create more distinctions without rounded vowels. I'm looking forward to what you decide regarding tone and phonation.

Perhaps you've addressed this in a different conworld thread, but I'm curious about whether humans often learn Kovur languages. How do humans deal with the many dorsal POAs of the Kovur languages? Are there any contact languages arising from a human and a Kovur language, or do any Kovur languages have a register than can be more feasibly spoken by humans (and vice versa)?
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit
scratchpad
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Clio wrote: 23 May 2018 20:01 I enjoyed reading through these thoughts a lot. Your Bricka-style tables were fun to look at, and they give a good sense of how the Kovur can use their larger vowel space to create more distinctions without rounded vowels. I'm looking forward to what you decide regarding tone and phonation.
It was actually the Bricka-style tables that really helped me work out what they could and couldn't do with the vowels. I've been thinking about moving on to tone and phonation for the past week or so. I'd imagine that they'd be able to distinguish more tonal pitches (apparently human languages are limited to five, but I'd quite like the Kovur to be able to distinguish up to around seven to nine. I need to look into phonation a bit more to see what the Kovur might and might not be able to produce, but I'd assume it would be quite similar to phonation distinctions found in human languages, with voiceless, breathy, slack and modal voice, as well as aspiration as a minimum.


Clio wrote: 23 May 2018 20:01 Perhaps you've addressed this in a different conworld thread, but I'm curious about whether humans often learn Kovur languages. How do humans deal with the many dorsal POAs of the Kovur languages? Are there any contact languages arising from a human and a Kovur language, or do any Kovur languages have a register than can be more feasibly spoken by humans (and vice versa)?
Considering the first contact between the two species occurred some ten thousand years ago at the latest, I'd assume that at some point humans and Kovur have tried to learn each other's languages, either in part or in full, with contact languages developing here and there.

The Kovur can likely distinguish the sibilants of human languages, but are physically incapable of producing them. Similarly, humans might not be able to consistently produce the higher number of vowels and consonants found in Kovur languages (if a Kovur language has, say, three dorsal plosives, humans learning the language might collapse these down to two). I suppose the result of this is that while contact languages might generally be "phonemically deficient" in respect to both parent languages (they might lack sibilants, contain at most one or two laterals, no more than seven vowels, two dorsals and one coronal plosive at most, etc.)





The other thing I've been thinking about when I get a spare minute at work is "grammar". While both species are mammalian, sapient, and use a predominantly vocal form of communication, they're separated by tens of millions of years of evolution and isolation which could mean that their languages are different in a number of ways in terms of their morphological and syntactic structure, or they might divide up the semantic space. And since they're biology and behaviour is different, which then has an effect on their culture, what effects might those fact have on their languages and vice versa?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

I wanted to try and come up with a phoneme inventory for a Kovur proto-language, and decided to attach this to Proto-Atringu. The extent of the Atringu languages in eastern Mistaya around 1AD is marked below (in the larger dark blue area), and the Atringu languages would have been the first Kovur languages that explorers from western Sirden would have encountered during the 17th Century when they sailed across the Sunset Ocean.

Image


Consonants

Code: Select all

Labial     Alveolar     Retroflex     Palatal     Velar     Uvular Glottal
       Laminal Apical Laminal Apical Front Back Front Back
  m       n                      ɳ          ɲ          ŋ
  pʰ                                   cʰ         kʰ
  p                                    c          k           q
  b       d                      ɖ          ɟ          g
                 tɬʰ
         tθ      tɬ             ʈɻ˔                           qχ	
                 dɮ
          θ       ɬ       ɭ̊˔    ɻ˔               x            χ      h
                  ɮ       ɭ˔                           ɣ   
  w       l                      ɭ        j
          ɾ       ɺ       ɭ̆     ɽ                             ʀ

Vowels

Code: Select all

i ɨ ɯ
e   ɤ
ɛ
    a

I haven't worked on allophony or stress yet, but I wanted to try and get a feel for the general layout of the language, and what Kovur languages as a whole might look like (lenition of non-voiced coronals, the appearance of laterals in place of sibilants, etc.)

