Nostra Tic

7/28/2019 Nostra Tic

1/17

NOSTRA TIC, EURASIAnC, AND INDO-EUROPEANALLAN R.BOARDlrlst,SouthCarolia

1. ItrodctioAs thetwentieth centry draws toclose, it is longer reasonable to hold to theviewthatIndo-Eropeanis langageisolate- thirtyyears havea1readypassedsincegrop of Rssian scholars (most notablyVladislav . i-Svity andAaron. Dolgopolsky) sccessflly demonstratedthatIndo-Europeanis reatedtosevera1otherlangagefarniliesof northemandcentra1Eurasia andtheancientNear East. Since then, notonly has thiswork been contined theRssians(regrettably,i-Svitywaskil1edinanatomobileaccidentin 1966), it has a1sobeen taken nmber of other scholars in other contries, who haveverified the initia1reslts arrived at the Rssians, who have refined themethodology,whohavegreatly expandedthenmberof cognatesets, who haveclarifiedissesreated to phonology, whohaveidentifiedadditiona1grarnmatica1formantsandhavebegntopiecetogether theearly deveopmentof morphologyineachof thedaghter langages, andwho havemadegreat strides in problernsof sbgroping.2.MethodologyAt thepresenttime, someof theworkbengdonein distantlingisticcomparisonis of very high qa1ity, adhering strictly to the methodologica1principlesestablished the fonders of Indo-European comparative lingistics, whileotherwork is qitespeclativeand less methodologica11yigoros. Moreover,therearetwomain approachesbengtilized: thefirst approachrna termed"taxonomyfirst", which seeks ft andforemost toclassify langages intovalidgropings,thatis, intolangagefarniliesand/orrofarnilis,whilethe secondapproach termed "reconstrction first", which, as the implies,emphasizesreconstrction. Thefirst approachis reminiscentof thebeginningsof Indo-Eropean comparative lingistics, where reationship was firstestablishedtheearly pioneers sch as Rasms Rask, Franz, andJacobGrimm, and it was only mch later, beginning with Agst Schlecher, thatacta1reconstrctiontook place, thogh theneed for reconstrctionhad beenrecognized as early as 1837 byheodor Benfey. he two approaches areactal1ynotmta11yexclsive, bt, rather, properly sed, theycan inform and


2/17

, ,;!

I

18 19LLAN R. BOMHARD NOSTRAIC, EURASIAllC AND INDO-EUROPEANfurther nanother. 1, persona11y,would give theedge to "taxonomy first".After a11,ncannotsuccessful1yreconstructuntil nhasft established whichlanguages mightreasonableanof beng genetica11yreated, that is tosay that n must know which languages to compare. (See Rublen 1994:195-196 for discussion of the difference between classification andreconstruction.)he early founders of Indo-Europeancomparativelinguistics placed greatimportancethecomparisonof grammatica1orms, andthisbias continues tothepresentdayin Indo-Europeanstudiesandhas n ncarriedover intothestudyof other languagephyla. However, thisoveremphasis thecomparisonof grammatica1forms is far too restrictiveandwas the reason that the Ceticlanguages, which deveoped an uniquefeatures, were not immediateyrecognized as Indo-European. Rather, as noted some sixty ago HolgerPedersen (1931:245):

commonlyconfinedtocertainsemanticspheres(for example, ulturitems)andcertain grammatical categories (nouns far moreoften than verbs). Second,borrowed words an distinguished fromnativevocabulary expandingtherangeof comparisonto includeadditionallanguages.hesimplest way to establish genetic reationship is identifying largenumber of similar morphs (or a110morphs) - especialy irregularities - insimilar environmentsin the languages beng considered. Another significantindicator of rogenetic reationship is the presence of similar rules ofcombinability. Unfortunatey,historicalprocessesover thepassageof timebringabout thegradual transformationandeventual eiminationof such similarities.longer theperiodof separation,thelesser thechanceswill thatsimilaritiesofmorphological formsandrulesofcombinabilitywill found.Fortunatey, thereremain other factors that an hepful in determiningpossiblegenetic reationship. nsignifiCafitfactor is thesemanticresemblanceof lexical forms. Here, it is importantto to establish recurrentsound-meaningcorrespondences for reasonably large sample of lexical material.Lexica1formswithidenticalorsimilarmeaningsthegreatest value. Next invalue forms that, though divergent in meaning, an convincingly derived, throughwidey-attested semanticshifts, fromearlier forms of identicalor similar meaning. chances that lexical resemblances indicate geneticreationshipincreasedramaticaywhen additionallanguages arebrought into thecomparisonandwhen thesenew languages alsoexhibit very large number ofrecurrentsound-meaningcorrespondences. Greenberg has termedthis method"mass comparison" (more recently, has used the term "multilateralcomparison"). considers thecomparisonof basic vocabulary from largenumberof languages fromspecific, widegeographic areatothequickest andmost certainmethodto determinepossible genetic reationship. Greenberg,lexical data are of paramount importancein attemptingto establish geneticreationshipamonglanguages,especial1yintheinitial stagesofcomparison.It is only'after thesepre iminarystepsnundertakenthatmeaningfulcomparisonanbegin. Thatis tosay,andto reterate,wemust first goodsenseofwhich languages arelikey candidatesforcomparison.Now let us look at thebasic principlesunderlying theComparativeMethod- they summarizedasfol1ows: first step involves thearduoustaskof datagathering,placing special attentiongatheringtheoldestdataavailable.Onlargeamountof lexical materialhas n gathered, it must careful1yanalyzed totrytoseparatewhat is ancientfromwhat is an innovationand fromwhat is borrowing. After thenative lexical eements n reasonablyidentifiedinphylum,thematerialancomparedacrossphylatodetermine

hat agreement in the inflectiona! system is an especialy c!ear and strikingproof of kinship, denies. But it is ! anachronism in theory, whichhas sgnificance in actua1practice, when such agreement is still desgnatedas the ! va1id proof. No doubted, after the first communication aboutTocharian..., that the!anguage was Indo-European,though at that time virtualy smilarities in inflection had pointed out. Such srni!arities have snce shown, buteven where they area!most obliterated, proof of kinship could adduced fromthevocabu!ary andfromsound-!aws. Hard!yanwill assert thatit wou!d impossble to recognize the reationship between, say, Eng!ish andItaian, even without thehe!pof other re!ated !anguages or of o!der forms of thesetwo !anguages themse!ves, a!though agreements between the inflectiona1 systemsarepractica1!ynonexistent.From themodernpoint of view it must sad that proof for re!ationshipbetween !anguages is adduced systematic comparison Qf !anguages in therentirety, vocabu!ary aswel as grarnmar. hereasonwhy ear!ier scho!ars fe!t theyshou!d disregard thevocabu!ary was that they knew of .method of systematiccomparison in thisfie!d.In Chapter of his book Essays in Linguistics, Joseph Greenberg(1957:35-45) lays out set of principles for establishing genetic reationshipamonglanguages, andtheseareworthrepeating.Greenberg notesthat theonlyway to establish hypotheses about genetic reationship is comparinglanguages. However, theproblemis in knowing which languages to compareandin knowing what to comparesince not aspects of language areequallyreevant tocomparison. meaningful, comparisonmust striveto eiminateanresemblances andto separateborrowings fromnativeeements. This isoften easier said thandone; however, Greenberg lays out two main techniquesfor detectingborrowed lexical iterns. First, notes that borrowing is most


