Greenberg - The Convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostrattic

8/13/2019 Greenberg - The Convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostrattic

1/15

r r

THE CONVERGENCE OF EURASIATIC ND NOSTRATIC

1. INTRODUCTION

Joseph H Greenbergstanford Universi tysubmitted to Studies n Language)

In Greenberg 1987:332} a l i ngu i s t i c s tock named Euras i a t i ci s o u t l i n ed with t he fo l lowing membership: 1. Indo-European;2. Ural ic -Yukaghir ; 3. Alta ic Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic) ; 4.Korean; 5. Japanese; 6. Ainu; 7. Chukotian; 9 . Eska leut . Ofthese , 4-6, i . e . Korean, Japanese, and Ainu a r e s t a t ed asprobably forming a subgroup. volume Greenberg, to appear) i sin prepara t ion which w i l l present the evidence fo r t h i s family.

The presen t wr i t e r a r r ived a t t h i s hypothes i s some t ime inthe mid 1960 s a s p a r t of the t a sk of determining t he gene t ic

1

a f f i l i a t i o n s of languages in the Americas, in t h i s in s tance , t ha tof t he Eskimo and Aleut group.

At t h a t t ime, the Russian-Nost ra t ic school , which hasrecen t ly become prominent , was hardly known in the United Sta tesand I a r r ived a t y own hypothes is in complete independence oft h e i r r e s u l t s .

The Nos t ra t i c hypothes is i s most commonly s t a t e d in terms ofthe gene t ic re l a t ionsh ip among the fo l lowing s ix f ami l i e s : Indo-European, Ura l ic , A l ta ic , A f roas ia t i c , Kartve l ian and Dravidian .Since Eu ra s i a t i c has much in common with Nos t ra t i c , a long wi th


2/15

major d i f fe rences , the term Euras ia t i c jNos t ra t i c i s sometimesemployed.

These major d i f fe rences have understandably l ed someh i s to r i ca l l i ngu i s t s , e .g . Watkins 1990:295) to shed some doubton both . He Watkins) asks rhe tor ica l ly whether t h e s e a r e j u s tt r i v i a l d i f fe rences and whether he i s ni t -p icky in po in t ingthem out . The answer, of course , i s t ha t he i s not .

However, as w i l l be discussed in de t a i l in t he fo l lowingsec t ion , t h e re have been s ign i f i c a n t changes in t he views o fN os t r a t i c i s t s in r ecen t years as the r e su l t of which t hed i f fe rence between Euras ia t i c and Nostra t ic has been very g re a t l yreduced. A fu r t h e r po in t o f s ign i f i cance , which w i l l be s e tfo r th in d e t a i l in the second sec t ion , i s t h a t t he s ta tementabout Nost ra t i c as cons i s t ing of j u s t these s ix p a r t i c u l a rf ami l i es has never corresponded to the ac tua l views o f t heNos t ra t i c i s t s , even those of Holger Pedersen who coined t he termNos t ra t i c . Hence, the second sec t ion w i l l be devoted to anh i s to r i ca l account o f Nos t ra t i c theory in so fa r as t r e l a t e s tot he ac tua l membership o f Nos t ra t i c as conceived by impor tan tind iv idua l members of t h i s school .

The t h i r d sec t ion of the paper w i l l di scuss b r i e f l y somepo in t s o f methodology. What might be ca l led the s i x canonicbranches of Nos t ra t i c a re based on I l l i c h -Sv i tyc h ' s d ic t ionary

1971) e sp e c i a l l y the i n i t i a l t ab le on the correspondences ofgrammatical elements . The reasons for the exc lus ion o f o therlanguages, some recognized by a l l Nost ra t ic i s t s even though they


3/15

f igure marginally or not a t a l l in the dict ionary and not a t a l lin the tables of grammatical elements, wil l be se t forth. Thereasons for the exclusions wil l lead to a c r i t i ca l discussion ofmethodological differences between the present wri te r and theNostrat ic school, the contr ibutions which each can make, and theaff i rmat ion of the ident i ty of goals in the two approaches.1.1 Recent changes in the conception of Nostrat ic.

