Entry posted by JRRT
1,253 views
The Language of Okoto
Chapter 2
(Note that the material in this post is basically a culled-down/revised version of this post.)
Now that we’ve collected a dataset, the next step in the project to construct an Okotoan Language is to take a part of that dataset and attempt to break it down into smaller units. The best way to do this is to assign some reasonable meanings to a few of the terms available and then use a bit of comparative methodology and some etymological know-how to decompose the words.
Ekimu is referred to by the title of “Mask Maker”, while Makuta is referred to by the title of “Mask Hoarder”. As suggested in the original topic, these titles could work well as the meanings of the names Ekimu and Makuta, and I will adopt this idea in order to proceed:
Assumption: The names Ekimu and Makuta translate, respectively, to “Mask Maker” and “Mask Hoarder”.
The advantage to this assumption is that it provides us with a basis for comparing the names. Both titles contain a meaning-element (or “morpheme”) signifying “mask”, so by comparing the two Okotoan names, we should be able to identify and isolate the common element.
Observations: There is a common sequence /m+vowel/ in both names, /eki-mu/ and /ma-kuta/. Both names also contain a sequence of /k/ between vowels, /eki-mu/ in the first case and /m-aku-ta/ in the second.
Both of these options could work, although they both come with a different set of assumptions/consequences. In the first case, we’d have to postulate that the sequences /-mu/ and /ma-/ both map to the morpheme “mask”, and the remaining portions of these words—/eki-/ and /-kuta/—map to the meanings “maker” and “hoarder”, respectively. In the second case, “mask” would be signified by the sequences /eki-/ and /-aku-/, with the morphemes for “maker” and “hoarder” represented by the sequences /-mu/ and /m-...-ta/.
I believe the first option is preferable on the following grounds:
First, splitting the names into /eki-mu/ and /ma-kuta/ is, in general, more uniform than splitting them into /eki-mu/ and /m-aku-ta/, because it results in both names being reduced to two clear morphemic elements (/eki+mu/ and /ma+kuta/), matching the assumed English translations (“mask+maker” and “mask+hoarder”) in a straightforward manner. This contrasts with the second option, which would reduce one name to two morphemic units (/eki+mu/), but the second name to (at least) three (/m+aku+ta/), unless we make some further hypotheses about the composition of these names (e.g. /ekimu/ should be divided into /eki+m+u/ to mirror /m+aku+ta/). On grounds of parsimony (i.e. simplicity), therefore, I believe the first option is better.
Second, assuming that the sequences /mu/ and /ma/ are connected requires only one unified phonological rule affecting a single vowel, such that the vowels /u/ (in /mu/) and /a/ (in /ma/) both originate from a common source. In contrast, assuming that /eki/ and /aku/ are etymologically connected requires at least two rules, since two vowels are involved: /e/ and /a/ must trace back to one common source, and /i/ and /u/ trace back to another. Therefore, I believe that the first option wins out once again on grounds of parsimony (i.e. wanting to assume the minimum number of rules).
With that said, here is how the first option would play out:
Proposal 1: The sequence /mu/ in /ekimu/ and the sequence /ma/ in /makuta/ can both be traced back to an older common form *mau “mask” (the asterisk denotes a reconstructed form). Furthermore, the vowel-sequence /au/ is affected by the following phonological rule, which has two subparts:
Phonological Rule 1:
Subpart 1a: /au/ becomes /u/ at the ends of words (“word-finally”). Example: /ekimau/ > /ekimu/.
Subpart 1b: /au/ becomes /a/ everywhere else (“elsewhere”). Example: /maukuta/ > /makuta/.
Now that we’ve accounted for the phonological differences between the manifestations of the morpheme *mau “mask” in the two names, one task remains: explaining the syntactic difference between the combination of elements in each name. In the case of /ekimu/, the element *mau is placed second (/eki-mau/), while in the case of /makuta/, *mau is placed first (/mau-kuta/). Why is this? Does it matter? Ideally, I think we should have an explanation available, and towards that end, I’ll put forward a proposal inspired in part by the rules which apply to how adjectives modify nouns in the Matoran Language. First, the proposal; then, an explanation:
Proposal 2: A modifying element placed before the element it modifies receives an indirect/abstract/non-physical interpretation, while a modifying element placed after another element receives a direct/concrete/physical interpretation.
Note that, while this rule of syntactic/semantic composition matches the rules of the Matoran Language in principle (i.e. in that the syntactic position of modifiers influences their interpretation), in application it’s actually the opposite! In Matoran, adjectives received concrete interpretations when placed before nouns and abstract interpretations when placed after. In Okotoan, the situation is reversed: before = abstract, after = concrete. Don’t worry: this decision wasn’t made on a whim, luckily. It was the result of some intense thought as to the appropriate characterization of the meanings of the names Ekimu and Makuta, as well as a few other names/terms (which will be discussed in later posts). Furthermore, this proposal is a reversal of the proposal I made in the original post, which matched up with Matoran exactly. Ideas change. Pay it no mind! =P And anyways, it feels a bit more appropriate to have a distinct difference between Okotoan and Matoran, rather than having Okotoan be an exact replica.
Now, let’s see how these ideas apply to the composition of our two names:
First of all, we need to determine for both names what is the modifying element and what is the “primary” element (the “head”) in order to determine the interpretation (indirect/abstract vs. direct/concrete). In both cases, the elements representing “maker” (eki) and “hoarder” (kuta) are clearly the primary elements, meaning that the element *mau “mask” is the modifier for both terms. Here’s how this plays out:
eki-mau = “maker with concrete/direct relation to masks” (the modifier *mau is placed after the primary element eki)
mau-kuta = “hoarder with abstract/indirect relation to masks” (the modifier *mau is placed before the primary element kuta)
Recap:
- We have assumed that the names Ekimu and Makuta translate to “Mask Maker” and “Mask Hoarder”, respectively.
- We have decomposed the names Ekimu and Makuta into the elements eki “maker” and kuta “hoarder”, both modified by the reconstructed element *mau “mask”.
- Along the way, we’ve derived one phonological rule affecting the vowel-sequence /au/ (> /u/ word-finally, /a/ elsewhere), as well as a rule of syntactic/semantic composition (modifiers are interpreted as indirect/abstract when placed before the thing they modify, direct/concrete when placed after).
Current Glossary:
eki “maker”
ekimu “mask maker”
kuta “hoarder”
makuta “mask hoarder”
*mau “mask” (would become mu in the modern form of Okotoan)
-
2
2 Comments
Recommended Comments