3/17

20 ALLAN R. BOMHARDpotential cognates. sufficient body of potential cognates has identified,canbegin towork outthesoundcorrespondences. Not onlymusttheregular sound correspondences (that is, those that occr consistently andsystematically) defined, exceptionsmust also explained. Here, widey-attested sound changes (palatalization, metathesis, syncope, assimilation, dis-similation,etc.) providethekey tounderstandingtheorigin of most exceptions.Inothercases, theanalysis of theinfluencethatmorphologyhasexertedprovidesan understanding of, how particular exceptions into beng. Someexceptions, thoughclearly reated,simplydefyexplanation. of thesemust noted. Thefinal step involves the reconstructionof ancestral forms and theformulationof thesoundlaws leadingto theformsin thedescendant languages,identifying thelaws thathaveproducedtheregular sound correspondences asweH as the exceptions. The sae principles apply to the reconstruction ofgramrnatical forms andrules of combinabilityand to the identificationof thehistorical transformationsleadingtothesystemsfoundin thedaughter languages.Invariably, it takes thededicatedefforts of several generations of scholars toworkout all of thedetails. Here, we rcitethecase of Indo-European- as themostcasual readingofLehmann'sbook(1993) theheoreticalBases/ Ido-Europea Liguistics shows, after nearly two fuH centuries ofinvestigation ofwhatmustsureythemostthorougbly-studiedlanguagefarnily the face of the earth, there still remain man uncertainties about thereconstructionof theIndo-Eropeanparentlanguage.It was necessary to discuss these issues in order to address concerns thathaveraisedabouttheapplicabilityof traditionalmethodsof comparisonandinternalreconstructiontolong-rangecomparison. Itmustmadeperfectly clearthatthesae principlesarejust as applicableto long-rangecomparisonas theyaretoanyother typeof linguistic comparison. Thefact is, these are theonlytoolswehave. Moreover, theywork - ther efficacy hasproven over andover again. (Themost thoroughpresentationof thesemethodsis tofound inAnttila 1989:229-273 andHock 1991:532-626.)It hasclairnedthatthesemethodologiesbreak down when tries toapply them beyond rtain tim limit, say, 5,000 to 10,000 years ago.However, thesedatesarereally quitearbitrary. can cite, for example, thecase of theaboriginallanguages of Australia. Archaeological evidenceindicatesthat Australia has inhabited human bengs for approximatey 40,000years. Though thereremain manyunsettledquestions, such as exactly whenProto-Australianwasspoken(probablyat least 30,000 years ago), or abouthowthedifferent languages should subgrouped, and so , all extant languagesappear to beong to the sae language farnily (cf. Rublen 1991:188), and

NOSTRA IC, EURASIA IC AND INDO-EUROPEAN 21comparativework these languages is continuing (cf. Dixon 1980).Anotherexaple thatcan cited is thecase of theAfroasiatic language family.Due to the extremey deep divisions aong the six branches of Afroasiatic(Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Omotic,Cushitic, andChadic), which arefar greaterthanthosefound,way of comparison,amongtheearliestattestedbranchesofIndo-European, theAfroasiatic parentlanguagemust placed as far back as10,000 , or perhaps earlier, according to some scholars. Thisextremey ancientdatenotwithstanding,themajor sound correspondences havedeterrninedwithgreat accracy (cf. Diakonoff 1992; Ehret 1995), excelentprogress is bengmadein reconstructingthecommonlexicon (cf. Ehret 1995;Ore-Stolbova 1995), and scholars arebeginning to piecetogether theoriginalmorphological patterning,thoughprogressherelagsbehindotherareas.3. Nostraticlarge-scale groupingthathasproposed at various timesandvariousscholars is theso-called "Nostratic" macrofarnily- the "Nostratic" wasfirstsuggested Holger Pedersenin 1903(it is derived fromLatin nostras "orcountryman"). Thoughthe"NostraticHypothesis" has occupiedtheefforts of handful of scholars fromtimtotime, for themost part, it hasignoredmostscholars- theearlyworkdonewas simply notof high qualityand, there-fore,was notconvincing. However, beginningin theearly 1960's, interest in theNostraticHypothesiswas revived theworkof two Russian scholars, namey,Vladislav . i-Svity andAaron. Dolgopolsky, who first startedworkingindependently and, at later date, through the efforts of Vladimir Dybo,cooperativey. Therwork, thoughnotwithoutitsown shortcomings(seebeow,4), was the first successful demonstration that rtlanguage phyla ofnorthern and central Erasia, as wel as the ancient Near East, might genetically reated. Following Pedersen, theyemployed the "Nostratic" todesignatethisgroupingof languages. In particular,i-Svit, in thecorseofseveral publications, culminating in his posthumous comparativedictionary,which is still in theprocess of publication,includedIndo-Eropean,Kartveian,Afroasiatic, Uralic, Dravidian, and lt in his version of the Nostraticmacrofamily. ro his very earliest writings, Dolgopolsky also includedChukchi-Kachatkan andEskimo-Aleut.Themostimportantquestionthatshould addressed is: What is thebasisfor setting Nostratic macrofarnily? First and foremost, the descendantlanguages can shown to share large commonvocabulary. In an articlepublished in 1965,i-Svit listed 607 possible commonNostratic roots, butnl378 published todatein his posthumouscomparativeNostraticdictionary. It shouldnotedthattherearedifferences between theetymologies


4/17

22 ALLAN R.BOMHARDproposedin 1965andtheitemsincludedinthelater dictionary: first, someof theiternslisted in 1965donot appear in thedictionary; next, rninorchanges havebeenmadetoseveral of theearlieretymologies. Dolgopolsky currentlyclaimstohave over 2,000 commonNostratic roots, but only small portion of thismaterialhasbeenpublishedtodate. In ajoint monographmysef andJohn .Kerns, entitled TheNostraticMacrofaily, great deal of lexical material issuppliedfromtheNostraticdaughterlanguages tosupport601commonNostraticroots - this has now been expanded to 651 roots in most recent book(Bomhard1996). It shouldmentionedhereaswel thatGreenbergis currentlypreparingbookentitledldo-Europeaadlts ClosestReatives: TheEurasiaticLaguage Faily, in which large aount of lexical materialwill discussed,thoughGreenberg's Erasiatic is notthesae asNostratic(seebeow, 5). Asis toexpected, thevariousbranchesof Nostratic investigated to dateexhibitregular soundcorrespondences(seeAppendix2fordetails), though, it should mentioned, there are differences in interpretationbetween i-Svity andDolgopolsky the one hand andmysef the other. Finally, moderatenumberof commongraatical formantshavebeenrecovered.Notableamongthelexical iternsuncoveredi-Svit, Dolgopolsky, andmysef is solidcoreof commonpronorninalstems (these are listed beow inAppendix 1, thoughonly thestemsrepresented in Indo-Eropeanare given -theProto-Nostraticreconstructionsaregiven accordingto system; for in-formationotherpronounstems, cf. Dolgopolsky 1984). These pronorninalstemshaveparticularimportance,since, as forceflly demonstrated John .Kerns (1985:9-50), pronouns, beng aong the most stable eements of language, are particularly strong indicator of genetic reationship (Rublen1994:92-93 makesthesae point). Kerns(1985:48) concludes (theemphasis ishis):

The resu!ts are overwhe!ming. We are forced to conc!ude that the pronomina!agreements between Indo-European andUra!ic, between Uraic and A!tac, andbetween Indo-EuropeanandA!tac, didnotdeve!op independent!y, but insteadwereCAUSED some UNIQUE historica! circumstance. In short, it is extreme!yun!ike!y that thethreepronomina!systems cou!dhaveevo!ved independent!y.he conclusion seems inescapable that the consistent, reglarcorrespondences that can shown to exist aong the Nostratic descendantlanguages aswel astheagreementsin vocabulary andgramatical formantsthathavebeen uncovered todatecannotexplainedas dueto linguistic borrowingand can only accounted for in terms of commonorigin, that is, geneticreationship- it wouldsimplyunreasonabletoassumeanyotherpossibility.This does not mean that problems have been solved. the contrary,

NOSRAIC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN 23Nostraticstdiesare still in ther infancy, and thereremainmany issues to investigated andmanydetails toworked out, but thefutre looks extremeyexcitingandextremeyprornising.4. Critique / Muscovite views NostraticIn this section, 1would like tomakeseveral commentsabout recentMuscoviteresearch Nostratic. Specifically, 1will deal with this research as it has beencodified in i-Svit's comparativeNostratic dictionary. Let begin statingnequivocaythat1havethehighest adrnirationfor what scholars of theMoscow School haveachieved. Ther researchhas openednew andexcitingpossibilities andhas given Nostratic studiesnew respectability. However, thisdoes notmeanthat1agreewitheverythingthey say. 1regard ther work as pioneeringeffortand,assuch,subjecttomodification in lightof recentadvancesin linguistic theory, in lightof new datafromtheNostraticdaughter languages,and in light of findings from typological studies that give us better under-standingof thekindof patterningthatis foundin naturallanguages as wel as better understandingof what is characteristicof language in general, includinglangagechange.