I wanted the laterals and the non-laterals to have differences in the active articulator, as well as being central vs. lateral, i.e. "central laminal alveolar" vs. "lateral apical alveolar" vs. "lateral laminal retroflex" vs. "central apical retroflex", such that the laterals differ by both POA and active articulator, as to their central counterparts, while laterals and central counterparts at the same POA similar differ in terms of their active articulator. In m head this means that the phonetic difference between them is "maximised".

The same isn't quite true for the apprxoimants and taps, though, but it's close.

I wouldn't say there's anything overly unusual about the phoneme inventory of this particular language, aside from the situation with the laterals, but I still wanted something that was noticeably different from what we might be used to.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Reworking the descriptions a bit [:)]

Kovur Languages – Grammar

Kovur languages are heavily influenced by the concept of personal space, which affects how nouns and verbs are classified, as well as how they function. While there are of course differences in how exactly this manifests from language to language, the universal impact of this concept is the division of both nouns and verbs each into two distinct classes.



Personal Space

Kovur languages universally make reference to a personal space, with the speaker in the middle, which is divided into a central sphere and an outer or peripheral sphere. The exact point at which the personal space is divided into these two spheres differs from language to language, but there are two predominant systems:

1) Proximity: Here the point of division lies between the listener and people or things which are further away. The speaker and the listener fall together in the central sphere, known here as the local sphere, while everybody else exists in the peripheral sphere, known here as the remote sphere.

2) Egophoricity: In these systems, the central sphere only includes the speaker (and anyone the speaker might include within their group in the plural), but excludes everybody else. The speaker stands relatively alone within the central sphere, known here as the egophoric sphere, while the listener and everybody else exist in the peripheral sphere, known here as the non-egophoric sphere.

This division of space is distinct from the concept of grammatical person as found in human languages, with this becoming particularly clear when dealing with verb conjugation and possession.



Word Classes

The concept of dividing personal space into two distinct spheres carries over into morphology and syntax, with all Kovur languages having the following word classes:

1) Central Verbs
2) Peripheral Verbs
3) Central Nouns
4) Peripheral Nouns

(the naming conventions here borrow from the terminology of personal space for the sake of consistency)

These noun classes are marked for person and possession in the same way, but due to the reference to personal space, the exact agent or possessor being referred to differs between the classes. For example, a central noun like hand will take the same marking for possession as a peripheral noun like house, e.g. hand-PROX and house-PROX, but those markings will refer to different people, e.g. “my hand” and “his house”, because each noun exists within a different sphere from the other. To say “his hand”, Kovur languages will rely on more complex methods of marking possession.

The same is true of verbs, where, for example, take-PROX and give-PROX will mean “he takes” and “I give” because the verbs belong to the peripheral and central classes respectively. To express “I take” and “he gives”, Kovur languages again rely on more complex morphological and syntactical processes.

Each of these classes, though, take one of two markings in reference to the agent or the possessor, a proximal marking and a distal marking, with the exact meaning of these markings depending on how the language divides up personal space:

1) Proximity: In languages displaying proximity, the proximal marking refers to the speaker (in the central/local sphere) and to another person or thing that is still relatively close to the speaker (in the peripheral/remote sphere). The distal marking on the other hand refers to the listener (in the central/local sphere) and to more distant people or things (in the peripheral/remote sphere)

2) Egophoricity 1: In these languages, the proximal marking refers to both the speaker (central/egophoric) and the listener (peripheral/non-egophoric), while the distal marking refers to people or things further away (peripheral/non-egophoric).

3) Egophoricity 2: This system is particularly rare amongst Kovur languages, but is still worth noting. As in languages displaying egophoricity 1, the proximal marking here refers to the speaker (central/egophoric), but it extends outward to both the listener and nearby people or things (peripheral/non-egophoric). The distal marking is reserved for people and things that are further away. This means that, for example house-PROX could be translated as both “your house” and “his house” depending on context.



