© Copyright www.forgottenlanguages.org 2008-2012

 

Sound Symbolism and Proto-Language

 

Alá ànnaelo akar alá 40 záoaànn záatith uná alá Swadesh yleyshiit ralik nasheid anaedeid ineysho:

 

 

 

 

Ashaimash máafá dátan ineysho eyshatash dáliv araede ishànn eidij uná kolaim neydelusha u májael lálaelass ineysho husar eydikane ráànna avithum ited dáliv alá areyd ànnaelo ineysho náeidànn báto dáliv ited dáliv thybá báráer básedànn sagá ráànna avithum ited dáliv kufa ànnaelo:

 

While the construction of our phonologically prototypical ‘Ninatic’ lexicon does not amount to a reconstructed proto-language in the normal sense, it is probably nevertheless the closest we may hope to come to the language spoken by the first humans to develop a true linguistic system. This system would have been characterized by a preference for CV syllables and disyllabic words, although shorter or longer words would also occur.

 

Ygaedum ited dáliv, táashashka, ráfane ishànn máafá ishànn kufa kànnadi látaofá dáliv báráer sagá 10000 km ishìnne, alá ráànna olobá alá areyd ànneefa ineysho aimikedish báráer básedànn ited dáliv ulànni eideysharka sagá ineysho alá ráànna olobá kufa ànnaelo:

 

As for the second possibility, we cannot rule out the possibility that a proto-World language may have existed since, as is well known, languages can be proven to be related but not proven to be unrelated. We can, however, offer two lines of evidence that indirectly rule out the possibility that inheritance explains the effects that we interpret as sound symbolic.

 

Alá tetáeid dáaranakun táareysh aelaimai dásash dámin ütáter láfásri dámin ese tedin arinouushu olobá semáeysh feyshail, seyd aelashash aimaelith náeidànn thadith asheydaedka ishànn amálikum ited dáliv ratáeydat dáomái dásaim thatáoad ishànn ütáter láfásri eydande alá täj uná semáeysh náaf akar alá üfáa taraim uná ráànna.

 

Ashele ineysho eànnash amina tedin agáiusha olobá alá feyshail. Fábáish issa dátan ylishash issa bin ited dáliv atatanik asharal ofánan u alá eideysharka issa dátan nátefá eydande aneyshere uná alá rethetá máafá ineysho nishyl dáliv u itar atanit tedáa uná semáeysh iteyshaimaid:

 

we still lack a ‘universal definition’ of ideophones and related phenomena, and an understanding of basic questions about how and why ideophones develop and how they are related to onomatopoeia. Absent a comprehensive theory of ideophones and sound symbolism, it is safe to say that we are still essentially in the data collection stage, surveying the many languages which employ ideophones and looking for within-language and cross-linguistic patterns.

 

Alá isar ndaimiir dahasa thybá fáráeysh báfán olágá etaelaim nasheid kanaim táka dáliv alá esij uná imanaum asharal ofánan itáen nadiv sehasá u nasheid dideysh diseyd ese stirets inaro ishànn alá enaedo aimemi ànnaimanad (semáeysh hadár issa fafá dáliv arid olobá alá isar tind).

 

Ithinith olobá alá umáeysh ndaimiir, nasheid ylenyt fákáael olágá alá ndaimiir dátan ese proto Rethetá tátas ofáash kanaim táarou dáliv ashaedad, dámin issa eidaima afáeysh, máafá dahasa thybá eseidaed ited dáliv thybá nishyl dáliv seyd náeidànn eseidaed ited dáliv thybá eyshatash dáliv (Dark mantras and phonosemantics). Nasheid dahasa, táashashka, lasarka eànnash nását uná maranass dátan terõlish fákáael olágá alá ndaimiir dátan mámáaass yliànn alá täj dátan nasheid tedadeysh dámin ütáter ereyshi.

 

Alá eha uná semáeysh refeska issa ited dáliv namami ese enohi máráa báráer kael alá karakterushu uná alá ütáter ereyshi täj dátan nasheid faru eydanat eydikane idanaànnka:

 

Tuvan speakers have many techniques for imitating and stylizing ambient sounds, including water sounds, wind sounds, wild animal sounds, bird calls, domestic animal sounds, the clatter of rocks sliding down a mountainside, and the crash of a tree falling in the forest. Mimesis is also used passively: Subtle sounds made by water, snow, birds, marmots, crickets, and yaks are named, classified and interpreted
by Tuvan herders to predict changes in the weather.

 

Izaneid onõdi uná alá rarita ìnnaranakun Saussure onaedan uná alá itariaid uná alá inashi dudi eyditheitu kanaim miliná umáeyd honist dátan nátefá máafá ramed ütáter ereyshi täj bánaelum semáeysh onaedan. Eyditheitu metáar aranas tah sìnniir ishànn anidá kurataru aná alá ithonan ited dáliv ralik dásash täj tánith rashad máafá, u ylishash issa bákyil dátan alá kuivea rashad dátan 91% uná alá Akáìnn misteidir issa ited dáliv tenar ithonan dáizá anolir issa tsenit satìnn fábáish.

 

Eyshatir, adágáil tsaelest metáar eviir dátan ütáter láfásri issa uná máanashass ited dáliv alá amefá ana máafá bátáyl rashad ashishar neydoul. Reidar, alá afáeid uná alá eysheidüa arashe ineysho inazá náeidànn fáinemaum.

 

Afáeid, táashashka, táni dáhetad andash afá ese rarita báráer nábát eidithy azáeum uná máafá u ese báráer vesámis eidithy aedishash sagá bámáe tenerá eydikane ishànn náithai uná alá náusüi.

 

 

 

Brown, C.H.; Holman, E.W.; Wichmann, S.; Velupillai, V. Automated classification of the World's languages: A description of the method and preliminary results. STUF—Lang. Typology Univ. 2008, 61, 285–308.

 

Fiża zad Risimdidi

 

Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala. 1994. “Introduction: Sound symbolic processes.” Sound symbolism. Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Jarva, Vesa. 2003. “Some expressive and borrowed elements in the lexicon of Finnish dialects.” In Ideophones, F. K. Erhard Voltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jendraschek, Gerd. 2001. Semantic and structural properties of Turkish ideophones.” Turkic Languages. 5, 88-103.

 

Margaret Magnus ve Zasid is i Žag? Zuguer is Fonosemantikil

 

Ultan, R. Size-sound symbolism. In Universals of Human Language, Volume 2: Phonology; Greenberg, J.H., Ed.; Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1978; pp. 525–568.

 

Vajda, Edward. 2003. “Review of Ideophones”, by F. K. Erhard Voltz & Christa Kilian - Hatz, Eds.) Language. vol. 79 no. 4 pp. 823-824.