Wecan begin looking at phonology. In 1972 and 1973, theGeorgianscholar Thomas . GamkreidzeandtheRussian scholar Vjaceslav . Ivanovjointly proposed radical renterpretationof the Proto-Indo-Eropean stopsystem.Accordingtotherrenterpretation,theProto-Indo-Europeanstopsystemwas characterizedthethreeway contrastglottalized-voiceess (aspirated) -voiced (aspirated). In this revised interpretation, aspiration is viewed as redndantfeature, and the phonemes in question could also realized asallophonicvariantswithoutaspiration. Paul J. Hopper independentlyproposed sirnilarrenterpretationatthesae time(cf.Hopper1973).his renterpretationopens new possibilities for comparing Proto-Indo-Eropean with the other Nostratic daughter languages, especially Proto-artveian andProto-Afroasiatic,of whichhad sirnilarthree-way contrast.hemost natural and straightforward assumptionwould that theglottalizedstops posited Gamkreidze, Ivanov, and Hopper for Proto-Indo-Eropeanwoldcorrespond toglottalizedstops in Proto-KartveianandProto-Afroasiatic,while thevoiceess stopswould correspondtovoiceess stops andvoiced stopstovoiced stops. Thatis tosay thatthis is whereoneshouldbegin when lookingfor potentialcognates. In so doing, onefindsthatconsistent, systematic soundcorrespondencescanindeedestablished in which theglottalizedstops posited Gamkreidze, Ivanov, andHopper for Proto-Indo-Eropeancorrespond toglottalized stops in Proto-Kartveian and Proto-Afroasiatic, and in which thevoiceess stops correspondtovoiceess stops andvoiced stops to voiced stops.


5/17

24 NOSTRAIC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN 25LLAN R. BOMHARDThis, however, is qitedifferent fromthecorrespondences proposed i-Svityc. sees theglottalizedstopsof Proto-KartveianandProto-Afroasiatic ascorresponding to thetraditiona1plain voiceess stops of Proto-Indo-Eropean,while thevoiceess stopsin theformer twobranchesareseenas correspondingtothetraditiona1plainvoiced stopsof Proto-Indo-Eropean,and,fina11y,thevoicedstopsto thetraditiona1voiced aspiratesof Proto-Indo-Eropean.i-Svit thenreconstrctsProto-Nostratic themode of KartveianandAfroasiatic with thethree-way contrast gottaized - voiceess - voiced.rnistakethati-Svitymadewasin tryingtoeqatetheglotta1izedstopsof Proto-Kartveian and Proto-Afroasiatic with the traditiona1plain voiceessstops of Proto-Indo-Eropean. is reconstrctionwold maketheglotta1izedstopstheleastmarkedmembersof theProto-Nostraticstop system. i-Svit'sreconstrctionis thsincontradictiontotypologica1evidence, accordingto whichglotta1izedstops areniforrnlythemosthigblymarkedmembersof hierarchy(for details phonologica1markedness in genera1 and the freqencydistribtionof glotta1izedstopsinparticlar,cf. Garnkreidze1978). reasonthat Illic-Svit's reconstrctionwold mak the glotta1ized stops the leastmarkedmembersis as follows. i-Svitposits glotta1icsfor Proto-Nostraticthebasis ofoneortwoseerningly solid examples in which glotta1icsin Proto-Mroasiatic and Proto-Kartveian appear to correspond to thetraditiona1plainvoiceess stops in Proto-Indo-Eropean. on thebasis of these examples, assmes that, whenever thereis voiceess stop in the Proto-Indo-Eropeanexamples cites, glotta1icis to reconstrcted for Proto-Nostratic, evenwhen there are glotta1icsin the correspondingAfroasiatic and Kartveianforms! This meansthattheProto-Nostraticglotta1icsthesamefreqencydistribtion as the Proto-Indo-Eropean traditiona1plain voiceess stops.Clearly, this cannot correct. bring thereconstrctionof Proto-Nostraticinto agreement with the typologica1 evidence, .thecorrespondences betweenProto-KartveianandProto-AfroasiatictheonehandandProto-Indo-Eropean the other shold modified so thatthe voiceess stops fond in Proto-Kartveian and Proto-Mroasiatic correspond to thetraditiona1plain voiceessstops in Proto-Indo-Eropean(which Garnkreidzeand Ivanov renterpret asvoiceess [aspirated]stops), so that theglotta1icscorrespond to the traditiona1plain voiced stops in Proto-Indo-Eropean (which Garnkreidze and Ivanovrenterpretasglotta1ics),andsothatthevoiced stopscorrespondto thetraditiona1voiced aspirates in Proto-Indo-Eropean(which Garnkreidzeand Ivanov a1sointerpretas voiced [aspirates]) (see beow, 6.5, for additiona1remarks therevisions proposedGamkreidzeandIvanov).

What abotthoseexamplesaddcedi-Svitywhich appearto spporthis proposed correspondences? Some of these examples adrnit to a1temativeexplanations, while othersareqestionablefrom semanticpointof view andshold abandoned. Oncetheseexamplesareremoved, thereis an extremeysmall nmber ( more than handfl) left over that appear to spport hisposition. However, compared to the massive conter-evidence in whichglotta1izedstops in KartveianandAfroasiatic correspondtosirnilarsonds (thetraditiona1plain voiced stops) in Proto-Indo-Eropean, even these residalexamples sspect.Another major shortcorningis in the reconstrctionof the Proto-Nostraticvowe system, which, accordingto i-Svit, is essentially that of modemFinnish. It simplystretchescredibilitybeyond reasonablebondstoassmethattheProto-Nostratic vowe system cold been preserved nchanged inFinnish, especially consideringthemanymillenniathatpassed between thedissoltionof theNostraticparentlangageandtheemergenceof Finnish. Nodobt, this erroneos reconstrction abot as reslt of i-Svit'sfailretodea1withtheqestionof sbgroping. heUra1ic-ykaghir phylm,of which Finnish is member, beongs to theErasiaticbranch of Nostratic.Now, Erasiatic is severa1rnillenniayonger thanAfroasiatic, which appears totheoldestbranchof theNostraticmacrofarnily. Therefore, Afroasiatic mstlkey roleinthereconstrctionoftheProto-Nostraticvowe system, andtheUralic-ykaghir vowe system mst considered as later deveopment thatcannotpossibly representtheoriginal stateof affairs.Fina1ly,few remarksneedtomadeaboti-Svit's proposed cognatesets in genera1. In some of his proposed etymologies, the correspondencesbe~een two or threeof thebranchesaresondfrom semanticpointof view,while thoseaddcedfor theother branches areqestionable. Sometimes, non-existent orqestionableformsarecited,andthesesholdremoved. nmberof etymologies shold abandoned altogether. These critica1 remarksnotwithstanding, however, pwards of two-thirds of the etymologies proposesappeartosolid frombothphonologica1andsemanticpointsof vieworneedlrninoradjstments,andthis,in itsef, is impressiveachievement.5.Erasiatici-Svity incldedIndo-Eropean, Kartveian, Afroasiatic, Ura1ic,Dravidian,andAltaic within theNostratic macrofarnily, andDolgopolsky added Chkchi-K~chatkan and Eskimo-Alet as wel. Greenberg incldes Indo-Eropean,Ura11c-ykaghir, Altaic (Mongolian, Chvash-Trkic, and Manch-Tngs),Japanese-Korean (Korean, Ain, and Japanese-Rykyan), Gilyak, Chkchi-arnchatkan,andEskimo-Aletin hisErasiatic langagefarnily. Unlike i-