The above descriptions can be summarised in the following table:

Image

Here where the personal space is divided in each system, as well as what each marking means, with translated examples for each one, which will be explored in later sections.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Verbs

As mentioned above, Kovur languages divide words conveying actions, states, and occurrences into two classes, central verbs and peripheral verbs. Syntactically, these two classes are restricted in terms of what associated agent they can have, i.e. central verbs can only take agents which stand in the central sphere, while peripheral verbs can only take agents which stand in the peripheral sphere. Morphologically, however, both classes behave in the same way, taking either proximal marking or distal marking, but as previously discussed, the exact meaning of this marking is dependent on the class of the verb.

For example, in most Kovur languages “to give” is a central verb, while “to take” is a peripheral verb. Both of these can take proximal marking, “give-PROX” and “take-PROX”, but they might mean “I give” and “he takes” in languages displaying proximity.

There are three systems for classifying verbs and how that relates to the meaning of proximal vs. distal marking (see the table above for a brief summary of the following):

1) Proximity: In these languages, verbs are divided into local verbs, which take the speaker and the listener as agents, and remote verbs, which take other people and things as agents. Proximal marking, indicating the agent, refers to the speaker for local verbs and other people or things near to the speaker for remote verbs, while distal marking refers to the listener for local verbs and people or things further from the speaker for remote verbs.

2) Egophoricity 1: In these languages, verbs are divided into egophoric verbs, which take the speaker as the agent, and non-egophoric verbs, which take the listener and other people and things as agents. Proximal marking refers to the speaker for egophoric verbs and the listener for non-egophoric verbs, while distal marking refers to other people or things.

3) Egophoricity 2: In a similar manner to the previous group, verbs are divided into egophoric verbs, which take the speaker as the agent, and non-egophoric verbs, which take the listener and other people and things as agents. Proximal marking refers to the speaker for egophoric verbs, as well as the listener and people or things near to the speaker for non-egophoric verbs, while distal marking refers solely for agents which are further away from the speaker.

Since the types of agent a verb can take are restricted, conveying “he gives” or “I take” involve the use of more complex morphological and syntactic processes, some of which will be discussed below.

Different languages do place different actions, states, occurrences, etc. into these two classes differently, but there is a general tendency for motions away from the speaker or towards something else, emotions, perceptions, and verbs which require volition to happen to be classed as central verbs, while motions towards the speaker or away from something else, actions related to the weather, and verbs which largely occur without volition tend to be classed as peripheral verbs.



Conjugation of Local and Remote Verbs in “Proximity” Languages

In languages which display proximity, verbs can take either a first person or second person subject (in the case of local verbs), or they can take either a nearby or distant third person subject. First person and nearby third person subjects are both marked as a proximal subject, while second person and distant third person subjects are both marked as an distal subject. This gives the following default conjugation for the local verb “go” and the remote verb “come” as an example:

a) go-PROX
I go

b) go-DIST
You go

c) come-PROX
He comes

d) come-DIST
He (over there) comes

The verb “come”, for example cannot appear in such a way that the speaker is the subject, nor can the verb “go” appear in such a way that someone other than the person or listener is the subject.



Conjugation of Egophoric and Non-Egophoric Verbs in “Egophoricity 1” Languages

Similarly, in languages displaying egophoricity 1, verbs can take a first person subject, or they can take a non-first person subject. First person and second person subjects are both the proximal subjects, while other people or things are the distal subjects (regardless of distance from the speaker)

This gives the following default conjugation for the egophoric verb “go” and the non-egophoric verb “come” as an example:

a) go-PROX
I go

b) come-PROX
You come

c) come-DIST
He comes

As in languages with a proximal relationship, the verb “go” cannot take a third person subject, but neither can it take a second person subject (which it can in “proximity” languages). The verb “come”, on the other hand, cannot take a subject that is not first person.



Conjugation of Egophoric and Non-Egophoric Verbs in “Egophoricity 2” Languages

On the other hand, in languages displaying egophoricity 2, while taking almost identical marking, can take a subject which is either distant from the speaker or not. First person, second person, and nearby third person subjects are all proximal subjects, while other people or things that are further away are distal subjects.

