Proto-Eteonoric

Proto-Eteonoric is a diachronic conlang that forms a part of the League of Lost Languages. The language was built as a group effort (the main contributors being Jörg Rhiemeier, Roger Mills, Benct Philip Jonsson and Paul Bennett). It is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Eteonoric languages. It was probably spoken about 3000 years ago in central Austria, somewhere between Vienna and Salzburg.

An essential part of the project is the Proto-Noric Dictionary and Root Generator.

Phonology

Consonants

	Labial	Alveolar	Postalveolar	Palatal	Velar	Uvular	Glottal
Stops, voiceless	*p	*t			*k	*q
Stops, voiced	*b	*d			*g
Stops, aspirated	*ph [pʰ]	*th [tʰ]			*kh [kʰ]	*qh [qʰ]
Affricates, voiceless		*c [ts]	*č [tʃ]
Affricates, voiced		*dz	*dž [dʒ]
Affricates, aspirated		*ch [tsʰ]	*č [tʃʰ]
Fricatives, voiceless		*s	*š [ʃ]				*h
Fricatives, voiced		*z	*ž [ʒ]
Nasals	*m	*n
Lateral		*l
Rhotic		*r
Semivowels	*w			*j

Vowels

	Front	Central	Back
High	*i	*y [ɨ]	*u
Mid	*e		*o
Low		*a

All vowels except *y which is always short, may be short or long. Long vowels are marked with a grave accent: à è ì ò ù

Accent

The Proto-Eteonoric accent may fall on any syllable and is marked with an acute accent (á é í ó ú ý) on the vowel, or a circumflex (â ê î ô û) if it is long.

Root structure

C(R)VC or CV(R)C

Words however are minimally C(R)VCV or CV(R)CV and must end in a vowel (or vowel + sonant?)

Morphology

Nouns

Nouns do not inflect much. The plural marker is *-my; the topic marker is *-tâ (which attracts stress). The plural topic marker is *-mýta (also attracts stress). The genitive relation is expressed by the particle *nu placed between possessum and possessor, e.g. *atéga nu babâ (house GEN father) 'the father's house'. If such a NP is topicalized, the topic marker is appended to the final element: *atéga nu babáta.

Pronouns

• 1st person: singular *atê, plural *kímy (exclusive), kórymy (inclusive)
• 2nd person: singular *iwká, plural *kakýmy
• 3rd person masculine: singular *jáša, plural jášamy
• 3rd person feminine: singular *jáši, plural *jášimy
• 3rd person neuter: singular *atâ, plural *atâmy

Prepositions

Proto-Eteonoric is a prepositional language.

(to be filled in)

Verbs

(to be filled in)

Syntax

(to be filled in)

