Proto-Eteonoric

Proto-Eteonoric
Spoken in:	Austria, ca. 1000 BC
Conworld:	League of Lost Languages
Total speakers:	extinct
Genealogical classification:	Eteonoric Proto-Eteonoric
Basic word order:	V2, SOV in subclauses
Morphological type:	agglutinating
Morphosyntactic alignment:	accusative, topic-prominent
Created by:
The group	2005-2012

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).

Proto-Eteonoric 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]	*čh [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 *-mytâ (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 babàtâ.

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.

Local prepositions

	At	From	To	Through
General	*ta	*do	*ke	*čhà
In	*qitá	*qidó	*qiké	*qičhâ
On	*satá	*sadó	*saké	*sačhâ
Under	*čhìtá	*čhìdó	*čhìké	*čhìčhâ
Near	*litá	*lidó	*liké	*ličhâ

Other prepositions

With (comitative)	*nîli
By/With (instrumental)	*dára
Without	*banî
For	*džúki
Against	*badžú

Verbs

The verb is inflected for tense and mood, and the person and number of the subject. There are also several subordinating suffixes.

Mood

Mood is expressed by a suffix on the verb. The following moods are distinguished:

Indicative	-Ø (no suffix)
Subjunctive	-ka
Optative	-kala
Imperative	-chí

The imperative suffix attracts stress and is never followed by any other suffix except the plural suffix *-my.

Tense

There are two tenses in Proto-Eteonoric: present (non-past) and past. Only the indicative and the subjunctive moods combine with the past tense. The present tense has no suffix, while the past tense is marked with the suffix *-še. In the subjunctive mood, the past tense suffix follows the subjunctive mood suffix.

Person and number

The personal prefixes are:

1st person	*ki-
2nd person	*ka-
3rd person	Ø- (no prefix)

The plural is expressed by the suffix *-my in all three persons. This suffix follows the mood and tense suffixes.

Subordinating suffixes

The verb of a subordinate clause takes a suffix which expresses the relation between the subordinate clause and the main clause. This suffix is always the last in the verb complex and attracts stress. The following subordinating suffixes can be reconstructed for Proto-Eteonoric:

Relative	*-máchi
If	*-čhî
When	*-tatá
Before	*-kêmi
After	*-dôthi
Because	*-gûru
Though	*-nîlu

Syntax

(to be filled in)

Vocabulary

ábì	Num	twelve
ábìdža	Num	twelfth
ašá	Num	ten
ašúdža	Num	tenth
amâ	N	mother
ánta	Num	five
ántadža	Num	fifth
atê	pron	I (1st pers.sing.)
atéga	N	house, dwelling
babâ	N	father
bádi	adj	yellow
bánki	N	hill
bnegâ	adj	big, large
câhu	Num	two
câhudža	Num	second
châqho	N	chamois
chó	adposition	down
cholcí	N	marten
cìbý	N	Alpine cough
dáqù	Num	nine
dáqùdža	Num	ninth
dáwno	N	river
-dža	suffix	derives ordinal numbers from cardinals
džèlê	N	red deer
gwîno	N	wine
gýrdy	N	enclosure, courtyard
hátù	Num	seven
hátùdža	Num	seventh
-ima	suffix	denotes inhabitant of X
ípe	N	partridge
ìqhá	Num	one
ìqhádža	Num	first
iwká	pron	(2nd pers.sing.) thou
îwsi	N	garden, field
jûlthè	N	cow
kántu	V	hold
khórja	N	star; a constellation?
khrèthá	N	roe deer
kôri	N	tree bark
kórpi	N	forest
kûrdo	adj	deaf
kýrsa	N	bread
láki	N	fish
líntu	N	bird
lìčú	N	fox
méthu	N	mead
mîtho	N	badger
múto	V	cut
nòla	N	wood
nolčî	N	tree
òjcí	Num	one thousand
òjcidža	Num	one thousandth
páli	N	mountain
pâre	V	show
pása	N	anger
pásima	N	barbarian
phlóka	N	cloth
qímà	N	sky
qúnà	N	mountain
qý-	prefix	place for X, place with X
qýlaki	N	pond
qýnolčì	N	coppice, grove, forest
qýchima	N	valley dweller
qýcho	N	valley
rêsi	N	grain, cereal
riwgú	N	marmot
ríwma	N	squirrel
rúnthu	N	child
sélta	N	bridge
šérka	N	ox
šôli	V	heal
šôphè	N	human being
šujú	Num	four
šujúdža	Num	fourth
tandú	N	ibex
têrzo	N	tree
tôši	N	rope
twatâ	Num	eight
twatâdža	Num	eighth
týlpa	adj	mute
ûba	Num	three
ûbadža	Num	third
udó	Num	twenty
udódža	Num	twentieth
úkhi	Num	one hundred
úkhidža	Num	one hundredth
úrnò	N	man
wárda	N	clan-house
wèwga	adj	wide
ýče	Num	eleven
ýčedža	Num	eleventh
ýto	Num	six
ýtodža	Num	sixth
zíwy	N	hare
zulkâ	N	aurochs
žulê	N	pheasant

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)