This gives the following default conjugation for the egophoric verb “go” and the non-egophoric verb “come” as an example:

a) go-PROX
I go

b) come-PROX
You come ~ or ~ He comes

c) come-DIST
He (over there) comes

The distinction between the listener and a nearby person or thing is handled in various ways, some languages relying on context, others relying on syntax.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Nouns

In a similar manner to verbs, Kovur languages divide words indicating concrete objects, places, people, animals, plants, etc. as well as states of being, emotions, ideas and other abstracts into two classes, central nouns and peripheral nouns. The syntactic distinction between the two is related to possession, as marked in the simplest manner possible in terms of syntax and morphology, i.e. central nouns are possessed by someone or something within the central sphere, while peripheral nouns are possessed by someone or something within the peripheral sphere. Again, as with verbs, these two classes take identical morphological marking in order to indicate this, but with the intended meaning being dependent on the class of the noun.

For example, in most Kovur languages “hand” is a central noun, while “house” is a peripheral noun. Both of these can take proximal marking, such as “hand-PROX” and “house-PROX”, but they might mean “my hand” and “his house” in languages displaying proximity.

Again, as with verbs, there are three systems for classifying nouns and how that relates to the meaning of proximal vs. distal marking (see the table above for a brief summary of the following):

1) Proximity: In these languages, nouns are divided into local nouns, which take the speaker and the listener as possessors, and remote nouns, which take other people and things as agents. Proximal marking indicates that the possessor is the speaker for local nouns and other people or things near to the speaker for remote nouns, while distal marking indicates that the listener is the possessor for local nouns or people or things further from the speaker are the possessors for remote nouns.

2) Egophoricity 1: In these languages, nouns are divided into egophoric nouns, which take the speaker as the possessor, and non-egophoric nouns, which take the listener and other people and things as possessors. Proximal marking refers to the speaker as the possessor for egophoric nouns and the listener for non-egophoric nouns, while distal marking refers to other people or things.

3) Egophoricity 2: In a similar manner to the previous group, nouns are divided into egophoric nouns, which take the speaker as the possessor, and non-egophoric nouns, which take the listener and other people and things as possessors. Proximal marking refers to the speaker for egophoric nouns, as well as the listener and people or things near to the speaker for non-egophoric nouns, while distal marking refers solely to possessors which are further away from the speaker.

Since the types of possessors a verb can take are restricted, conveying “my house” or “his hand” involve the use of more complex morphological and syntactic processes, some of which will be discussed below.

Different languages do place different objects, places, people, animals, plants, states of being, emotions, ideas, etc. into these two classes differently, but there is a general tendency for body parts, relatives (especially close relatives), emotions, personal attributes like height, eye colour, age, names, etc. bodily excretions, and occasionally individuals within ones wider social hierarchy to be classed as central nouns, while animals, plants, buildings, geographical features, weather phenomena, etc. are most often classed as peripheral nouns.



Possession Marking of Local and Remote Nouns in “Proximity” Languages

In languages which display proximity, nouns can take either a first person or second person possessor (in the case of local nouns), or they can take either a nearby or distant third person possessor. First person and nearby third person possessors are both marked as a proximal possessor, while second person and distant third person possessors are both marked as an distal possessors. This gives the following default markings for the local noun “hand” and the remote verb “house” as an example:

a) hand-PROX
My hand

b) hand-DIST
Your hand

c) house-PROX
His house

d) house-DIST
His (over there) house

The noun “house”, for example cannot appear in such a way that the speaker is the possessor, nor can “hand” appear in such a way that someone other than the person or listener is the possessor, without employing more complex morphology or syntax.



Possession Marking of Egophoric and Non-Egophoric Nouns in “Egophoricity 1” Languages

Similarly, in languages displaying egophoricity 1, nouns can take a first person possessor, or they can take a non-first person possessor. First person and second person possessors are both the proximal possessors, while other people or things are the distal possessors (regardless of distance from the speaker)

This gives the following default markings for the egophoric noun “hand” and the non-egophoric noun “house” as an example:

a) hand-PROX
My hand

b) house-PROX
Your house

c) house-DIST
His house

As in languages with a proximal relationship, the noun “hand” cannot take a third person possessor, but neither can it take a second person possessor (which it can in “proximity” languages). The verb “house”, on the other hand, cannot be possessed by the speaker, at least not with this sort of basic marking.