Perhaps the best summary of the overall signi f icance ofrecent developments in Nostratic theory i s tha t of Lamb andMitchell (1991:123), namely, tha t in recent years Russiancomparativists have revised the i r c lass i f ica t ion so tha t t i snow c loser to y Eurasiat ic in two important respects . One i stha t Afroasiat ic is now generally viewed as a s i s te r superstockto Nostrat ic , ra ther than par t of i t The other i s tha t theyhave added further stocks to the northeast extending as far asEskimo-Aleut. They note tha t an important question s t i l l to beresolved i s tha t of Dravidian, to which I would add Kartvelian.The exclusion of Afroasiat ic as being on the same level as ther e s t i s likewise noted in Starostin (1984:43) who re fe r s to his

cautious approach to Afroasiat ic which he now prefers toexclude from Nostrat ic comparison.

Fleming (1990:3) takes note of Starost ins opinion and addstha t Bomhard (personal communication) now feels tha t Afroasiat ici s dis t inc t from the res t of Nostrat ic.

Shevoroshkin and Monaster Ramer (1991:179) along s imilarl ines note tha t Afroasiat ic may be coordinate with Nostrat ic , a

3


4/15

s i s t e r and not daughter . They add t ha t the Russiani nve s t i ga to r s Golovastikov and Dolgopolsky {1972) and Mudrak{1984) have presen ted evidence for the Nos t ra t i c a f f i l i a t i o n s ofChukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut r espec t ive ly .

The most comprehensive recent s ta tement i s t h a t o f Bomhard{1992) in which Euras ia t i c i s given s t a tus as va l id gene t icgroup with in wider Nostra t ic family. His Eu ra s i a t i c i si de n t i c a l with mine except for the omission o f Ainu, Japanese andKorean. However Korean, with some r ese rva t ion , i s inc luded inh i s Al ta ic , so t h a t the only r e a l d i f fe rence i s t he omiss ion ofJapanese and Ainu. The former of these i s admit ted to haveA l t a i c elements but in view of Benedict {1990), work whichconnec ts Japanese with Tai-Austronesian, judgement i s rese rved.

The l a rge r Nostra t ic family as se t fo r th by Bombard has thefo l lowing gene t ic s t ruc tu re . t cons i s t s of two main branches ofAfroas ia t i c , which i s thus the most remote, and t he remainder .With in t h i s remainder , Kartvel ian, forms group aga ins t ther e s t . The l a s t major d iv i s ion i s between sumerian and ElamoDravidian on the one hand and Euras ia t i c on the o ther .Eu ra s i a t i c i s descr ibed as cons i s t ing o f s ix branches: 1. IndoEuropean 2. Ural ic-Yukaghir 3. Alta ic 4. Chukchi-Kamchatkan 5.Gilyak 6. Eskimo-Aleut. As noted ea r l i e r , the only d i f fe rencebetween Bomhard s and y Euras ia t i c , concerns Japanese and Ainu.Bomhard {1990b) conta ins convenient t r ee diagram i l l u s t r a t i n ga l l t h i s reproduced here as Figure I .


5/15

One o ther mat te r , per ta in ing to the gene t ic s t a tus o f

Afroas ia t i c and Kartve l ian , remains to be discussed. About 1965,I not iced some important etymologies and grammatical fea tu rest ha t appear to l i nk Afroas ia t i c with Kartvel ian. A l a t e rexaminat ion of I l l i c h -Sv i tyc h ' s Nos t ra t i c d ic t ionary showedv i r t u a l l y the same etymologies , usua l ly conf ined to Afroas ia t i cand Kartve l ian . Etymologies r e s t r i c t e d to two branches a re qu i t euncommon in the Nos t ra t i c d ic t ionary . Recent ly , a czechN os t r a t i c i s t , Blazek {1990:360), in an a r t i c l e devoted to newetymologies l ink ing Kartve l ian to Nostra t ic , noted t h a t as ign i f i c a n t ly l a rg e r number of such etymologies involvedAfroas ia t i c than any othe r branch of conventional Nost ra t i c . Ashe s t a t e s it The p r i o r i t y of Afroas ia t i c cognates withKartve l ian i s ev iden t .

