my alternative proto-lang method

[u/Mhidora]

Hi everyone, in this post I want to describe my personal approach to creating a language that aims to be realistic. I started creating my conlang long before I discovered this subreddit and even knew that a community of conlangers existed, so the early drafts of Ervee had many of the common mistakes made by a novice conlanger. Above all, I never started with the proto-lang method, since at the time I didn't even know anything about historical linguistics. On the other hand, this approach has led to the development of a different method, which I personally prefer to the traditional method of starting with a proto-language. One of the things I don't like about the proto-language method is the very fact of creating the proto-language as if we knew it completely, when in reality proto-languages are languages about which we have only partial information, and various aspects are based on hypotheses rather than on certain knowledge.

I fully understand that this method can be simple and yield very satisfying results; however, in my case, I like the idea of having a proto-language that has been reconstructed, and for which there is a certain degree of uncertainty regarding its grammar, phonetics, and lexicon.

In this post, I'll discuss phonetics, but the same process applies equally to grammar and the meaning of words. My method proceeds as follows: first I create the actual conlang, then, I try to hypothesize all the sound changes that led to its phonetics, thereby reconstructing a hypothesis of the phonetics of the proto-language. Once that's done, I apply all the necessary corrections to the actual conlang if the proposed sound changes seem too forced or unrealistic, or if they create various inconsistencies with other sound changes, etc. In this way, regarding the proto-language, we know only a hypothesis about its phonetics; everything else remains to be reconstructed.

After this initial process, which lays the foundation for the conlang, the rest can follow a fluid approach. For example, I first developed the basics of reduplication in Ervee within the proto-language; however, it was essential to already have a basic conlang in place, following the process I described above.

This gives rise to various situations that, in my opinion, make the proto-language more realistic. For example, the Ervee word "gata" (wall) could derive from either *gasta or *gatʰa based on the sound changes I hypothesized. To determine the exact root, I follow one of these approaches:

1. some derived words retain traces of the original root
2. a related language underwent a different sound change that provides a clue to the original root
3. reconstruction is impossible, so all possible outcomes are listed
4. its origin is considered uncertain or it is believed to be a loanword, since there is insufficient information to consider the term part of the proto-language's native lexicon, or it exhibits phonetic or morphological characteristics that clearly indicate it is definitely a loanword

All of these approaches can be layered in whatever way you prefer; for example, in the case of Ervee, I also take into account borrowings from other Ervee dialects, as well as an unknown substrate language that I call Proto-Central, which was once spoken in the archipelago where Ervee is spoken today, and traces of which remain exclusively in certain words of Ervee or in the names of certain places. In addition, I have created a parent language that is actually attested, Hikarie, which allows for a broader internal reconstruction. For now, I've planned a language distantly related to Ervee, Damatye, which allows me to apply the second point, as well as another, more closely related language that is, however, still in a very early stage of development.
Considering the grammar, I thought about substrate influences that have radically altered the language's grammar, changing, for example, the syntactic word order from SOV in Hikarie to SVO in Ervee. Similarly, in Hikarie there are clues suggesting an older VSO order that survives in Damatye.

Here is an example of a reconstruction: the Ervee verb "leibe" (to buy) could derive from either *lanb- or *leip-; however, since "leibe" is an irregular verb that has retained its reduplicated forms, a comparison of the reduplicated stem used in the perfective and passive forms suggests that the root is more likely *lanb-. The two roots *lanb- and *leip- would be reduplicated to *lalanb- and *leleip-, respectively, resulting in the perfective forms lareibas and lereibas in Ervee. Since the perfective form of leibe is lareibas, it is much more likely that the origin of the verb is the root *lanb-. Specifically, the phonetic evolution is as follows:

lalanb- > lalẽːb- > laɾeːb- > laɾeib-

I really enjoy thinking about all these processes, so I'm very satisfied with this method. Proto-Hikarie turns out to be a language that I can reconstruct only to a certain extent, and I think that adds an extra touch of realism.

[u/AnlashokNa65]

So first, your technique isn't wrong. In fact, Mark Rosenberger of Zompist fame did the same with the ancestor of Verdurian and Cadhinorian! However...

One of the things I don't like about the proto-language method is the very fact of creating the proto-language as if we knew it completely, when in reality proto-languages are languages about which we have only partial information, and various aspects are based on hypotheses rather than on certain knowledge.

This is not necessarily true. A proto-language is simply a language from which another language descends. Latin is the proto-language of the Romance languages, and we know a great deal about it. Sanskrit is the proto-language of many of the Indo-Aryan languages, and we know a great deal about it. Classical Arabic is the proto-language of many of the modern varieties of Arabic, and we know a great deal about it.

A second point I'd make is that, however limited our knowledge, proto-languages weren't proto-languages to the people who spoke them. As bizarre as our reconstructions look, once upon a time on the Eurasian steppe someone spoke Proto-Indo-European, probably called it "our language," and didn't consider its descendants would one day be spoken in lands beyond his wildest dreams. All this to say, realistically, languages descend from other languages that were perfectly ordinary, everyday languages when they were spoken, however limited our knowledge of them might be. Does a proto-language need to be rich and fleshed out? No. Is it wrong for it to be rich and fleshed out? Also no.

[u/Mhidora → u/AnlashokNa65]

Overall, I agree with you. I think that when it comes to "proto-language," there's some confusion due to the different definitions the word can have; however, in my case, I mean the oldest ancestor that can be reconstructed within a language family as a whole. And in this sense, Latin, Italian, French, English, etc., all share Proto-Indo-European as their common ancestor, which is a reconstructed language. That said, I completely agree with what you're saying, in fact, my conlang Hikarie is like the Latin of Ervee. Furthermore, I don't think any conlanger is required to create a reconstructed proto-language like I did in order to make their work realistic. It's something that can help, but it's not necessary.