Possession Marking of Egophoric and Non-Egophoric Nouns in “Egophoricity 2” Languages

On the other hand, in languages displaying egophoricity 2, while taking almost identical marking, nons can take a possessor which is either distant from the speaker or not. First person, second person, and nearby third person possessors are all proximal possessors, while other people or things that are further away are distal possessors.

This gives the following default markings for the egophoric noun “hand” and the non-egophoric noun “house” as an example:

a) hand-PROX
My hand

b) house-PROX
Your house or His house

c) house-DIST
His (over there) house

The distinction between the listener and a nearby person or thing is handled in various ways, some languages relying on context, others relying on syntax.





The Relationship Between Nouns and Verbs

While there is a general tendency amongst the languages of the Kovur to exclusively display a proximal relationship or an egophoric relationship, there are a number of languages which display both, most commonly proximity in verbs and egophoricity in nouns, although the opposite is also documented. So, for example, while most languages that allow come-PROX to mean "you come" will also have "house-PROX" meaning "your house", a number of language will have these mean "you come" and "his house" instead.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Clio
sinic
sinic
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by Clio »

Good to see another post about the Kovur languages! As I've said before, I think the proximal/distal system is fascinating and perfectly alien. Two questions, though:
sangi39 wrote: 06 Sep 2018 19:58 a) hand-PROX
My hand

[...]

The noun “hand”, for example cannot appear in such a way that the speaker is the possessor [...] without employing more complex morphology or syntax.
Is this a typo? I think you mixed up "hand" and "house" in this paragraph but wanted to be sure.

Secondly, is there any a situation in which proximal or distal morphology (at least when applied to local nouns) might have a meaning other than merely first and second person? For instance, if I'm talking to a group of people, I assume that hands-DIST would mean "your hands," but does hand-DIST mean the hand of the person in the group who is farthest from me or closest to me; or can it mean any hand in the crowd, absent further clarification? Or suppose I'm in a large room talking to one person and call out to someone else, "Hey, look at his hand!" Is it at all relevant that the third person's hand is closer to the speaker than the second person addressee?

P.S.: The detail about some languages mixing the two systems in nouns vs. verbs is a great addition!
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit
scratchpad
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Clio wrote: 09 Sep 2018 22:09 Good to see another post about the Kovur languages! As I've said before, I think the proximal/distal system is fascinating and perfectly alien.
Thanks [:)] Have to admit, it's nice to know that somebody is reading this [:P]


Clio wrote: 09 Sep 2018 22:09Two questions, though:
sangi39 wrote: 06 Sep 2018 19:58 a) hand-PROX
My hand

[...]

The noun “hand”, for example cannot appear in such a way that the speaker is the possessor [...] without employing more complex morphology or syntax.
Is this a typo? I think you mixed up "hand" and "house" in this paragraph but wanted to be sure.
Nice catch! Yes, that would be a typo, so I'll get to changing that. Thank you [:)]


Clio wrote: 09 Sep 2018 22:09Secondly, is there any a situation in which proximal or distal morphology (at least when applied to local nouns) might have a meaning other than merely first and second person? For instance, if I'm talking to a group of people, I assume that hands-DIST would mean "your hands," but does hand-DIST mean the hand of the person in the group who is farthest from me or closest to me; or can it mean any hand in the crowd, absent further clarification? Or suppose I'm in a large room talking to one person and call out to someone else, "Hey, look at his hand!" Is it at all relevant that the third person's hand is closer to the speaker than the second person addressee?
Hmmm, I might have to give that some thought.

I think if you were in a group of people that you'd refer to with "we", so, say, Ego, Alan, and Bob, and then some listener, then "hands-DIST" (in languages that employ proximity rather than egophoricity) would, by default, refer to the hands of the listener, regardless of actual physical distance between the listener, Ego, Alan, or Bob. If, however, you wanted to say "Bob's hand", but you wanted to make it clear that he still falls within the local sphere (thus part of "we"), then you'd say something like "Bob-PROX hands-DIST", or "Bob-VOC hands-DIST" or some other thing along those lines (that looks like third person possession, but if you were referring to Bob outside of the local sphere, then you'd have to say something like "the hands stand at Bob"). Saying "Bob hands-DIST" would probably be nonsensical.