6/17

26 ALLAN R.BOMHARDSvityc andmysef, does not includeKartveian, Afroasiatic, nor Elamo-Dravidian - not because beieves that they unreated, but because beieves that these three language phyla are more distantly reated to Indo-European thanaretheothers, which, a10ngwith Indo-European, form natura1taxonornicsubgrouping. ownopinionisclose tothatofGreenberg. As 1seethesituation,Nostratic includesAfroasiatic, Kartveian, andElamo-Dravidianaswel as Eurasiatic, in otherwords, 1view Nostraticas higher-leve taxonornicentity. Afroasiatic standsapartasanextremeyancient, independentbranch- itwas thef1rstbranchofNostratictoseparatefromtherest of theNostratic speechcommunity. Younger areKartveian andElamo-Dravidian. It is clear fromananalysis of ther vocabulary, pronornina1stems, andmorphologica1systems thatIndo-European, Ura1ic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Gilyak, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, andEskimo-Aleut aremoreclosey reated as group than anyoneof them is toAfroasiatic, Kartveian, andElamo-Dravidian,andthisis thereason that1followGreenbergin settingdistinctEurasiaticsubgroupwithin Nostratic. Finally,Sumerian,which1formerly consideredtoNostratic daughter language, is toseen as reated toNostratic instead. It must noted here that 1 am stilluncertain about the exact positioning of Kartveian and Elamo-Dravidian.Clearly, theKartveianpronounstemsaremoreclosey reatedtothose found inEurasiatic. theotherhand, it resemblesMroasiatic in itsuse of pref1xes, forexample. As for Elamo-Dravidian, its pronoun stems about the samenumber of para11eswith Mroasiatic as they do with Eurasiatic or Kartveian.However, in bothnornina1declension and verba1conjugation, Elamo-Dravidianiscloser toEurasiatic thantoAfroasiatic. presentthinkingis thatKartveian isprobablycloser toEurasiatic thanwhat 1indicatedin 1994 co-authoredbookandthatthedifferences aredueto innovationswithin Kartveian. An attemptatsubgroupingis shown inFigure 1(thisis very close tqtheschemaproposed Rublen 1994:192) andhypothesis aboutpossible pathswhich theNostraticsub-groupsdispersed acrossEurope, Asia, andAfrica is given in 1.

NOSRA IC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN

ug(1)z

Figure 1:NostraticLanguages

27

().~.~..::


7/17

28 ALLAN R.BOMHARD

1:Dispersal ofthe Nostratic Langages

NSRA, URASI AND INDO-EUROPEAN 296.Ido-EuropeaLet usnowlook at Indo-Eropeananddiscuss someof what is togainedcomparing Indo-Eropeanwith theother Nostratic languages. foHowinggains mentionedasbeng aong themost important:() better under-standingof thelaryngeals, () betterunderstandingofroot strctrepatteming,() better understandingof the origin of verb morphology, () betterunderstandingof theoriginanddeveopmentof vowe gradation,and() supportfor theGamkreidze, Ivanov, and Hopper renterpretationof Indo-Europeanconsonantism.We nowlookateachoneofthese inmoredetail.6.1LarygealsAccordingtoKurylowicz andthosewho foHowhis theories (suchas Sturtevantand Lehmann, aong others), Indo-European is assumed to have had forlaryngeals, which symbolized as *1, *2, *,and*4 (Kurylowiczwrites *~1' *~2' *~3' and *i?4)' Other scholars posit only three laryngeals,denyingtheexistenceof *4'and,still othersposit asfew as onelaryngeal or asmanyastweve. Forthesakeofargument,wewill stick with thefor laryngealspositedKurylowicz. Now, of theotherNostraticbranches, only AfroasiatichasfuHset of laryngeals. ThoughSemiticis traditionallyassumed tohavehadsix laryngeals, theAfroasiatic parentlanguagemostlikey hadonly for, naey,glottal stop/, voiceess laryngeal (orglottal) fricative/hI, andvoiceess andvoicedpharyngealfricatives lhI and/1/. Extremey goodcorrespondencescan established between Mroasiatic andIndo-European,and, as result, it is nowpossible to establish the probablephonetic values of the laryngeals: we cannf1flthat*1wasglottal stop/ and*4was voiceess laryngeal fricative/h/as originally suggested Sapir, Strtevant, and Lehmann, while *2wasprobably the voiceess and voiced multiply-articulated pharyngeal/laryngealfricatives Ihh/ and/l-fil,and*wasprobablyoriginally identical to *2. That istosay that thereis evidence fromtheother Nostratic languages to supportpositing*distinct from*2in Indo-Eropean. Notethat both of these twolaryngeals the sae reflex in Hittite, namey, - (initially)and --(medially). heonly reason that two separatelaryngeals were set in Indo-EropeanKurylowicz in the first placewas to account for several cases ofnonapophonic*0. However, theseexaples can accountedfor muchbetter assuming that this single, combined *2 and *changed contiguousoriginal *to*0alongthelinesof what is found inmodemrdialects. (ItshpuldnotedherethatIhh/ and/fjJ)/areto derived fromearlier voiceessandvoiced pharyngeal fricatives lhI and /1/ respectivey - for details the


8/17

30 ALLAN R.BOMHARD NOSRAIC, EURASIAIC N INDO-EUROPEAN 31

6.2RootstructurepatteigComparison of Indo-Europeanwith the other Nostratic branches, especia11yartveian and Afroasiatic, a110wsus to refine the theories of Benveniste(1935:147-173) and, in so doing, to trace the deveopment of root structurepatterningfrom the earliest times down to the appearance of the individua1daughter languages. hemostancientpatterningttlayassumed tohavebeenasfollows:

that time. Fina11y, it was at this stage of deveopment that the syllabic alophonesof the resonants into beng.he stress-conditioned ablaut a1ternationsgave rise to two distinct forms ofextended stems:deveopment of the laryngea1s in Indo-European, cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1994:47-56; for goodintroductiontotheLaryngea1Theory,seeLindeman 1987.)

1: Root in full-gradeandaccented,suffix inzero-grade: *-.2: Root inzero-grade,suffix in full-gradeandaccented: *-.

3. Two basic syllable types existed:non-syllabic andV=anyvowe.with these two syllable types.() * and () *, where =anyPermissible root forms coincided exactly

When used as verba1stem, 1 could undergo further extension.However, 2 could further extended means of "determinative".Further addition of determinativeor suffixes pointed to nornina1stem.AccordingtoBenveniste, "suffix" was characterizedtwo a1ternatingforms(*-et-/*-t-, *-en-/*-n-, *-ek-/*-k-, etc.), while "determinative" wascharacterized fixed consonantal form(*-t-, *-n-, *-k-,etc.).In its beginnings, ablautwas mereyphonologica1alternation. Duringthecourse of its prehistorica1deveopment, however, Indo-European gradua11ygrammatica1izedtheseablauta1ternations.Indo-Europeanhadconstraints permissible root structuresequences. Intermsof theradica1revisionof theIndo-Europeanconsonantsystem proposed Garnkreidze, Ivanov, and Hopper, these constraint laws stated asfollows:

1. here were initia1vowes in the earliest form of pre-Indo-European.Therefore,every rootbeganwithconsonant.2. Origina11y,therewere initia1consonant clusters ether. Consequently,every rootbeganwithoneandonly oneconsonant.

4. verba1stemcouldetheridentica1withrootor it could consist of rootplus single derivationa1morphemeadded as suffix to theroot: *--. Anyconsonantcouldserveassuffix. 1. ro~tcontaned at least onenon-gotta1ic consonant.5. Nornina1stems, theotherhand, could further extended additiona1suffixes. 2. Whenbothobstruentswerenon-glottalic,theyhadtoagreeinvoicing.

In theearliest formof Indo-European, there were three fundamenta1stemtypes: () verba1stems, () nomina1andadjectiva1stems, and() pronornina1andindeclinablestems.he phonemicization of strong stress accent disrupted the patterningoutlined above. hepositioningof thestress was morphologica11ydistinctive,serving as means to differentiategrarnmatica1categories. All vowes wereretainedwhen stressed butwere etherweakened (="reduced-grade")or tota11yeiminated(="zero-grade") when unstressed: thechoicebetween thereduced-gradeversusthezero-gradedependeduponthepositionof theunstressed syllablereativetothestressedsyllableaswel as uponthelaws of syllabicity in effect at

heIndo-Europeanrootstructureconstraintlaws thus merey voicingagreementrulewith thecorollary that two glotta1icscannot co-occur in root.Comparison of Indo-European with the other Nostratic branches indicates,however, that theforbiddenroottypesmusthaveonceexisted. Two rules formulatedtoaccountfor theeirninationof theforbiddentypes:1. ruleof progressive voicingassimilation set to accountfor theeirninationof rootswhose consonanta1eementsorigina11ydid notagree invoicing: * - * >* - *, * -* >* - *D, etc.


