zompist bboard

Hey Zomp, I am looking over your cool Proto-Eastern write up, and you mention "Is there an Almean equivalent of Nostratic? Not yet, but it's tempting to provide one. Based on their earliest locations, the Easterners were probably related to the Wede:i, the Fei, and the Lenani."

Well????

when are ya gonna be tempted enough to start it?

Mark created all the Eastern Languages before Proto-Eastern - which is why the page on it is so tentative and scholarly - it really is a reconstruction, not a conventional conlang.

He quipped a while back that he would create Proto-Western before the descendant languages, so as to make it easier - but he wouldn't release Proto-Western... just leave it for us to work out ourselves. As such, any work on an "Almean Nostratic" would most likely have to be done by us, the adoring fans.

(Now that I think about it, where did the name "Nostratic" come from?)

Rory wrote:(Now that I think about it, where did the name "Nostratic" come from?)

Latin noster our.

Rory wrote:He quipped a while back that he would create Proto-Western before the descendant languages, so as to make it easier - but he wouldn't release Proto-Western... just leave it for us to work out ourselves. As such, any work on an "Almean Nostratic" would most likely have to be done by us, the adoring fans.

Once we have Western, I'll be able to work on the creation and hopefully find more support my own theory on Proto-Eastern verbs, damnit.

Rory's right that the Eastern languages were created before proto-Eastern; but they were also modified afterward. They do all properly derive from proto-Eastern.

The equivalent of Nostratic would presumably be Ta?se (see the Key page in the historical atlas). Try that, if you want; or one of the other speculative groups; you never know what you'll find...

zompist wrote:Rory's right that the Eastern languages were created before proto-Eastern; but they were also modified afterward. They do all properly derive from proto-Eastern.

The equivalent of Nostratic would presumably be Ta?se (see the Key page in the historical atlas). Try that, if you want; or one of the other speculative groups; you never know what you'll find...

Really, "try it", really??

cool..

I for one hope Zomp never does the Almean version of Nostratic; and I kind of doubt he will--if I read him correctly, he has about as much faith in that kind of reconstruction as I do, which is to say very little. Once you get past second-order proto-languages, for all practical purposes, the comparitive method breaks down; the effect of all the little errors you made in the reconstruction of the earlier proto-languages are multiplied, and you wind up with a mess. Even second-order proto-languages are tough to reconstruct, such as Proto-Algic, reconstructed from Proto-Algonquian and two attested languages, Wiyot and Yurok; comparison of forms in those three languages doesn't always point to the same proto-form, and there are areas of Proto-Algic that we'll probably never be able to penetrate and reconstruct definitively. Even such a basic thing as the phoneme inventory of Proto-Algic isn't agreed upon by everyone.

zompist wrote: The equivalent of Nostratic would presumably be Ta?se (see the Key page in the historical atlas). Try that, if you want; or one of the other speculative groups; you never know what you'll find...

I decided to check this out, just for fun. I compiled (albeit incomplete) Swadesh lists for 4 Almean languages that are identified here as "Ta?se". These languages where Proto-Eastern, Old Skourene, Metauin and Wede:i. I chose those four because they where the oldest; and therefore logically the most likely to retain similarities to each other and to the hypothetical "proto-Ta?se". Then I just put the lists next to each other, arranged them roughly by meaning, and looked for similarities between the words . Obviously not very scholarly, but I wasn't worried about that - after all, this is the Almean version of Nostratic, so presumably it's supposed to be unbelievably tenuously based on mass comparison Most of the "cognates" I've identified are therefore presumably coincidences, but a few look like they could be more than that. Anyway, this is what I ended up with:

Proto-Eastern = P.E.
Old Skourene = O.S.
Metauin = M.
Wede:i = W.

(the given words have the same meaning as the conjectured proto-word, unless otherwise stated.)

• I
  • P.E. sewo
    M. ḣem, cin (I pej.)
  you (sing.)
  • P.E. let
    M. fal, falau (you (sing.) def.)
    W. -il-
  he/she/it
  • P.E. taw (he/she)
    M. ṫaḣ
  one/this
  • P.E. *ānu (one)
    O.S. mam (this), moṭ (one)
    M. grem (one/this)
    W. bo (one)
  all
  • O.S. -doḷ;
    W. to:l
  many
  • P.E. *mukses
    O.S. kaş-
    M. kumi
  some
  • O.S. -bab
    M. beiȟa
    W. paun
  other
  • O.S. -gog
    W. jok
  three
  • P.E. *dīm
    O.S. ded
    M. dama
  five
  • P.E.*pantu
    O.S. bim
    M. amua
    W. pina
  big/wide/heavy
  • P.E. *rōn (wide)
    O.S. riḍ- (big)
    M. gori (heavy)
  small
  • P.E. *pitwes
    O.S. -its
  man (male)
  • P.E. *pons
    O.S. pasn-
  person
  • P.E.*wenka
    O.S. mand-
    M. neȟad
    W. bogu
  mother
  • P.E. *mīdor
    O.S. meln- (nurture)
    M. baba
    W. papa
  father
  • P.E. *pīdor
    M. tata
    W. data
  bird/to fly
  • O.S. nals- (throw; fly)
    W. na:i (bird)
  crawly thing
  • P.E. *musa (insect)
    O.S. sirm- (crawl)
    W. miring (snake)
  forest
  • O.S. geŋ
    W. jen
  foliage
  • P.E. *bats (stick)
    M. eta (leaf)
    W. tur (stick)
  fruit
  • P.E. *ɣolps
    W. gauji
  seed
  • P.E. *ris
    O.S. ḍad
    W. rada
  flower
  • P.E.*yorta
    O.S. narş-a
    M. riosta (a flower with small blue petals)
  grass
  • O.S. misan;
    W. biźi
  hair
  • O.S. bol-
    M. mowa
    W. po:
  eye/to see
  • P.E. *lēlem (see)
    W. liu
  mouth
  • P.E. *buks
    O.S. meŋl-
  vomit
  • P.E. *xupwek
    M. buk
  bite
  • O.S. gim-
    M. gam
    W. kimu-
  foot
  • P.E. *naga
    O.S. gang-
    W. keng
  hand
  • P.E. *manus
    M. amua
  suck/breast
  • O.S. meln- (nurture)
    M. mam- (suck)
  die/kill
  • O.S. keşg- (die/kill)
    M. kreiȟ- (kill)
    W. koku (die)
  come
  • M. laγ
    W. la:u
  stand
  • O.S. ṭirk-
    W. kir
  give
  • M. ȟuw
    W. ku:ru
  count
  • P.E. *rewmem
    M. riȟ
  play
  • P.E. *furam
    O.S. parṭ-
  sun
  • P.E. *siler
    M. osuri
  star
  • O.S. maḍaŋ
    W. ma:in
  water
  • P.E. *meiu
    O.S. nam
  lake
  • P.E. *sīwai
    W. śi
  river/sea
  • P.E. *gēlere (river)
    W. go:rtu (sea)
  grit
  • P.E. *sāwil (salt)
    M. sio (salt), sifa (sand)
    W. zau (sand)
  wind/blow
  • O.S. ḍegl- (blow)
    W. do: (wind)
  red
  • P.E. *rugetes
    O.S. -arṭ (green)
    M. evra
  night
  • O.S. seḷg-
    M. sowon
    W. seki
  day
  • P.E. *dēns
    O.S. ḍus
    W. tin
  good
  • P.E. *ɣorū
    O.S. -eli
    M. ȟawi
    W. kal
  bad
  • O.S. -urg
    W. yur

Krsont, that is one of the most impressive works I've seen here on the zbb since I joined! You're cool, you rock etc etc How long did it take to you to make all this awesome stuff?

Piero Lo Monaco wrote:Krsont, that is one of the most impressive works I've seen here on the zbb since I joined! You're cool, you rock etc etc How long did it take to you to make all this awesome stuff?

not that long... I started it last night and finished it just now. With a gap imbetween for sleeping, real life etc. Seriously though, it's not really that impressive. It was a pretty small sample of words i used; and if anything it proves the extreme unworthiness of the mass lexical comparison method - I assume that most if not all of those tenuous "cognates" I identified where completely unintentional. Still, it does feels nice to do my part for the field of Almeology

Krsont wrote:Obviously not very scholarly, but I wasn't worried about that - after all, this is the Almean version of Nostratic, so presumably it's supposed to be unbelievably tenuously based on mass comparison

Not that I'm a Nostratic advocate, but I think it's unfair to lump Nostraticists in with proto-Amerind fans on this one. Nostraticists *have* adopted a scholarly, systematic approach - of course, in the minds of many, that won't do them a lick of good, since they don't have anything to go on. There is a difference between what they have done and what Greenberg has done with Amerind.

So Haleza Grise wrote:

Krsont wrote:Obviously not very scholarly, but I wasn't worried about that - after all, this is the Almean version of Nostratic, so presumably it's supposed to be unbelievably tenuously based on mass comparison

Not that I'm a Nostratic advocate, but I think it's unfair to lump Nostraticists in with proto-Amerind fans on this one. Nostraticists *have* adopted a scholarly, systematic approach - of course, in the minds of many, that won't do them a lick of good, since they don't have anything to go on. There is a difference between what they have done and what Greenberg has done with Amerind.

ok, I'm sorry. I do actually know there's a lot more to it than I said; I was just being cute.