When it comes to a crowd, I'd assume the people within that crowd would largely fall with the peripheral sphere, unless you know them or some of them, in which case they would fall within the local sphere, and you'd have to, I assume, refer to them by name.

In the case of physical distance, that's a factor in the division of the world into two "spheres", but relationship probably plays a greater role. In languages that display proximity, as opposed to egophoricity, there's a direct connection between the speaker and the listener, which is why they fall within the local sphere, even though their may be other people closer to the speaker (those people, as mentioned above, though, have to be explicitly stated as part of that sphere, not simply assumed as such).

In languages that display egophoricity, I think you probably could say "Alan-VOC hands-PROX" for "Alan's hands", but you'd be suggesting that you and Alan are close friends or relatives, so something more along the lines of "my Alan's hands" (this isn't too dissimilar to from what you'll hear in Yorkshire, "our mum", "our Susan", etc. when referring to family members or, occasionally, close friends, as opposed to some other mum or some other Susan). So you'd have "Alan hands-PROX" vs. the hands stand at Alan" depending on which Alan you're talking about.

So in the case of "Hey, look at his hand!", you'd still be "closer" to the speaker than to the other person and their hands, so you'd be forced to say something like "look-IMP towards hands standing at there!"


Clio wrote: 09 Sep 2018 22:09 P.S.: The detail about some languages mixing the two systems in nouns vs. verbs is a great addition!
Thanks [:)] I'd been thinking about it for a while. I'm still working on how I might actually justify it, whether it makes sense at all, but I think having languages that do mix the two can be used to suggest that languages in general can switch between one set of spheres and the other, which then helps explain why there are different ways of dividing the world into those spheres in the first place.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

I really should get round to writing up a newer section for phrases like "his hand" or "I take", but it's one of the trickiest bits to get my head around at the moment, especially to actually write down in a way that makes sense.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
JANKO GORENC
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 170
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 15:16
Location: Slovenia
Contact:

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by JANKO GORENC »

I sincerely apologize if I ask for things that do not belong to this thread.
Please, if you publish (on one of the following threads, or ...) (numbers 1-10, ...) from all the languages mentioned on the thin thread.

Thanks for your reply!
29.2.2024 I have successfully collected numbers from over 76,552 ways (languages both: natlangs and also conlangs).
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

This is the sort of voice I always imagine for the Kovur because, duh, it's sort of stereotypical of "bad guys", I suppose, but then the whole point of the Kovur that, in general, they're not hugely different from humans. They're communal, they have a wide variety of moral and ideological structures across both time and space, some of them are "good" while some of them are "bad", but they have that voice that, I guess within a modern "Western" culture, just comes across "oh god, no, they're evil"

https://vocaroo.com/11mu4JAxxxCI

That then actually plays into the question about what sorts of phonation might be possible, because I swear that entire recording is quite guttural, but I honestly can't remember what that sort of speaking is. Is that creaky?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3883
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by Khemehekis »

sangi39 wrote: 26 Mar 2022 02:08 This is the sort of voice I always imagine for the Kovur because, duh, it's sort of stereotypical of "bad guys", I suppose, but then the whole point of the Kovur that, in general, they're not hugely different from humans. They're communal, they have a wide variety of moral and ideological structures across both time and space, some of them are "good" while some of them are "bad", but they have that voice that, I guess within a modern "Western" culture, just comes across "oh god, no, they're evil"

https://vocaroo.com/11mu4JAxxxCI

That then actually plays into the question about what sorts of phonation might be possible, because I swear that entire recording is quite guttural, but I honestly can't remember what that sort of speaking is. Is that creaky?
I read an online article (I think about a year ago) about villains' voices in cartoons; most of them either sound German/Austrian or Eastern European/Russian (because the U.S. was enemies with Germany in World War II and then with the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War), or British (like Scar's voice on The Lion King -- something about the classy, INTJ personality commonly ascribed to Sideshow-Bob-type villains). The article said this was A Bad Thing, and that these villain accents likely encouraged xenophobia during children's most formative years.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 86,336 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Khemehekis
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3883
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by Khemehekis »

sangi39 wrote: 20 May 2018 21:39 Just to throw some names at the Kovur language families:

I've separated Mistaya and Hungas into eastern and western regions for the sake of convenience. Language that are outside of those regions, that aren't being named, are all marked in a very light grey, with oceans, seas and lakes marked in white.