2. istory of views regarding the membership of Nostrat icAs noted ea r l i e r , most of the recent developments regarding

the membership of Nos t ra t i c have h i s t o r i ca l antecedents . It i spar t i cu l a r l y s t r i k i ng t ha t in r ecen t s ta tements concerning t hesepara te s t a tus of Afroas ia t i c , no mention i s made o f t he f ac tt ha t Pedersen, the founder of Nos t ra t i c theory , repeatedly s t a t e ds i m i l a r views. I w i l l cons ider here in tu rn the views o fPedersen , I l l i ch -Sv i tych and Dolgopolsky, who independent ly o fI l l i c h -S v i t y c h developed very s imi la r ideas dur ing t he samepe r iod .


6/15

2.1 Holger PedersenThe term Nos t ra t i c was f i r s t in t roduced in 1903 as a

des ignat ion of language and language fami l i e s r e l a t e d to IndoEuropean (


7/15

European i t s e l f and which correspond qui te clearly with a systemof vowel height harmony (or more accurately or ig ina l ly ATRfound in Tungusic, Gilyak, Chukotian and Korean.

A second major point i s tha t Nostratic contains a wholeser ies of languages in Northern Asia besides Finno-Ugric. Int h i s connection (1931:337) Pedersen mentions s imilar , thoughfa in ter resemblances throughout a l l northern Asia, in Turkish,Mongolian, Manchu, Yukaghir and Eskimo. In fac t as ear ly as1908 (342-3), a f te r discussing f i r s t person pronoun m and secondperson t he mentions Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic and thenindicates , referr ing to Uhlenbeck s Indo-European and Eskimohypothesis, t ha t t h i s pat tern also is found in Eskimo.

Here as elsewhere he s ta tes that he cannot draw def ini tebounds to the extent of Nostratic and says (1908:ibid) tha t th i sshould not cause concern.

7

We may sum up Pedersen s views as follows. Indo-European i sre la ted to Semitic and to a whole series of languages in northernAsia, including Finno-Ugric and Samoyed now grouped together asUralic) , Yukaghir, Altaic and Eskimo. The re la t ionship of IndoEuropean to Finno-Ugric i s closer than tha t to Semitic. Nowheredoes Pedersen mention Dravidian or Kartvelian, but for tha tmatter he does not mention Japanese, Korean, or Ainu ei ther .

With regard to Japanese, Starostin (1991), a leadingNost ra t ic i s t has recent ly devoted an ent i re volume to theconnection between Japanese and Altaic. I believe tha t t h i saccords with the opinion of almost a l l Nostra t ic is ts .


8/15

2.2 Vladislav I l l ich-Svi tych.I l l ich-Svi tych i s generally regarded as the founder of

modern Nostrat ic theory. His ea r l i e s t comprehensive statementwas published in 1966 in the form of a series of etymologiescontaining forms from the s ix families which a t the leas taccording to him make up Nostrat ic. I t i s in teres t ing tha t in

8

I l l ich-Svi tych (1964) cal led s ignif icant ly Oldest Indo-European-Semitic Language Contacts, the author considered tha t the casefor a relat ionship between Semitic and Indo-European was weak andtha t most of the resemblances were due to borrowing from Semiticby Indo-European. In the 1966 work, however, Afroasia t ic i sincluded. Evidently, in th is more comprehensive framework, twas possible to see the relat ionship between t and the othergroups included in Nostrat ic.

In 1971, there appeared the f i r s t volume of the Nostrat icdict ionary which has become the standard source for Nostrat icetymologies. I t was edi ted by Dybo af ter I l l ich-Svi tych ' suntimely death in 1966.

Although the dict ionary continues the t radi t ion of comparingonly s ix main groups, Korean i s included as a member of Altaic ,following Ramstedt and Poppe. In the introduction writ ten byI l l ich-Svi tych (1971:61) he notes in reference to Yukaghir t ha tthe work of Coll inder, Angere and Tail leur, while they do notallow us to consider Yukaghir a Uralic language do allow us toconsider i t s Nostrat ic character. I believe tha t t h i s agreeswith the conclusions of the scholars mentioned by I l l ich-Svitych


9/15

who d id not cons ider Yukaghir a Ural ic language bu t r a the rthough t t h a t t was re l a t ed to Ural ic as a whole. Dybo, in ane d i t o r i a l footnote to the passage j u s t c i ted , adds t h a t the sameremarks probably apply to Korean and Japanese in r e l a t i o n toAl ta ic .2.2 Aron Dolgopolsky