Vocabulary

`abî	Num	twelve
`abîdxa	Num	twelfth
a`cu	Num	ten
a`cudxa	Num	tenth
a`mâ	N	mother
`anta	Num	five
`antadxa	Num	fifth
a`tê	pron	I (1st pers.sing.)
a`tega	N	house, dwelling
ba`bâ	N	father
`badi	adj	yellow
`banki	N	hill
bne`gâ	adj	big, large
`cerka	N	ox
`côli	V	heal
`côphê	N	human being
cu`ju	Num	four
cu`judxa	Num	fourth
`daqû	Num	nine
`daqûdxa	Num	ninth
`dawno	N	river
-dxa	suffix	derives ordinal numbers from cardinals
dxê`lê	N	red deer
`gwîno	N	wine >
`gyrdy	N	enclosure, courtyard
`hatû	Num	seven
`hatûdxa	Num	seventh
-ima	suffix	denotes inhabitant of X
`ipe	N	partridge
î`qha	Num	one
î`qhadxa	Num	first
iw`ka	pron	(2nd pers.sing.) thou
`îwsi	N	garden, field
`jûlthê	N	cow
`kantu	V	hold
`khorja	N	star; a constellation?
khrê`tha	N	roe deer
`kôri	N	tree bark
`korpi	N	forest
`kûrdo	adj	deaf
`kyrsa	N	bread
`laki	N	fish
`lintu	N	bird
lî`tcu	N	fox
`methu	N	mead
`mîtho	N	badger
`muto	V	cut
`nola	N	wood
no`ltcî	N	tree
ô`jtsi	Num	one thousand
ô`jtsidxa	Num	one thousandth
`pali	N	mountain
`pâre	V	show
`pasa	N	anger
`pasima	N	barbarian
`phloka	N	cloth
`qimâ	N	sky
`qûnâ	N	mountain
`qy-	prefix	place for X, place with X
`qylaki	N	pond
`qynoltcî	N	coppice, grove, forest
`qytshima	N	valley dweller
`qytsho	N	valley
`rêsi	N	grain, cereal
ri`wgu	N	marmot
`riwma	N	squirrel
`runthu	N	child
`selta	N	bridge
ta`ndu	N	ibex
`tchâqho	N	chamois
`tcholtsî	N	marten
tcî`by	N	Alpine cough
`têrzo	N	tree
`tôci	N	rope
`tsâhu	Num	two
`tsâhudxa	Num	second
`tsho	adposition	down
twa`tâ	Num	eight
twa`tâdxa	Num	eighth
`tylpa	adj	mute
`ûba	Num	three
`ûbadxa	Num	third
u`do	Num	twenty
u`dodxa	Num	twentieth
`ukhi	Num	one hundred
`ukhidxa	Num	one hundredth
`urnô	N	man
`warda	N	clan-house
`wewga	adj	wide
xu`lê	N	pheasant
`ytce	Num	eleven
`ytcedxa	Num	eleventh
`yto	Num	six
`ytodxa	Num	sixth
`ziwy	N	hare
zu`lkâ	N	aurochs

Semantic Spaces

(Paul Bennett)

Do we need to discuss the partitioning of semantic space? It is obvious that the Noric people were subjected to and survived several waves of outside dominant cultures (by my eye Italo-Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Ugric and/or Turkic and Germanic again, more or less). That cultural overlay is going to lead to loan-words and the loaning of which things are culturally significant enough to have special terms for them. For instance, Noric people are likely to have grown wheat and barley, driven goats or sheep, drunk wine and mead --knowledge of both probably came with IE speakers (wine in turn probably came from Caucasian people (something like /ɣwinja/ IIRC)), and beer came later (around 1AD?) from the Romans (Latin cerevisia), who got it from the Egyptians. They would have known about horses but probably not donkeys (knowledge of the horse (PIE *ek^uo) probably came with IE speakers), and had a concept of a home consisting of an entrance area and an inner area with a hearth. They would probably have had separate words for a village and a town (actually, the PIE word for "town" (cf. Greek polis) was apparently borrowed from an unknown source -- might be worth thinking about). Plausibly, they traded in slaves (with a word for "slave" distinct to "man", and a word for "buy/sell slave(s)" distinct from the general "buy/sell"). Plausibly they would draw a line between a libation and a "regular" drink, and maybe between sacrificial killing, killing in battle/"slaying", and "regular" killing.

Would they really have "towns" as opposed to "villages". BTW Greek polis may well be from Pelasgian -- that would be my first hypothesis lacking other evidence. BPJ 13:35, 2 Jun 2005 (PDT)

At some point, yes they would. I'm not sure of the age of the polis words, but we're talking about a culture from the Copper or Bronze age all the way through to modern times. At some point, I suspect they'd have need of a distinction. Pb 08:25, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Wouldn't they take up whatever word the dominant culture used, be it civitas, Stadt or város or whatever? BPJ 12:55, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Possibly. Probably, in fact. However, the question is going to be at what point in time did the borrowing occur, and what was the dominant language at that time? Would there have been a *bherg^h-/polis term as well as something in the Stadt range? I beleive *bherg^hs developed somewhere between villages and true cities, and indeed that's what they are. I think Stadt would make a perfectly servicable borrowing c. X to XV century (ish), when true cities became a reality. I think *bherg^h- would be borrowed to describe, well, a *bherg^h- Pb 15:02, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Agree. Real towns would come only with the Romans, probably. BPJ 00:03, 4 Jun 2005 (PDT)