The names appear in a sort of "simplified" romanisation that excludes a number of diacritics that are otherwise used in transcribing Kovur languages (this differs in a number of ways from romanisations for human languages, e.g. Kovur lateral fricatives are transcribed as if they were sibilants).

Language Families of Eastern Mistaya

EM1 (dark green): Lhigar languages
EM2 (pink): Qubris languages
EM3 (red): Mawena languages
EM4 (dark brown): Atringu languages
EM5 (blue): Ruoc languages
EM6 (dark grey): Klarra languages
EM7 (light grey): Pazu languages
EM8 (light purple in the mountains): Ngauta languages
EM9 (dark purple in the mountains): Isapa languages
EM10 (light green): Obalka languages
EM11 (yellow): Muktas languages
EM12 (dark grey surrounded by red): Moalak languages
EM13 (dark blue surrounded by red and dark brown): Aqiva languages
EM14 (purple in brown): Lamsaj languages
EM15 (pink surrounded by brown and blue): Urlyat languages

. . .

WH1 (purple): Mitsai languages
WH2 (green): Naruop languages
WH3 (yellow): Bonbon languages
WH4 (red): Niavol languages
WH5 (orange): Zyen languages
WH6 (blue): Holdrin languages

That gives a total of 26 language families in Hungas and Konyur.

In total, this means that there are 62 Kovur language families, compared to 81 human language families, giving a total of 143 language families on Yantas as a whole (excluding any isolates that may exist at the time, and the language families of Velkasta [which I still have to work on])
By gum, you've turned into a filler!
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 86,336 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Kovur Languages of Yantas

Post by sangi39 »

Khemehekis wrote: 26 Mar 2022 02:35
sangi39 wrote: 20 May 2018 21:39 Just to throw some names at the Kovur language families:

I've separated Mistaya and Hungas into eastern and western regions for the sake of convenience. Language that are outside of those regions, that aren't being named, are all marked in a very light grey, with oceans, seas and lakes marked in white.

The names appear in a sort of "simplified" romanisation that excludes a number of diacritics that are otherwise used in transcribing Kovur languages (this differs in a number of ways from romanisations for human languages, e.g. Kovur lateral fricatives are transcribed as if they were sibilants).

Language Families of Eastern Mistaya

EM1 (dark green): Lhigar languages
EM2 (pink): Qubris languages
EM3 (red): Mawena languages
EM4 (dark brown): Atringu languages
EM5 (blue): Ruoc languages
EM6 (dark grey): Klarra languages
EM7 (light grey): Pazu languages
EM8 (light purple in the mountains): Ngauta languages
EM9 (dark purple in the mountains): Isapa languages
EM10 (light green): Obalka languages
EM11 (yellow): Muktas languages
EM12 (dark grey surrounded by red): Moalak languages
EM13 (dark blue surrounded by red and dark brown): Aqiva languages
EM14 (purple in brown): Lamsaj languages
EM15 (pink surrounded by brown and blue): Urlyat languages

. . .

WH1 (purple): Mitsai languages
WH2 (green): Naruop languages
WH3 (yellow): Bonbon languages
WH4 (red): Niavol languages
WH5 (orange): Zyen languages
WH6 (blue): Holdrin languages

That gives a total of 26 language families in Hungas and Konyur.

In total, this means that there are 62 Kovur language families, compared to 81 human language families, giving a total of 143 language families on Yantas as a whole (excluding any isolates that may exist at the time, and the language families of Velkasta [which I still have to work on])
By gum, you've turned into a filler!
I think I mentioned in the general Yantas thread, that that was meant to be the point, but it hasn't quite worked out that way because of work and stuff [:P]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Post Reply