About t he same t ime t h a t I l l i ch -Sv i tych began to publ i shregarding Nos t ra t i c , Dolgopolsky independently developed a theoryl ink ing Indo-European with Afroas ia t i c , Kartve l ian and a s e r i e so f languages in Northern Asia t ha t inc ludes Ura l ic , Al ta ic andEskimo-Aleut 1964, 1965). He ca l l ed h i s hypothes is S ibe ro European and c r i t i c i z e d the name Nos t ra t i c no doubt because o fts e thnocen t r ic charac te r . Nevertheless , he l a t e r adopted the

more widely known term. In a l a t e r work on pe rsona l pronouns{1984) , he included Gilyak and Chukotian along with Elamite andDravidian.

From t h i s h i s t o r i c a l review, t i s c lea r t h a t t heNos t ra t i c i s t s , beginning with Pedersen , never r e s t r i c t e d t h e i rnot ion o f Nos t ra t i c to the s ix groups usual ly mentioned. Thespec ia l , more d i s t an t pos i t ion of Afroas ia t i c i s a l ready i n s i s t e don by Pedersen. Moreover, every group I inc lude in Euras ia t i c ,with t he excep t ion of Ainu, i s inc luded in some o f t h e i renumerat ions, and of ten in t h e i r comparisons.

3 . some Problems o MethodologySince such language and language groups as Yukaghir ,


10/15


11/15

11a l l t i s a synonym for observation and observation is the f i r s ts tep in any empirical science. The Nostra t ic is ts themselves musthave done some inspection. They did not f i r s t compare anylanguage groups for which reconstruction had been car r ied out .For example the study of Proto-Austronesian was well advancedbut t was not included in Nostrat ic. Presumably th i s requi restha t one would have noticed resemblances among the Nost rat iclanguages as a background to the re ject ion of Austronesianbefore actual ly proceeding to the reconstruction of ProtoNostrat ic .

I agree with omhard regarding the value of the in teract ionof the two approaches. The Nostra t ic is ts have discovered a largenumber of widespread lexical etymologies and grammatical markerswhich wil l be of great value in at ta ining the common goal of ataxonomically correct and comprehensive class i f ica t ion of thelanguages of the world and extending vast ly the reach of thecomparative method of reconstruction and our knowledge ofl i ngu i s t i c change.


12/15

REFERENCES

Baldi , P. 1990 ed. Linguistic Change and ReconstructionMethodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

12

Benedict , P.K. 1990. Japanese/Austro-Tai. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Blazek, v. 1991. Kartvelian Materials in Nostrat ic Lexicon: New

Etymologies Archiv Orientalni 59:360-269.Bombard, A. 1992a. The Nostratic macrofamily (with specia l

reference to Indo-European) Word 43:1, 61-84.Bombard, A. 1992h. Distant Linguistic comparison and the

Nostrat ic Hypothesis in UCLA Friends and Alumni of IndoEuropean Newsletter vol 2, no. 1, 1-6.

Chejka, M and Lamprecht, A. 1984. Nostrat ichnata ipoteza,sus to janie i perspektivi Supostavitelno Ezikoznanie 9:86-92. Sofia: Sofia Univers i te t .

Dolgopolsky, A.B. 1964. Gipoteza drevnejshogo rodstva jazykovikhsemej severnoj evrazi i s verojatnostnoj tochki zrenijaVoprosy Jazyokoznanija 13,2:53-63.

Dolgopolsky, A.B. 1965. Metody rekonst rukts i iobshcheindoevropejskogo jazyka i s ib iroevropejskajagipoteza Etimologija 1964, 259-270.

Dolgopolsky, A.B. 1984. On personal pronouns n the Nostra t iclanguages in Gschwantler, Redei and Reichert (eds.) 65-112.

Fleming, H. 1990. (ed.) Mother Tongue, Newsletter of theAssociat ion of Language in Prehistory 12, December 1990.


13/15

Gelovastikov, A.N. and Dolgopolsky, A.B. 1972. Rekonstruktsi jaChukotsko-Korjakskix kornej i Nostrat icheskie et im ologiiIn. Nauko-konferentsija po sravi te l noj- is toricheskojgrammatike.