9/17

" Singlar PlralPerson1 *- *- (+Plral)2 *-te *-te(+Plral)3 *-se *-se(+Plral)

32 ALLAN R.BOMHARD NOSTRAIC, EURASIAIC N INDO-EUROPEAN 33

2. rule of regressive deglottalization set to accont for theeiminationof rootscontainingtwo glottalics: *' - *' > * - *', etc.Thisrulefindscloseparalle inGeers' Law inAkkadian.Person123

Singlarhutta-hhutta-thutta-sPlralhutta-hu h+h)hutta-ht h+t)hutta-hS h+s)

AccordingtoGamkreidze, Bartholomaes Law is latermanifestationof theprogressivevoicingassirnilationrule,appliedto contactseqences.

Person123

Singlar*-*-t*-s, *-0

Plral*-*-te*-en

Traces of the2ndsinglar endingarealso fond in Dravidian - McA1pin(1981:120)reconstructsProto-Elamo-Dravidian2ndpersonending*-ti (>Proto-Elarnite*-t~,Proto-Dravidian*-ti). This is significant archaism, since it bears apparentresemblanceto thecommonElamo-Dravidian2ndperson personalprononstem,which reconstructedas*ni.Traces of theseendingscan fondin theA1taiclangages too, as in theTrkishagreementmarkers -(I)m(1st singlar) and- (3rd singlar verba1) or-(s)l(n) (3rd singlar norninal). In Proto-Trkic, the 1st singlar possessivesffix was *-, while the3rd singlar was *-s. 1st singlar possessivesffix was also *- in Proto-Tngs, andtbe2ndsinglar was *-t - the 3rdsinglar possessive sffix, theotherhand, was *-n, which rnirs what isfondin Smerian.Finally, we notethat3rdsinglar in -s is also fondinKartveian (cf. OldGeorgianc'er-s "writes").2ndsinglarending*-t is preserved in HittiteandTocharian. This waslater replacedwhat hadbeen the3rd singlar, namey, *-s. Watkins (1962)hasdiscssedtheextensiveevidencefromtheIndo-Eropeandaghter langagesforanoriginal3rd singlar endingin *-s. It was Watkinswho also showed thatthe3rdsinglarindicativewasoriginallycharacterizedthefndamentalendingzero.*-n- fondin the3rdplralwasre ic of the3rdpersonendingfondinTngs,Kartveian (cf. OldGeorgian c'er-en "theywrite"), andSmerian. deveopmentof the3rd singlar ending*-t was later change, thogh this stilld fairly early since it is fondin ittiteandtheother Anatoliandaghterlangages - this *-twas addedtothe3rdplral ending*-n- at thesame time,yieding thenew ending*-nt-. most recent change mst have been thedeveopmentof theso-called "primary"endings, which were biltpon theso-cal1ed"secondary" endings theadditionof the dectic particle *-i meaning"hereandnow". It mentionedthat this decticparticlehas Nostraticorigin,corningfromwidey-representedproximatedemonstrativestemmeaning"thisonehere".Proto-Uralic is assmed to have had two conjgational types (cf. Hajd1972:43-44): () dtnintiv (objective) conjgation, which wascharacterizedthe3rdsinglar in *-sandwhichwassedwithtransitiveverbs,and() anindtnintiv(sbjective) conjgation, whichwas characterizedthe3rd singlar in zero andwhichwas sed with intransitiveverbs. Th same

6.3 Verbmorph%gy .Comparisonof Indo-Eropeanwith Uralic reveals many striking sirnilarities~verb morphologyandallowss toascertainth~u1tirnate~rigin o~the~th~matlcverbendings: theycannothingese btearllerpossesS1vesfflxes,. Slrl~towhat is fondin Uralic andA1taic.Thearliest forms of theathematlcndgswere most likey as follows (for details, cf. Bornhard 1988; see also Villar1991:244-252):

This earlier system partiallypreservedinTocharian.Nowcomparethefollowingsystem of personal endings, which areassmedtohaveexisted in Proto-Uralic(cf. Hajd1972:40and43-45):

Theseendings srvivein Elarniteaswel, especially in the2ndand3rdpersons(theway, the1stsinglar ending, -h, is, of corse, reatedtothe1st singlarperfectending*- of traditionalIndo-Eropean,which is fond, for example,in Lwian in the1st singlar preteriteending-, in Hittitein the 1st singlarending-lJi, andin Greek in the1st singlar perfect ending-; this e?ding ~yalsoreatedto theKartveian 1st personpersonal prefix of thesbJectss,*xw- [Gamkreidze-Macavariani 1982:85 reconstruct *w-, however], assggested IvanovandPalmaitis)- compare,for example, theconjgationofhutta- "to do, tomake" fromiddleElarnite(cf. Rener 1969:76; Grillot-Ssini1987:33):


10/17

34 ALLAN R.BOMARDtwo conjugationa1typeSwere found in Proto-Indo-European,except that theywere used to contrastactiveversus stative. Indeed, theactive-stativecontrastappearstothemoreancientinbothUra1icandIndo-European.After all of thechangesdescribed abovehadtakenplace, theresultingProto-Indo-Europeanathematicendingswereasfol1ows:

Person123

I. PrimarySingu1ar Plura1*-mi *-*-si *-te*-ti *-nti

. SecondarySingu1ar Plura1*- *-*-s *-te*-t *-ntNote: he 1st person plura1endings have different extensions in the variousdaughter languages: *-mes(i), *-mos(i), *-men(i), *-mon(i).

In volume 1(draftversion 3, dated9March 1995), Graar, of his forth-comingbook /do-Eropeannd/ts Closest Reatives: TheErasiatic LangageFamily, Greenberg discusses theevidence for Eurasiatic first-person singularpronounstem*k.Now, theperfecthaditsown setof endings, oneof whichhas hithertodefiedexplanation,narney,theft personperfectendings in *-k- found, for exarnple,inTochariank1was",LatinfcI "1made",Greek6r11Ca1placed",etc.InGreek, separatestemtypedeveoped, theso-ca11ed"1Ca-perfect",based uponthe-k- endings. This deveopmenttookplace in theearly prehistory of Greekitsef and is not representative of the Indo-European state of affairs. Al1indicationsare that the *-k- endings beonged exclusivey to the first personsingu1ar in Proto-Indo-European.Thus, both in function and form, the *-k-endingsclearly beongwiththeEurasiatic firstperson singular pronounstem*kreconstructedGreenberg.Recently, severa1scholars have tried to show that Indo-Europeanis to reconstructedasanactive-stativelanguage. Indeed, such an interpretationseernstoclarify manyproblernsin theearly dia1ects. Accordingto this interpretation,th~so-called"perfect" of traditiona1ndo-Europeanis seen as originally stative(cf. Lehmann 1993:218). Comparisonwith otherNostratic languages a110wsustofmthisview.6.4 Vowe gradationhedeveopmentofvowe gradationis extremeycomplicatedandwould requirefar morespace todiscuss thanis allottedfor thispaper. Therefore, 1will only

NOSTRA11C, EURASIA11C N INDO-EUROPEAN 35dea1with severa1key points. Ever since Hirt, it has been assumed anscholars .that early Indo-European went through stage of deveopmentcharactenzed phonemicstressandthatthisstresscausedtheweakening and/orloss of .thevowes of unaccentedsyl1ables, that is to say that the stress wasresponSlble for thedeveopmentof thequantitativeablauta1temations. Further-more, accordingto thistheory, it is assumed that, at later date, stress phonemicallynon-distinctiveandwasreplaced anaccent system characterizedphonemi~p~tchandthatthispi~chaccent.was responsible for thedeveopmentof ~e .qualitativeablaut 1tmts. Kurylowicz, however, argued that thequalitativeablaut a1te~~tio.nswere ancient and preceded the changes broughtabout the.phoneffilClZationof strongstress accent. Comparisonwith theotherNostratlc languages, especia11yartveian, indicates that Kurylowicz wascorrect. Indo-European inherited the qua1itative ablaut a1temations fromNostrati~.Inrecen~paperentitled"Prehistory of theIndo-EuropeanVoweSyst~m~nCo~paratl:e andTypologica1Perspective", Greenberg(1990) suppliesV1g:ldence 10support of this view. hephonemicizationof strongstre~sa~ent early Indo-Europeanbrought about completerestructuringofthelnhen.tedvowe sy~tem.samethinghappenedin Kartveian, theway.Another lmportantpomt concerns the early prehistory of the * - *0 ablautgradation. In an articlepublished in 1965, l1anktried to show that thisgradationseriesshould renterpretedas *~(schwa) - *gradation. It looksas ~ough l1ank prettyclose tothetruth,thoughonly for theoldest~n,df deveopment. W notethatthisolder system is partia11ypreserved Hlttite, where *~appears as (or i) and * is preserved as such. hedeveopmentof *~to*is fairly easy to explain: * assumed to havebeen the?orma1allophoneof *~under stress. typologica1para11erna observed 10theNorthwestCaucasianlanguages Ubykh andCircassian, where g~omes understress. For thelatest period of deveopment,namey, theperiod~~y before the emergence of the non-Anatolian daughter languages, the~adit~on~ s~stem of five long and short vowes is surey correct. Fina11y, there islitt1e1ditithat Nostratic had phonemic long vowes. Therefore, long vowes assumed tohave arisen soley in Indo-European proper.6.5/do-Eropeanconsonantismhere are intema1inconsistencies in thetraditiona1reconstructionof the Indo-European stop system that make that system highly improbable from typologica1 point of view. In order to address these problems, ThomasGamkre.lidzeandVjaceslav Ivanov, theonehand, andl Hopper, theother, 1ddtlproposed, in 1972 and 1973 respectivey, radica1


11/17

36 ALLAN R.BOMHARD NOSTRATIC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN 37renterpretationof theIndo-Europeanstop system. According to ~amkreidze,Ivanov, andHopper, thetraditionalplain voiced stops aretoremterpretedasglottalized stops(thatis, eectives). Furthermore,acc?~dingto~e v~rsionof thetheoryproposedGamkreidzeandIvanov,thetrditallv01ceessstopsaretorenterpretedasvoiceess aspirates,whilethetraditionalvoiced aspiratesareto remainunchanged. In thisrevised interpretation,aspirationis viewed as phonernically redundantfeature, and thepho'nemesin question could also realized asallophonicvaripntswithoutaspiration. Strongsupport for this theoryis provided comparisonof Indo-Europeanwith artveian and Afroasiatic,bothof whichhavethree-waycontrast, in theseries of stops andaffricates, ofvoiceess (aspirated)-glottalized- voiced.Accordingo viewsNostratic,though not according to theviews of Illic-Svityc andDolgopolsky, the Indo-Europeanglottalizedstops(thetraditionalplain voiced stops) correspond~xactlytoglottalized stops in KartveianandAfroasiatic, while thevoiceess (asp1fated)stops in Indo-European correspond to identical sounds in Kartveian andAfroasiatic, and thevoiced (aspirated) stops of Indo-European correspond tovoiced stops in artveian andAfroasiatic. It shouldnoted that thevoicedaspirateswereprobablylatedeveopmentin Indo-European,andthisseriesma assumed to have originally been characterized plain voicing, withoutaspiration. (Foranexcelent survey ofthe Glottalic Theory, cf. Salmons 1993.)

REFERENCES

TraditionalIndo-European bht d dhk g ghkw gw gwh

Gamkreidze-Ivanovp[h] ' b[h]t[h] t' d[h]k[h] k' g[h]kw[h] k'w gw[h]

Anttila, Ramo. 1989. istorica ad Coparative Liguistics. 2ndrevised edition.Amsterda1)& Philadephia: John Benjamins.Benveniste, Emile. 1935. Origes de l foratio des os ido-europee.Reprinted 1973. Paris: Adrien-Masonneve.Bimbam, Henrik. 1977. Liguistic Recostructia: /ts Patetias ad Liitatiasin New Perspective. (= Joura ! /nda-European Studies Moagraphs, 2.)Washington: Institte for theStdy of Man.Bornhard, Allan R. 1984. Taward Prata-Nastratic: New Appraach ( theCoparisa ! Prato-/da-Eurapean and Prata-Afraasiatic. Amsterdam &Philadephia: John Benjamins._' 1986. Review of Vitaij . Shevoroshkin & Thomas L. Markey, eds.,Typaagy, Reationship, ad ie. Diachranica 3.269-281. ( revised version ofthisreview appeared inMather Tague, isse 10, AprilI990.)_' 1988. "The Prehistoric Deveopment of the Athematic Verba Endings inProto-Indo-Eropean". Liguistic Happening i Meary ! Schwartz:Studies i Aataia, /taic, and Other /do-Eurapea Laguages, ed. YoL. Arbetman, 475--488. Lovan: Peeters._ ' 1990. " Srvey of the Comparative Phonology of the So-Caled'Nostratic' Langages". Liguistic Change ad Recanstructio. Methadolagy,ed. Philip Badi, 331-358. The Hage: Moton. ( Rssian language versionof this paper aso appeared in Vaprasy Jazykoznanija 1988:5.50-65.)1991. "Lexica Parales between Proto-Indo-Eropean and OtherLangages". Studia Etyolagca /daeurapaea: Meariae . J. Va Widekes(/915-/989) Dicata, ed. L. Isebaert, 47-106. Leven: Peeters._' 1992. "The Nostratic Macrofamily (with Specia Reference to Indo-Eropean)". Word43.61-83._' 1996. /da-Eurapea and theNostratic Hypathesis. Charleston: SignmDesktop Pblishing.Bornhard, Allan R. & John . Kerns. 1994. TheNostratic Macrofaily: StudyiDistat Linguistic Reatiaship. Berlin andNew York: MotondeGruyter.Burrow, Thomas. 1973. The Saskrit Laguage. 3rd edition. London: Faber &Faber.Diakonoff, Igor . 1992. Prata-Afrasia ad OldAkkadian: Study i istaricaPhoetics. Princeton: Institteof Semitic Stdies.Dixon, Robert . W. 1980. TheLanguages ! Austraia. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Dolgopolsky, Aaron. 1984. " Persona Pronons in the Nostratic Langages".Liguistica et Philologca: Gedekschrift fur Bjor Calider (/894-/983), ed. Otto Gschwantler, il R6de, & Herrnann Rechert, 65-112. Vienna:Wilhem Bramiiller.Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Recostructing Prata-Afraasiatic (Prata-Afrasia):Vowes, , Casaants, ad Vocabulary. Berkeey & Los Angees:University of Caifornia Press.Gamkreidze, Thomas . 1978. " the Correation of Stops and Fricatives in Phonologca System". Universas ! Laguage, ed. Joseph .Greenberg, vol. 2, Phonology, 9--46. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Garnkreidze, Thomas . & Vjaceslav . Ivanov. 1972. "Lingvisticeskaa tipologjai rekonstrukcija sistemy indoevropeskix smycnix". Kaferecija

Notonlyhavewebarey scratchedthesurface inthis short survey, therearewholeareasthathavenoteven been touchedupon- nounmorphologyandthequestion of homeands, for example(bothof these arediscussed in mostrecent book [Bomhard 1996]). Yet, enough has been given to show thatcomparison of Proto-Indo-Europeanwith other Nostratic languages can add newdimension toourunderstandingof Indo-Europeanprehistory.


12/17

38 ALLAN R.BOMHARDsravite,o-istoriceskoj gramatike idoevropeskix jazykov, pradvarte'yeateriay. 15-18. Moscow: Nauka._' 1973. "Sprachtypo!oge und die Rekonstruktion der gemenindo-germanischen Verschliisse". Phoetica 27.150-156. (German version ofGamkre!idze & Ivanov 1972.)_' 1984. ldoevropeskij jazyk i idoevropecy: Rekostrukcija i istoriko-tipologceskij aaiz praazyka i protokul'tury. 2 vo!s. Tbi!isi: Publishing Houseof thebi!isi State University. (Eng!ish trans!ation, 1995: ldo-Europea ad theldo-Europeas: Recostructio ad istorica Typologca Aaysis / Protolaguage ad PrIJ to-ultr, Mouton deGruyter.)Garnkreidze, homas . and Givi Macavariani. 1982. Soatsyste ud Ablauti de Kartwesprache. Eie Typologe der Struktur des Geekartweische.German trans!ation Winfried Boeder. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr Ver!ag.Greenberg, Joseph . 1957. Essays i Liguistics. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress._' 1990. "The Prehistory of the Indo-European Vowe System inComparative and Typo!ogca! Perspective". Proto-Laguages ad Proto-Cultures, ed. Vitay Shevoroshkin, 77-136. Bochum: Brockmeyer._' Forthcoming. ldo-Europea ad lts Closest Reatives: The EurasiaticLaguage Faily. 2 vo!s. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Gril1ot-Susini, Fran~oise. 1987. Eliets de graare ilaite. Paris: EditionsRecherche sur !es Civi!izations.Hadu, Peter. 1972. "The Origns of Hungarian". The Hugaria Laguage,' ed.Lorand k & Samu Imre, 15-48. The Hague: Mouton.Hock, HansHenrich. 1991. Priciples / Historica Liguistics. 2nd edition. Berlin& New ork: Mouton deGruyter.Hopper, ! J. 1973. "G!otta!ized andMurmured.Occ!usives in Indo-European".Glossa 7.141-166.I1lic-Svityc, V(ladis!av) M(arkovic). 1965. "Materia!y k sravnite!'nomu s!ovarunostraticeskix jazykov". Etiologja 1965.321-73._' 1971- . Opyt sraveija ostraticeskix jazykov (seitoxaitskij, kartve'skij,idoevropeskij, ura'skij, dravidskij, ataskij). 3vo!s. Moscow: Nauka.Kems, J. A!exander & Benjamin Schwartz. 1972. Sketch / the ldo-EuropeaFiite Verb. Leden: . J. Bril1. -Kems, John . 1985. ldo-Europea Prehistory. Huber Heghts: CenterstagePrinting, Inc.Lehmann, Winfred . 1993. Theoretica Bases o/ldo-Europea Liguistics. Nework: Rout!edge.Lindeman, Frederik Otto. 1987. /troductio to the 'Larygea Theory'. Os!o:Norwegan University Press.McA!pin, David W. 1981. Proto-Elao-Dravidia: The Evidece ad /ts/plicatios. Phi!ade!phia: American Phi!osophica! Society.Ore!, V!adimir ., & O!ga . Sto!bova. 1995. Haito-Seitic EtyologcaDictioary: Materias /or Recostructio. Leden: . J. Brill.Pedersen, Holger. 1931. TheDiscovery / Laguage: Liguistic Sciece i theNieteeth Cetury. Eng!ish trans!ation JohnWebster Spargo. Mid!and bookedition 1962. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1965. "The IE Vowe! System and Quaitative Ablaut".Word 21.86-101.

NOSTRAIC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN 39Rener, Erica. 1969. "The E!amite Language". Altkleasiatische Sprache ed . Spu!er, 54-118. Leden: . J. Bril1. ' .Ruhlen,. .M~rritt. 1991. Guide t? t~e World's Laguages. !m 1:C!asslflcatl(~n. Stanford: Stanford UvfSlt Press. (Reprinting, with theadditionof


13/17

Proto- Proto Proto- Proto-Nostratic IE Kartveian Afrasan

*mi-j*me- "-/ *-, "m[i]-(1stsg.) *- *-

Proto- Proto- Proto-Uraic Dravidian Altac Sumerian

" *;(-),

(>") -,-" .- -(>"-)-/" m;J- "--/(1st pl. *--incl.)

"wa-/"w;J- "we-/(1st pl.) .wo-;"wey-"-/" ;J- "-/(1st pl.) *-;*f}s-"(;_/ *thu,*the- "(-(2nd sg.)NOTES:

Sngular Plura1 .:>- mu-r;

*.- 2 .:>-! tu-r;

40 ALLAN R.BOMHARD NOSRAIC, EURASIAIC ANO INOO-EUROPEAN 41di 1: Distribution Nostratic Pronoun Stems

. Persona PronounStems 4. Elamo-Dravidian: 2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_is found in Elamte in (2nd sg. andpl. verbending -( and in Dravidian in ( appostiona marker -( of (2nd sg. in pronomnaizednounsand asverb suffix of (2ndsg.5. Altac: 1st sg. stem ";- has '1 in (Altac daughter languages, while (1stpl. stem "- has in Mongolian (=1st pl. exclusve); (initia "- is preserved in(oblique cases, however; (2nd sg. stem "(;_has (5;'you' inMongolian.6. Sumerian: (-), -, - '1 areEmesa forms; - is 1st pl. possessve suffix, 'our'; -zis2nd sg. possessve suffix, 'your'.7. Etruscan: he 1st sg. stem ";-/"- is preserved in (nomnative) ; , (accusative) ;;'; (2nd sg. stem preserved in (pronoun stem ();,but this is uncertan snce (meaning of (Etruscan form is unknown - however, (2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_is clearlyref1ected in (Etruscan verba imperative endings -(;, -$, -$;.8. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: pronouns of (1st and 2nd persons sg. andpl. are as follows inChukchi:

.-

.wa-

.-

*1;,"(

za-e-z

9. Gilyak: 1st pl. inclusve stem "ma-/"nI;J- ispreserved in (1stpl. inclusve pronoun -'we (noteaso 1st dua ll.'-g;);(2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_is preserved in the2nd sg. pronoun{5;'you'.10. Eskimo-Aleut: 1st sg. stem ";-/"- is preserved in (West Greenlandic 1st sg. reativepossessve suffix -, while (2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_is preserved in (2nd sg. absolutivepossessve suffix -(;)(. plura forms r- and-(;( respectivey.

"((;-

1. Indo-European: 1st sg. stem ";-/"- is used in the oblique cases (! in (Ceticr,where it has spread intothenomnative aswel); the 1st pl. inclusve stem "ma-/"m;J- ispreserved in 1st person plura endings; the 1st pl. stem "wa-/"w;J- is preserved as independent 1st person plura pronoun stem and in 1st person dua andlor plura verb endings;(2ndsg. reconstructions "(1"(- represent later, Post-Anatolian. forms.2. Kartveian: 1stpl. stem "-/";J- is found inSvan tij 'we.3. Afrasan: The 1st sg. stem ";-/"- and 1st pl. inclusve stem "ma-/"m;J- found only inChadic as independent pronouns; the 1st sg. stem ";-/"- serves as (bass of the 1st sg.verba suffix in igh1andEast Cushitic; ( 1st pl. stem "wa-/"w;J- is found in Egyptian andChadic (in Egyptian, " means '1, ).


14/17

Proto- Proto Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-Nostratic IE Kartveian Afrasari" Uraic Dravidian Altac Sumerian

.sa-/.s:;l- .so- .s .sjj

.'_/ .'_ .'- *ta; *Ia *- .'-.th:;l-(proximate)

.dY;-/.d- .-dhe .dY;-

.7;-/.7- .7-/.70-; *i-,*-.7-/ (distant).70-/.7;-

.7-/.7:;1- .7-/.7- *-,*-(proximate)*-'*-, .-/.- .-*i-'*e-,-/.-NOTES:

42 ALLAN R.BOMARD NOSRAIC, EURASIAIC N INDO-EUROPEAN 43. Demonstrative Pronoun Stems 3. Sumerian: Thedemonstrative stem .7;-/.7- is foundin 'hither, here.4. Etruscan: The proximate stem .,ha_/.,h:;l_ is preserved in ;', ' 'this; the stem .""a-/."":;I- ispreserved in (archac ), 'this.5. Gilyak: The proximate stem .,ha_/.,h:;l_ is preserved in (proximate) ad' 'this; the stem .""-/."":;1- is preserved inkd''that'.6. Eskimo-Aleut: The stem .,ha_/.,h:;l_ is preserved in the Inuit (aso l Inupiaq) prefix '-,which added toandemonstrative formwhose coreferent hasaready focused.

.tu- .to(distant).""-/.Jch:;l- .-k- .ka-""-,kho-,.",,;-

.tY;-/.t-

. .'1-(proxmate) (proxmate)*8-(distant) .-(distant)

., - -,(-).

1. Indo-European: The stem .dY;-/.d- is only preserved as suffixed particle .-tfhe; the stem.-/.- has derivative .7--/.7--.2. Altac: The stem .tha-/.th:;l- is used as thedistant demonstrative in Altac: Mongolian (.sg.) ( .te-r-e) 'that',(.l.)tede'those;Tungus(Solon)'; 'that';Manchu'that'.

--


15/17

*mi- *;

*- ('m)

'?()- ' '- '-

Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-Nostratic IE Kartveian fas Uraic Dvidi A1tac Eskimo- "- - - - - - --- -"- -- -- -w- -pp-I-vv- -- --"- "- - -,[- - - "- --"- -"- -- --,-f- -- -pp-I-v- -"- --'- ('-) '- '- --'- (-'-) -'- -'- --d- d"- d- d- t- t- d- t--d- -d"- -d- -d- -t- -!(!)- -d- --t"- t"- t- t- t- t- t"- t--t"- -t"- -t- -t- -t(t)- -t(t)- -t"- -t-1'- 1'- 1'- t'- t- t- t- t--t'- -1'- -1'- -t'- -t- -t(t)- -d- -t-dy- d"- g- dY- ty- - 3- --d- -d"- -g- -d- -ty- -()- --1-d- --tyh_ t"- ek- ty- ty- - "- --ty"- -t"- -ek- -ty- -ty- -()- -"- --\'- 1'- ek'- \'- ty- - - --\'- -t'- -ek'- -t'y- -tyty- -()- -3- --sy- s- sk- sY- sY- - s--s- -s- -sk- -sy- -SY- -c(c)-I-y- -s-3- d"- 3- 3- - - 3- --3- -d"- -3- -3- -- -()- --1-d- --"- \"- - - - - "- --"- -\"- -- -- -- -()- -"- --'- \'- '- '- - - - --'- -t'- -'- -'- -- -()- .- --s- s- s- s- s- - s--s- -s- -s- -s- -s- -()- -s-z- s- z- z- s- z-(?)-z- -s- -z- -z- -s- -z- (?)

44 ALLAN R. BOMHARD. Reaive and Interrogative Stems

Proto-Nostratic Proto-Uraic SumriProto- Proto-Dravidian A1tacProto-IE Proto- Proto-artvi Afrasan'ki, 'ke 'ki-, 'ke-

(reative) 'Jcwhi-

(inter.)'kwhe_1'Jcwh0-1*kwhi_

'ku, 'ko ('ki-, 'ke-)

*mi-/*e- *-/*- *mi-,(inter.) 'm-*a-f*:l- *e-I*o- *-(reative)'?-, '?-'?-(reativeandinter.)NOTES:1. Kartveian: reative 1interrogative stem '?- is found in Sv (interrogative)jar 'who?,(tiv)jrdj 'who', (indefinite)jer 'somebody, something.2. Altac: interrogative stem 'm-I'me- is found in theTurkish interrogative partic1es m, l,,.3. Sumerian: interrogative stem 'm-I'me- occurs in -n- 'when?, - 'where?, - 'where to?. reative 1 interrogative stem '?-, '?- preserved in theinterrogative stems- 'who? (animate) and- 'what? (inanimate), if - represents origna'-.4. hukhi-mhtk: he interrogative stem 'm-I 'me- ispreserved inme)in 'who?.5. Eskimo-Aleut: interrogative stem 'Jcwha_I'Jcwh~_is preserved in the Proto-Eskimointerrogative pronoun 'ki(a) 'who? andin 'qa)4 'when?, 'qavcil 'how m?, *qaku 'when(in future)?. interrogative stem 'm-I'me- is prese


16/17

Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-N05tratic IE Kartveian Afrasan Uraic Dravidian Altac E5kimo- dh- - 3- - - - --- _dh_ -- -3- -- -()- --/-d- --_ th_ - - - - _ -__ _th_ -- -- -- -()- __ --'- 1'- '- '- - - - --'- -t'- -'- -'- -- -()- -- --~- 5- ~- 5- ~- - 5--~- -5- -~- -5- -~- -()- -5-g- gh_ g- g- k- k- g- k-,q--g- _gh_ -g- -g- -- -k- -g- --kh_ kh- k- k- k- k- kh- k-,q-_kh_ _kh_ -k- -k- -k(k)- -k(k)- -kh./-g- -k-,-q-k'- k'- k'- k'- k- k- k- k-,q--k'- -k'- -k'- -k'- -k- -k(k)- -g- -k-,-q-gW_ gwh_ gW/U- gw_ k- k- g- k-,q-_gw_ _gWh_ -gw/U- _gw_ -- -k- -g- --kwh_ kwh_ kw/u- kw_ k- k- kh- k-,q-_kwh_ _kwh_ -kw/u- _kw_ -k(k)- -k(k)- -kh./-g- -k-,-q-k'w. k'w- k'w/u- k'w. k- k- k- k-,q-_k'w. _k'w. -k'w/u- _k'w_ -k- -k(k)- -g- -k-,-q-G- gh_ G- - k- k- g- k-,q--G- _gh_ -G- -G- -- -k- -g- --qh_ kh- q- q- k- k- kh- k-,q-_qh_ _kh_ -q- -q- -k(k)- -k(k)- -kh./-g- -k-,-q-q'- k'- q'- q'- k- k- k- k-,q--q'- -k'- -q'- -q'- -k- -k(k)- -g- -k-,-q-q'w_ k'w. q'W/U- qw. k- k- k- k-,q-_q'w. _k'w. -qW/U- _q'w. -k- -k(k)- -g- -k-,-q-!,!_ kh- - !,!- 5- - kh- i-_!,!_ _kh_ -- -!,!- -5- -k- -kh./-g- -i-!,!'- k'- !,!'- 1I- t- k--!,!'- -k'- -!,!'- -5- -!(- -g-

Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-N05traticIE artveianAfrasian Uraic DravidianAltac E5kimo'1- U)- 0- '1- 0- 0- 0- 0--'1- -U)- -0- -'1- -0- -0- -0- -0-1\- ~- - h- 0- 0- 0- 0--1\- -~- -- -1\- -0- -0- -0- -0-1- 1- 0- 1- 0- 0- 0- 0--1- -1- -0- -1- -0- -0- -0- -0-h- h- 0- h- 0- 0- 0- 0--h- -h- -0- -h- -0- -0- -0- -0-- - - -/0- - - -/0- - --- -- -- -- -- -- --w- w- w- w- w- -/0- --w- -w- -w- -w- -w- -- --- - - - - - - --- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- - - - - --- -- -- -- -- --/-- -- --- - - - - --- -- -- -- -J:!- ---\)- -- -- -\)- -J:!- -\)- -\)-1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1--1- -1- -1- -1- -1- -1- -1- -1--IY- -1- -1- -1- -IY- -1- -IY-r- r- r- r- r- r--r- -r- -r- -r- -r- -r-/-r- -r- -r--r- -r- -r- -r- -rY- -.- -r-

46 ALLAN R.RD NOSRAnC, EURASlAnC AND INDO-EUROPEAN 47


17/17

Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-Nostratic Indo-European Kartyeian Afrasan

i i, i i;J ,;) , i i,Uu , u u , , ';)

iy ', , 1, 1 iy, i iy;Jy , , ', 1 , i iy, ',1,1 ,l , ',, 1 , i , , ', i , i , ', 1 , i iw ii,uw,ii iw,u iw;JW ew, aw, iiw, ii ew, iw,uwuw u,o,iiw,ow,ii UW,U uwew ew,uw,ii ew, U ewaw ow,iiw,ii aw,U awow ,ow,iiw,ii OW,U ow

Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-Nostratic Uraic Draydian Altac' Eskimoi i i 1,i i;J ){?) ;Ju u , u i , , 0,6 uiy iy,i iy,I ';Jy , ;Jy , , , iy , , ii ,

iw iw iv, i ';JW ew , ;JyUW UW,U , ew ew , \aw aW,aw , ow OW,O v,

48 ALLAN R.BOMHARD NOSTRAIC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN 49

.Note: hedeveopmentsofthesequences .iy, .~y, .. ., -, ., .iw .~W. .w .ew .aw.ow inProto-Altacareunclear.

Nostra Tic

Documents

Transcript of Nostra Tic