13

Greenberg, Joseph G. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford:Stanford Press.

Greenberg, Joseph G. 1990. The prehistory of the Indo-Europeanvowel system in comparative and typological perspective. InSheveroshkin (ed.) 1990:77-136.

Greenberg, Joseph G. (In press) Indo-European and i t s c loses tre la t ives : The Eurasia t ic Language Family. Stanford:Stanford Press.

Gschwantler 0 . , Redei K. and Reichert H. (eds.) 1984. Linguist icae t philologica, Gedankschrift fUr Bjorn Collinder. Vienna:Braumi.iller.

I l l ich-Svi tych, V.M. 1964. Drevnejshije indoevropejskosemit iski je jazykovyje kontakty. In Problemyindoevropejskogo jazykoznanija 3-12. Moscow:Nauka.

I l l ich-Svi tych, V.M. 1971. Qpyt Sravnenija Nostrat icheskixJazykov Vol I V.A. Dybo (ed.) . Moscow: Nauka.

Lamb S.M. and Mitchel l E.D. (eds.) 1991. Sprung from some commonsource, Editor ial introduction to part I I I . , 123-124.Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Mudrak, O.A. 1984 K voprosu o vneshnyx svjazax eskimoskixjazykov In Vardul' (ed) 64-69.

Pedersen, H. 1903. Tiirkische Lautgesetze, Zei tschr i f t der


14/15

14deutschen morgenlandischen Gesel lschaf t . 57:535-61.

Pedersen, H. 1908. Die idg-semi t i sche Hypothese und d ie idg .Laut leh re . Indogermanische Forschungen 22:341-365.

Pedersen , H. 1931. Lingu is t i c sc ience in the nine teenth century .Trans la t ion of Sprogvidenskaben de tNit tende Aarhundrede, 1924. Cambridge: Harvard Unive rs i tyPress .

Pedersen, H. 1933. Zur Frage der Urverwandschaft desIndoeuropaischen mit dem Ugrof innischen. Memoires de l aso c i e t e Finno-ougrienne 67:308-325.

Pedersen, H. 1935. I l problema de l le paren te le t r a i grandigruppi l i ngu i s t i c i . A t t i de l Congresso In te rnaz iona le de iLingu i s t i Roma 1933, 328-333 Florence: Fel ice de Monnier .

Sheveroshkin , v (ed) 1989. Explorat ions in LanguageMacrofamil ies Bochum: N. Brockmeyer.

Sheveroshkin , V. and Monaster-Ramer, A. 1991 Some r ecen t work ont he remote re la t ions of languages. In Lamb and Mitche l l

eds . ) 19 91 : 17 8-19 9 .S t a ro s t i n , S.A. 1991. Alta j ska ja problema proisxozhdeni je

japonskogo jazyka. Moscow:Nauka.s t a ros t i n , S. 1984. Gipoteza o genet icheskikh svazakh

s ino t ibe t sk ikh jazykov s enise jskimi i severnokavkazskamijazykami. Linguis t icheska ja rekons t ruk t s i j a i drevne jsha ja

i s t o r i j a vostoka vol . 4. 19-38 Moscow.S t a ro s t i n , S.A. 1984. Gipoteza o gene t i heskikh svjazaxs ino t ibe t sk ikh jazykov s enise jskimi i severnokavkazkimi

~ ~ ~ -


15/15

jazykami pa r t 4:74-94. Konferents i ja:Nostrat icheskie jazyki inostra t icheskoje jazykoznanie. Moscow:InstitutSlavjanovedenija.

Starost in S.A. 1989. Nostrat ic and Sino-caucasian InSheveroshkin (ed.) 1989:42-67.

Vardul ' , I .F . 1984 ed. Lingvisticheskaja Rekonstruktsi ja idrevnejshaja i s to r i j a vostoka. Moskow: Nauka.

Watkins, Calvert 1990. Etymologies, equations and comparanda:

5

Types and values and c r i t e r ia for judgement. In Baldi (ed.)1990: 289-304.

Joseph H.GreenbergLinguis t ics DepartmentStanford Universi tyStanford C 94305

Documents

Greenberg - The Convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostrattic