Nostratic and Altaic - Alexander Vovin

8/9/2019 Nostratic and Altaic - Alexander Vovin

1/8

NOSTRATIC AND ALTAIC

ALEXANDER VOVIN

Uп iversty о / Hawai'i

at М а п о а , Hoп olulu

Snce the first volume of Ш iсh-Svityсh's Opyt sravneniia nostratichekikh

iazykov [An attemptto compareNostratic languages] appearedin 1971, it has

continuousy Ь ее n greeted with criticism (Clauson 1973, Andronov 1982,

Serebrennikov 1982, Shcherbak 1984, Vine 1991). The only postive eva1uation

of theNostratic theory comingfrom outsdeof Nostratic са т р seems to beong

to Manaster Ramer (1993, 1994). Despite the fact, demonstratedin thenegative

reviews, that тanу of the etymologies proposed Ь у Ш i сh-Svi tу сh сan ь е

dismissed, thetask of eva1uatingtheNostratic theory in genera1remains largey

unaccompli shed(ManasterRamer 1994:157).

Т he goa1 of this article is three-fold: first, 1 intend to demonstrate that

Nostratic theory cannot ь е dismissed out of hand Ь у а responsble historica1

linguist as something not beng worthy further discusson; second, that much

remainsto ь е donewithin theNostratic macrofarnily,particularly in thearea of

assessment of its intema1structureand classfication, and third, as the title

shows, 1intend to investigate whether Altaic should ь е included in Nostratic or

not.

.

1will investigatein thisarticletheintеп еlа tiо nshiр s of threemembersof the

Nostratic farnily: Altaic, Indo-European,and Uralic. Т hechoiceof Altaic is due

tothefact that т у linguistic interestsareconnectedmostly with theAltaic farnily,

especia11ywith its Eastern members:Japanese, Korean, and Manchu-Tungusc.

Besdes, 1have someknowledge of Indo-Europeanand moreof Ura1ic. These

threebranches of Nostratic, as proposed Ь у Ш ich-Svitус h, cover the Northern

area of Eurasa. Meanwhile, ту expertise in three Southern Nostratic

branches: Afroasatic, Kartveian, and Dravidian is pretty much close to zero,

and that naturally100т е to limitingт у base of operation to the first three

branches о nlу, with т у emphass beng о п interreationshipbetween Nostratic

and Altaic.

1 consder т у task to ь е mainly the eva1uat ion of Vladisav М . I ll ich-

Svitych's work, and not that of his followers. Therefore, only the first two


2/8

258

ALEXANDER VOVIN

volumes of Ш ich-Svitус h's Nostratic dictionary (Ш iсh-Svityс h 1971, 1976) are

taken intoconsderation, and thethirdvolume, though it bears Ш iс h-Svitус h's

nameо п thecover (Ш iсh-Svityсh 1984),is left out snceit ismostlycompiled Ь у

a.group of Moscow linguists under the direction of У . А . Dybo. 1 allowed

mysef, however, to introducesomerninorchanges, mostly in reconstructionsof

Altaic materials, when it was necessary to correct Ш iс h-Svitу с h's rnisakes, or to

makeother changes о п thebass of materialswhich were not available to him.

Thus, in particular, 1 have made in Nostratic reconstructionsin several cases

some changes о п thebass of recent proposals Ь у Alexis Manaster Ramer

(Manaster Ramer 1994).

Т here is certainly а number of individual problems conceming lower-leve

reconstructions. Thus, for example, thoughbeow 1preserved thereconstruction

of Р А vocalism as presented Ь у Ш iсh-Svityсh, 1 actually beieve that it is not

valid any longer andeven actually can ь е presentedonly in а tentativeform. Т he

same, though to а lesser extent, can ь е applied to PU vocalism, too. However, 1

think that these particular problems should not prevent us from giving а

preiт iп ary estiт ate of thevalidityof theNostratic theory: when Indo-European

specialists discuss Indo-Europeanthey stil l can do it in spiteof thefact that there

are stil l particularunsettledproblernsin Savic or Germanicreconstruction.

Т he fo11owingevaluation of the Nostratic farnily is based о п an ultra-

conservative ар р roас Ь in phonology and semantics. Т here are 353 Nostratic

etymologies presentedin Ш iсh-Svityс h (1971) and Ш iсh-Svityс h (1976). 1have

chosen among them only those which connect Indo-European, Uralic, and

Altaic, or anу pair of those three branches. Afroasatic, Kartveian, and

Dravidian paralles are not included into thefo11owinglists, even if they are

present in Ш iс h-Svitус h's dictionary. 1 have excluded all suspicious paralles,

and the most importantrequirement is that these etymologies have identical or

alrnost identical semantics. 1also excluded all cases when а word is attested in

only one language or dialect within а language farnily, even if such cases are

extremey l ikey proto- language forms. Needless to say, the phonet ic

correspondencesamongthechosen paralle s areregular.

Words соттоп to Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic

1) PN **bok/a/- 'to run away' > PIE *bheug/*bhegw- 'id'; PU *pok-tV- 'to

run'; Р А *p[ ']Vk- ' run' ( Р М Т only, i f Р А aspi rated, thenu ш е l а tе d) ( Ш i с h-

Svitych 1971:181).

2) PN **bura 'todril l ' > PIE *bher- 'to0011';PU *pura '[to] 0011';Р А *bura

'to tum' (Р Т only) (Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:186-187).

NOS RAТ I C AND ALTAI C

259

3) PN **Ь ur л ' snow/sand storm' > PIE *bher '[ to] storm'; PU * рurkл

'snowstorm'; Р А * Ь о rа / *Ь urл 'storm', 'snowstorm' (Ш iс h-Svitу с h

1971:188-190).

4) PN **skalu 'to spl it ', ' to cut ' > PIE *ske 'to spl it '; PU *sale 'to spl it ', ' to

cut'; Р А *calu 'tocut' (Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:195-197).'

5) PN **gi /i /Qu 'smooth and glimmer ing > PIE *ghehw- /*gbl е hW-

'gl immering; PU *k1 i /л 'smooth and gl immering; Р А *gi lu-/*gi la-

'smooth andglimmering (Ш ich-Svitу с h 1971:229-230).

6) PN **gop'a 'empty', 'ho11ow' > PIE *geup- 'cavi ty' , 'hole, 'pi t' ; PU

*koppa 'empty', 'ho11ow'; Р А *goba-/*gobi- 'empty', 'hol low' ( Ш i сh-

Svitych 1971:232-233).

7) PN **lа 'that over there > PIE *he-n- 'over there; PU *а- 'that over there;

Р А *а- 'that over there (Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:257-258).

8) PN **l i- /* *l e- ' thi s > PIE * fi e -/ he- 't hi s; PU * i-/ *e- ' thi s; Р А * i-/ *e-

'this (Ш ich-Svitус h 1971:270-271).

9) PN **kal 'л ' to bark ( а t ree) ', ' to skin' > PIE *gol - 'naked' , 'bald' ; PU

*kal 'л 'skin' , 'naked' , 'smooth' ; Р А *Kal2/ i/ - ' to skin' , 'naked' ( Ш i сh-

Svitych 1971:289-290).

10) PN **Kar 'i i 'bark' , 'she l ' > PIE *ker 'bark' , 'skin' ; PU *kore/*kere

'bark'; Р А *k'Er'ii 'bark' (Ш iсh-Svitус h 1971:341-343).

11) PN **~rл 'frost' > PIE *Rer- 'frost', 'ice, 'frozen snow-crust'; PU *kirte,

*kirл 'frozen snow-crust'; Р А *k'irl(a) 'frost' (lllich-Svi tych

1971:353-354).

12) PN **~o 'who' > PIE *kwo 'who'; PU *ko-/*ku- 'who'; Р А *k'o-/*k'a-

stem of interrogativepronoun(Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:355-356).

13) PN **lip'a 'sticky' > PIE *lep- 'to stick', 'sticky'; PU *Lipa 'sippery',

'sticky'; Р А *lipa- 'tostick', 'sticky' (Ш iсh-Svitус h 1976:18-20).

14) PN **LaН rnlu/ 'swamp' > PIE *lehm 'swamp', 'puddle; PU *Lampe

'swamp', 'lake; Р А *laamu 'sea, 'swamp' (Ш iсh-Svitус h 1976:29-30).

15) PN **т ш j а ' ber ry' > PIE *mor- 'bl ackber ry' ; PU * ш arj а 'ber ry'; Р А

*miirV 'berry' (Ш iсh-Svityсh 1976:43-45).

16) PN **rni 'what' > PIE *то - stem of interrogativeadverbs; PU *rni 'what';

Р А * т У 'what ' ( Ш i сh-Svityсh 1976:66-68).

17)PN **peI Н i ' Ь е af raid' > PIE *peI Н - ' Ь е afraid' ; PU *pee- ' Ь е af raid' ; Р А

*peei - 'Ь е afraid' (Ш ich-Svityсh 1976:98-99).

I

'

1

Il1ich-Svitych originaly reconstructed PN **cau here; 1 changed it to **skau following

recent proposa Ь у Alexis Manaster Ramer, who demonstrated that PIE clusters could not

originate from PN affricates suggested Ь у Illich-Svitych (Manaster Ramer 1994).


3/8

260

ALEXANDER VOVIN

NOSTRAnC AND ALTAIC

261

18) PN **р ' ш ' /а ' to tear ', ' to break' , ' to spl it ' > Р IE *(s)per - ' to tear ', ' to

break'; PU *рш а ' tobreak'; Р А *p'or2t i/*p' ti r2t i ' to tear ', ' to crush' ( Ш i сh-

Svitych 1976:100-101).

19) PN **~apl.latohit' > Р IE *tep- 'to hit ', 'topoи nd'; PU *tappa- 'tohit ', 'to

kick'; Р А *t'api 'to hit', 'to forge , *t'api 'to kick' (Ш ich-Svityс h

1976:108-109). .

.20) PN **wol(a) 'bi g > Р IE *we 'big ; PU *wola 'many' ; Р А * о l а

'many' (Ш ich-Svitу с h 1976:109-111).

Words соттоn to Indo-European and Uralic

15) PN **Kи Psa 'to die oи t ', ' to ext ingи ish' > Р IE *gWes- 'to die oи t '; PU

*kи psa-/ *kopsa- 'to dieoи t' (Ш iсh-Svitус h 1971:311).

16) PN **~ap'a 'paw' > Р IE * к е р Н 'paw' , ' hoof; PU *kappa 'paw' ( Ш i с h-

Svitych 1971:347).

17)PN **l ф - ' to li ck' , 't o l а р ' > Р IE * lak- 't o l ick', 't o l а р ' ; PU * lakka- ' to

lick', 'tolар ' (Ш iсh-Svitусh 1976:15).

18) PN **iena 'sof t' , 'weak' > Р IE * le 'sof t' , 'weak' ; PU * iena 'weak'

(Ш ich-Svitу с h 1976:26-27).

19) PN **ii wa 'dirt' >Р I E *lе и (Н ) 'dirt', 's lt'; PU *i iwa 'dirt', 'sand',

'marsh' (Ш iс h-Svitус h 1976:27).

20) PN **i on~a 'to Ь е п д ' > Р I E *lenk 'to Ь е п д ' ; PU *i ol)ka 'to Ь е п д ' (Ш ich-

Svitych 1976:27-28).

21) PN **Lawsa 'not stretched', 'weak' > Р IE *leи s 'not stretched', 'weak';

PU *Lawsa 'not stretched', 'weak' (Ш ich-Svitу с h 1976:31-32).

22) PN **manл ' т а ц ' , ' т а1е ' > Р IE*mIo/n 'man' ; PU *тanс е ' т а п ' , 'person'

(Ш ich-Svitу с h 1976:58-59).

23) PN **mо Lл 'tobreak topieces > Р IE *me- 'tobreak topieces, 'to grind';

PU *moLa- 'to break', 'to break topieces (Ш ich-Svitус h 1976:69-70).

24) PN **mщ :л ' to wash' > Р IE *mesg- ' to wash', ' to dive; PU *mи ske- ' to

wash' (Ш ich-Svitу с h 1976:71-72).

25) PN **nirni 'п а т е ' > Р IE *Н п б m 'id.'; PU *nimе 'id.' (Ш ich-Svityс h

1976:82-83).

26) PN **Nt iqл ' now' > Р IE * п и Н - ' id.' ; PU *Nt ikл ' id.' ( ll li ch-Svi tych

1976:97-98).

27) PN **p'o'jqa **p'odqa 'thigh' > Р IE *bhe/dh/ 'id.'; PU POClka

'id.' (Il lich-Svitych 1976:102-103).

1) PN **bara > Р IE *bher- 'good'; PU *para 'good' (Illich-Svitych 1971:175).

2) PN **bergi il 'high' > Р IE *bhergh/*bhregh ' id.' ; PU *p/e/ r-kV- ' id.'

(Saт oyedic о n1у )(Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:177).

3) PN **bи r 'a 't o Ь о Н ' , ' to seethe > Р IE *bhreи ' id.' ; PU *pи ra ' i d.' ( Ш i с h-

Svitych 1971:190).

4) PN **~aj l,1a'gl immer' > Р IE *sReh 'id.' ; PU *saja ' id.' ( Ш i сh-Svityсh

1971:199-200).

5) PN **skе lл 'to jи mp' > Р I E *(s)Re 'i d.', PU *с е lл 'id.' (Р А para11e is

dи bioи s) (Il lich-Svitych 1971:203-204).

6) PN **gi ф 'handlarm' > Р IE *ghes- ' id.' , PU *kate- ' id.' ( Ш i сh-Svi tу сh

1971:227).

7) PN **Henka ' to Ь и m' > Р IE *Heng- ' to Ь и m' , *HIJg- п - i ' fI re ; PU *е l)kл

'to Ь и m' (Illich-Svitych 1971:245-246).

8) PN * *Hera 'to tи т Ы e down', 'to fa1l to pi eces > Р I E *fier- 'to tи mЫ e

down', 'to fa1l to pieces; PU *era- 'to tи mЫ edown', 'to fa11to pieces

(I lli ch-Svitych 1971:246-247).

9) PN **Homsa 'meat ' > Р IE *(Н )mеms 'id.' ; PU *оrnS 'id.' ( I ll ich-Svitych

1971:252-253).

10) PN **Н о sл 'ash-tree > Р IE *hwes ' id.' ; PU *oska ' id.' ( Il lich-Svitych

1971:255).

11) PN **jaН и / ** joHи ' to gi rd' > Р IE * iehws- ' to gi rd' , 'gi rdle; PU * jб у л

'girdle (Ш iс h-Svityсh 1971:278-279).

12) PN **kanр л 'soft excrescence > Р IE *gemb 'excrescence, 'fи ngи s; PU

*kат р л 'fи ngи s (Illich-Svitych 1971:291-292).

13) PN **kar л / **kи r л 'crane > Р IE *gerH ' id.' ; PU *karke/*kurke ' id.'

(I lli ch-Svitych 1971:292-293).

14) PN **kojHa 'skin', 'bark' > Р IE *gWeН 'skin' ; PU *koja 'bark' ( ll lich-

Svitych 1971:299-300).

Words соттоn to Uralic and Altaic

1) PN **Ы С а 'sma11' > PU *piCV 'sma11' (Ba1t icFennic only) , Р А * Ы с а

'sma11'(Р Т * Ы с а , Р М *bicV) (Ш i сh-Svitу с h 1971:178).

2) PN **bi lwi 'cloи d' > PU *pi lwe ' id.', Р А *bulYt ' id.' ( Р Т onl y) ( Il li ch-

Svitych 1971:179-180).

3) PN **Ь и r (Н )л / * *Ь о r (Н ) л ' dи st ', 'l oose groи nd' > PU * р о rл ' dи st' , 'di rt' ,

'groи nd'; Р А *О О f1dи st', 'loose groи nd' (Illich-Svitych 1971:187-188).

4) PN **Hanga 't o о р е п moи th' > PU *aIJa 'moи th' ; Р А *aI Ja 'opening ,

'moи th' (Il lich-Svitych 1971:244-245).

5) PN **Н / Е / rni ' to sи ck' , ' to swal low' > PU * irnе - ' to sи ck' ; Р А * ii .rnV- 'to

sи ck', 'to swa11ow'(I llich-Svitych 1971:248-249).


4/8

262

Л LБ X ANDБ R VOVI N NOS RAnC AND ALTAIC

263

I1

6) PN **? - negative verb > PU *е - id.; Р А *е - id. (Ш iс h-Svitу сh

1971:264-265)

7) PN **kа1л ' fi sh' > PU *ka1a ' fish' , Р А *ka11V- 'wha1e ( Ш i сh-Svi tyсh

1971:288-289).

8) PN **kaJН / л ' togo' , ' tost roH '>PU *kШ а - ' to go' , ' to st rol l' ; Р А *ki il - ' to

со т е' (Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:293-295).

9) PN **koja 'moth' , ' larva > PU *koja 'moth' ; Р А *kuja 'moth' , ' larva

(Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:298,-299).

10) PN **kojwa 'bi rch' > PU *kо jwл 'bi rch' ; Р А * ю Ъ а 'bi rch' ( Ш i сh-Svi tyсh

1971:300).

11) PN **kо л л 'to ski n' > PU *kо о 'л - /* kuо ' л - 'id.'; Р А *koLa- 'id.' (Ш iс h-

Svitych 1971:300-301).

12) PN **kt il 'л ' to fee cold' , 'cold' > PU *kULma'cold' , ' to fee cold' ; Р А

*К б l'V 'tofee cold', 'cold' (Ш ich-Svitус h 1971:304-305).

13) PN **kUiл 'snake , 'worm' > PU *kо i л 'worm'; Р А *kuli 'snake ,

'worm' (Ш iс h-Svityсh 1971:308-309).

14) PN **К и т а 'ups de down' > PU *lш т а 'ups de down'; Р А *k'om(a)

'upsde down' (Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:310--311).

15) PN * *Kи т Т ii 'fog > PU *ktimta 'fog , 'smoke ; Р А *kiida- 'fog (Ш iс h-

Svitych 1971:312).

16) PN **ISаwingл 'armpi t' > PU *kaj I)a1a ' id.' ; Р А *k'awi I) i ' id.' ( Ш i сh-

Svitych 1971:312).

17) PN **I Sa/lИ I a'tongue > PU *kё lе 'tongue , Р А *k'Ш а 'tongue , 'to

speak' (Ш iс h-Svitу с h 1971:346-347).

18) PN **ISe 'who' > PU *ke- 'who', Р А *k'e- 'who' (Ш iс h-Svityс h

1971:348-349).

19) PN ** ISulл 'to faН ' > PU *kulл - 'to faН '; Р А *k'ulV- 'to fa1l' (Ш ich-

Svitych 1971:358-359).

20) PN **i ii~ ' to pierce, ' to pr ick' > PU **i ii kkл ' to pierce, ' to pr ick' ; Р А

*liikii- 'to pierce (Ш ich-Svityс h 1976:28-29).

21) PN **Л а /mН lu 'bi rd-cher ry t ree > PU * О бm е 'bi rd-cherr y t ree ; Р А

*/d/ime 'bird-cherry tree (Ш iс h-Svityсh 1976:37-38).

22) PN **mifia 'woman', 'fema1ereative > PU *ш п а 'daughter-in-law'; Р А

*mi[fi/n]a'woman', 'daughter-in-law' (Р ] *ш С а, *bQ-minа 'woman'; Р К

*minol -i ' daughter -i n- law' ). Р А not gi ven Ь у Ш i с h-Svi tу с h ( - А .У .)

(Ш iс h-Svityсh 1976:68-69).

23) PN **т и П 'to turn' > PU *murл - 'to turn'; Р А *т и П 'to turn' (Ш iс h-

Svitych 1976:74-75).

24) PN **f iа ' i' rл 'young, 'newly Ь о rn' > PU *fi б r е ' id.' ; Р А * fiar2V ' id' ( Ш i сh-

Svitych 1976:83-85).

25) PN **fii imл 'soft' > PU *fii imл kл/*fiimл kл 'soft'; Р А *fiamV/*fi imV 'soft'

(Ш ich-Svitу с h 1976:86-87).

26) PN **f iо hrл 'wet ', 'swamp' > PU *ii&rл 'wet ', 'swamp'; Р А * fi б ru 'wet ',

'swamp' (Ш iсh-Svitус h 1976:89-90).

27) PN **fiiISa'neck', 'jugular vertebrae > PU *fiika 'vertebrae,

'neck', ' joint '; Р А * fi ika 'neck', ' jugular vertebrae, 'coHar'

(Ш ich-Svitус h 1976:92).

Words с о т т о п to I ndo-European and Altai c

1) PN **bAН li 'wound', 'pain' > Р IE *Ь Ь е Ы 'wound', 'pain'; Р А *Ь а а 12

'wound' (Р Т only) (Ш iсh-Svitус h 1971:172).

2) PN **ba1ga- 'sparkle > Р IE *bheg-/*bbleg- ' id.' ; Р А *ba1kV- ' id.' ( Р Т

* Ь а1Ю - , К *pV[+back] lk- 'br ight ', 'clear ', Р ] *para-Ci- 'clear и р ' ) ( Ш i сh-

Svitych 1971:174-175).

3) PN **bari ' take > Р IE *bher - 't ake , 'br ing ; Р А * Ь an- 't ake , 'get ' (Р Т

*bar'i-,Р М *bari-) (Ш ich-Svitус h 1971:176-177).

4) PN **bor'a 'brown', 'grey' > PIE *bher 'brown', Р А *bor2 'brown', 'grey'

(Р Т *bor2,Р М *bora) (Ш iсh-Svitусh 1971:183-184).

5) PN **buHi 'to grow' > Р I E *Ь Ь е и Н 'to grow', 'to Ь е с о т е '; Р А *Ь Ш - ' to

Ь е '; ?? PU *р и ае 'tree (Ш iсh-Svityсh 1971:184-185).

6) PN **biiISa'to bend' > Р IE *bheug-/*bheugh- 'id.'; Р А *bOka-/*Ь iikа -'id.'

(Ш iс h-Svityсh 1971:191).

7) PN **dEwHi 'to blow', ' to shake > Р IE *dheuH 'to blow', ' to shake; Р А

*dEbi 'blow', 'towave (Ш ich-Svitус h 1971:217-218).

8) PN **diga 'fish' > Р IE *dhgh-u-H 'id.' ; Р А *diga ' id.' ( Ш i сh-Svitу с h ci tes

onlyР М *jiga-sun, a1soР ] *(d)iwo)(Ш iсh-Svityсh 1971:219).

9) PN **giipA 'tobend' > Р IE *gheub- 'tobend', 'bent'; Р А *giibii-/*gobii- 'to

bend' (Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:236-237).

10) PN **gUjRa 'wi ld [anima1] '> Р IE *ghWer- 'wi ld [anima1] ' ; Р А *gora

'game, 'wild anima1' (Ш iсh-Svityс h 1971:237).

11) PN **gUrл 'hot charcoa1s > Р IE *gWher-'to Ь и rn', 'hot', 'hot charcoa1s;

Р А *gur(V)- 'toЬ и rn', 'hotcharcoa1s (Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:239).

12) PN **HoISi 'point ', 'spike > Р IE * Н е к - 'point ', 'spike ; Р А * о Ь 'ar row'

(Р Т only) (Ш ich-Svityс h 1971:251-252).

13) PN **Hora ' to r ise > Р IE *hwer- ' to r ise , ' to move; Р А *ora- /*ora- ' to

rise, 'to ascend' (Ш ich-Svitу с h 1971:254-255).


5/8

264

265

LEXANDER VOVIN

NOS RATIC AND ALTAI C

14) PN **?1i ' deer ' > PIE * fi e1-n- 'deer '; Р А * i1i ' deer ' ( Ш i ch-Svi tyсh

1971:272-273).

15) PN **kamи - ' to seze, ' to sqи eeze > PIE *gem- 'to seze, ' to sqи eeze,

'totake; Р А *kamи - 'toseze, 'tosqи eeze, 'totake (PU *kamа-lл/*kama-

rл 'haп dfи l' is far-fetched semaп tica11y)(Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:290-291).

16) PN **kа jwл - ' to chew' > PIE *gieи - /*gieи - ' to chew' ; Р А *kRb/a/ - ' to

chew'. (Ш iс h-Svitус h 1971:293)

17) PN **~ Ш 'black' , 'dark' > PIE *ker -( s) - ' bl ack', 'dark'; Р А * k'ar la

'black' (Ш ich-Svityс h 1971:337-338).

18) PN **~b/ i/ ' Ь е 11у ' , ' intest ines > PIE *Kerp/*К rep ' Ь е 11у ' , ' Ь о д у ' ; Р А

*k'arlbi 'Ь е11у '(Ш ich-Svityсh 1971:338-340).

19) PN **Is:.о r л 'worm' > PIE *kwr-mi - ' id.' ; Р А *KorV ' id.' ( Ш i сh-Svi tyсh

1971:358).

20) PN **Is:.t ipa' to boi l' , ' inf late > PIE *kе и ( Н ) р ' to OOi l' ;Р А *k'opa- ' to

inflate, 'to foam', 'to froth' (Ш ich-Svityсh 1976:363-365).

21) PN **NajRa ' т а п ' , ' т а1е ' > PIE *ner ' id.' ; Р А * fiarV ' id.' ( Ш i ch-Svi tyсh

1976:92-93).

22) PN **р щ с л ' flea > PIE *bbl иs/ *pl иs ' flea ; Р А *pt iraga/*bt iraga ' flea

(Ш iс h-Svitус h 1976:92-93).

23) PN **qo~ ' to set fi re , ' fi re > PIE *He[ :] t 'fi re , 'fi replace ; Р А *oot i

'fire, 'spark' (Ш ich-Svitус h 1976:103-104).

24) PN **zap'a 'to Ь о l д ' > PIE *sep- ' to Ь о l д ' , ' to и ndertakesmth.' ; Р А *Japa

'toЬ о lд ', 'toarraп ge (Ш ich-Svitусh 1976:111).

case of borrowing, thedirectionof borrowingwoи ld Ь е likey ether from PIE to

Р А via PU, or from Р А toPIEviaPU. However, и nder ether of these scenarios

the nи mber of PIE-PA etymologies not present in PU woи ld ь е e ther

insgnificaп t or non-existent. Therefore, snce the nи mber of PIE-PA is о п lу

sightly less thaп nи mber of PIE-PU а п д PU-PА para11es,both scenarios са п ь е

exclи ded. Second, thoи gh the possbility of borrowing Ь у both PIE aп d Р А

from PU theoretica11yexists, it с а п ь е easly dismissed о п historical groи nds: the

technologica11ymore advaп ced PIE а п д Р А societies were и nlikey to borrow

from а hи nter/gatherercommunitylш е PU. Even more faп tastic woи ld Ь е а

proposa1that both PIE ап д Р А have а PU sи bstratи m ; nothingin the above

para11esor in ther distribи tionseemsto indicatesи ch а possbility. Fina11y,а п у

of these scenariosс а п Ь е easly dismissed о п phonological groи nds.

Let и sconsder that а 11aboveexamples are10aп words.Let и stake first sx:

Statistical distribution оСthe above etymologies

1) PN **bok/a/- to rи n away > PIE *bheи g/*bhegw- id ; PU *pok-tV- to

r и n ; Р А *p[ ']Vk- r и n ( Р М Т о п l у , i f Р А aspi rated, then и nreated) ( Ш i с h-

Svitych 1971:181)

2) PN **bura to dril l > PIE *bher- to 0011 ;PU *pura [to] 0011 ;Р А *bura

to tи rn (Р Т о п lу) (Ш iсh-Svitусh 1971:186-187).

3) PN **Ь и r л snow/saп d storm > PIE *bher [ to] storm ; PU * рurkл

snowstorm ; Р А * Ь о r а /* Ь ur л storm , snowstorm ( Ш i сh-Svi tyсh

1971:188-190).

4) PN **ska1и to split , to cи t > PIE *ske to split ; PU *sa1e to split , to

cи t ; Р А *са1и to cи t (Ш iсh-Svityсh 1971:195-197).

5) PN **gi /i /l :l и smooth а п д gl immer ing > PIE *ghehw- /*gbl еhW-

gl immer ing ; PU *kl /i /л smooth а п д gl immer ing ; Р А *gi lи - /*gi la-

smooth а п д glimmering (Ш iс h-Svitу с h 1971:229-230).

6) PN **gop'a empty , ho11ow > PIE *geи p- cavity , Ь о l е , pi t ; PU

*koppa :'empty , ho11ow ; Р А *goba-/*gobi- empty , ho11ow (Ш ich-

Svitych 1971:232-233).

PU

РА

PIE

47

44

РА

47

As a1ways, theexistenceof para11esbetween thetwo or morelaп gи ages т а у

invite threepossble interpretations: 1) а 11hese para11esareraп dom а п д д и е to

с Ь а п с е ; 2) they are10aп words;3) they demonstratethat laп gи ages in qи estion are

reated. In oи r case, thepossbi li ty of а sheer с Ь а п с е с а п ь е r и 1eд oи t f rom the

beginning becaи se а11 our para11es are based о п regu1ar phonet ic

correspondences, the very existence of those woи ld ь е impossble in case of

raп dom para11es.Therefore, we are left with two choices о п lу : 10aп wordsor

с о т т о п heri tage.

Borrowing seems a1soи nlikey, д и е to thefo11owingconsderations, thoи gh

thesma11ernи mberof PIE-PА para11es ау lеа д to sи ch sи spicion. First, in the

Let и s sи ppose that the fo11owingexamples are а 1110anwords with the

di rect ion of bor rowing: PIE > PU > Р А . I f they are PIE 10anwords in Р А

borrowed viaPU,we arefaced withа phoneticdeveopment which will ь е very

difficи lt toexplain in а stи ationof borrowing:

C[+voice] > C[-voice] > C[+voice]

C[-st о р ] С [+stо р ]> C[-stop] > С [+stop]

How с о и l д PIE voiced stops possbly have Ь е е п bor rowed into PU as

voiceess, bи t passed о п toAltaic asvoiced?How со и lд а PIE clи ster haveЬ ее п


6/8

Г

thou

we inc1. we exc1.

у о и

PN

**rni

** iI**S

**та

**nл

**1ii

Р А

*bi/*rnin- *ti/*s *bli/*miin-

?*ta

PU

*rni/*rninл -*ti/*tuu-

*mii/*me

*Ш

PD

*-ti

* т а [ а ]

*naam incl.

PIE

*me/mene- *te/tewe-

*me-s

*ne-/*noo- о Ы .

*-te

Р К А

*me/*rni

*se- /*s - ( о Ы .)

*т -

*naj, *n-

Р А А

*?n-tл , * t-

*m(n)

*nahnu

Р М Т PJ

1

*Ы

*ban

те

*rnin-

thou j

*s

*sQ-

thee j

*sn-

thou 2

*na

thou 3

thee 3

266

Л LEXЛ NDБ R VOVIN

NOSTRAТ IC AND Л LТ Л I С

267

Ь о п о wеd intoPU as sngle fricativebut resurface in Р А as an affricate? If we

assume theoppostedirectionof Ь о п о wing, that is Р А > PU > PIE, we again

findourseves in п о better postion:

Thus, 1с о т е to thegeneral concluson that Nostratic theory, at least conceming

Indo-European,Uralic, andAltaic, is а valid working hypothess, which cannot

ь е disrnissed right out-of-hand.However, that does not mean that all problems

a,resolved now, andthatNostratic nowhasthe same statusas, let us say, Indo-

European. Be10w 1 intend to address one of the numerous issues which

Nostraticists faceandwhich must Ь е solved before Nostratic can reach the same

leve of credibil ity as10wer-l eve1farni1iesconsti tuti ngit .

Let us 100k at the personal pronounsin different branches of Nostratic as

reconstructedЬ у У . М . Ш iсh-Svitусh (1971:6):

C[+voice] > C[-voice] > C[+voice]

C[+stop] > C[-stop] > C[-stо р ]С [+stо р ]

Quitesrnilar1yto theprevious scenario, Р А voiced stops Ь ес о т е voice1ess in

PU, but resurface as voiced in Р Ш . Р А affricates shift to PU fricatives, but the

1atter generates consonant c1usters in Р Ш . We will confront the same

phono1ogicalnonsenseif we assumethatal1these paral1e1sare dueto Ь о п о wing

Ь у Р Ш andР А fromPU.Let usaddtwo moreexamp1esfrom аЬ о у е :

17)PN **peН i Ь е af raid > Р Ш *peН - Ь е af raid ; PU *pe1e- Ь е af raid ; Р А

*pee1i- Ь е afraid (Ш iс h-Svityс h 1976:98-99).

18) PN **р ' ш ' /а / to tear , tobreak , to sp1i t > Р Ш * (s)per - to tear , to

break ; PU * р ш а t o break ; Р А * р ' б r 2i i1* р ' ti r2ti to tear , to crush

(Ш iс h-Svityсh 1976:100-101).

Assurningthat thesetwo examples aswe l as previous sx are all PU loanwords

in Р Ш andР А , we arefaced with thefollowingdeveopments:

If we isolatetheР А l inefromthischart andЬ ау е а closer look at it, we will

discover that it has а strange pecu1iarity,unparalle1edЬ у any other Nostratic

branch:

U C[-voice] > Р Ш C[+voice], C[-voice]

> Р А C[+voice], C[-voice]

Г ' thou

Р А *bi/*rnin- *ti/*s

we incl. we excl.

*bii/*miin-

у о и

?*ta

U C[ -stop] > Р Ш C[ -st о р ] С [ +st о р ]

> Р А C[+stop]

А Н pronounsexcept уо и Ь ау е doubleformsstartingether with *Ь - or *т- for

thefш t person andether with *s- or *t- for the second person. Let us exaт ine

personalpronounsin different branchesof Altaic:

Personal pronouns in different Altaic branches:

Under this scenario PU voiceess stops chaotically Ь ес о т е ether voiceess or

voiced in Р Ш andР А , yet PU fricatives produceР А affricates andР Ш clusters.

One can possbly bring forward an argument that all these words were

Ь о п о wеd not from proto-languages, but from different 1anguages and in

different times. However, this is higbly unlikey snce all these paralles are

attested throughoutthese threelanguagefarnili es, and, therefore, must go back

to all threeproto-languages (thereader will remember that 1cut off all paral1es

with lirnited attestation).In addition, the regularity in со п еsр о ndеnсе s under

such а scenario would notexist, andwe would ь е faced with thechaotic system

of со п еsр о ndеnсе s or with several different systems of со п еsр о ndеnсе s which

occur when wedeal with loanwordsfrom different languages at different times.

Therefore, the only reasonable solution to this problem is to adrnit that

common genetic origin is the likeiest hypothess to explain all these paralle s.

Р К

*na

Р М

*Ы

*rnin-/*na-

Р Т

* Ь i in

*Ь iin-/*тiin-

*

..

san

*ne

*ci < * ti

*cim-/*cin-


7/8

268

ALEXANDERVOVIN

we excl.

*Ь и

*Ь an

*

(b)и ri

*Ь а

*bir2

и s excl.

* т и п -

*т an-

we incl.

*bi:t *Ь an

*

(b)и ri

*bida

*bir2

и s incl.

*mfu-t-

*bidan-

у о и

1

*sи и

*sQ-

*

s r2

у о и 1о Ы .

*sи и n-

у о и 2 *п а * п е Ь и у

у о и з

*ta

у о и 3о Ы .

*tan-

It becomes clear from this chart that forms with initial *т- for the f1rst

person are secondary: they appear only in obliquecases, dueto assmilation of

*Ь -

Ь у nasality to the following formant *-п -. As for the second person, the

form with initial *t- is attestedonly in Mongolic, andit is not reated to Р М Т ,

PJ, andР Т formswith *s-, snce Р М *t- does not correspond toР М Т , PJ, and

Р Т *s-. Т herefore, theisolated Mongolicformс an hardlyЬ е projected onto а Р А

leve. Therefore, thefollowing reconstrи ction of Р А pronoи nsseems to Ь е in

order:

lsg. *Ь У (-п - ) 1

1pl.

*Ь

V-n-l-r2- we

*п а - т е

2sg. *sV(-п -) thou 2pl. *sV-п - l-r2- у о и

?* п а thoи

However, Ш ich-Svityсh provides thefollowing correspondences for Altaic and

otherNostratic languages (1971:147-150):

PN

**Ь -

**т-

**t-

**1-

**s-

PD

*р -

*т -

*t-

*t-

*с -

Р А

*Ь -

*т -

*t-

*t'-

*s-

Р А А

*Ь -

'*т-

*t-

*1-

*~-

Р К А

*Ь -

*т -

*t-

*1-

*s-

Р IE

* Ь Ь -

*т -

*d-

*t-

*s-

PU

*р -

*т -

*t-

*t-

*s-

Therefore, if о п е admitsthat Р А and Nostratic personal pronoи nsare reated,

that will violatethis system of correspondences: Р А *Ь - is not а reflex of PN

**т - , andР А *s- isnot а ref lex of PN **1- .Moreover , е у е п i f weaccept Р М * ti

thou and*ta уо и as Р А , that still wil l ь е violating correspondences: Р М *t-

т а у ref lect only Р А * t' - andnever Р А * t- ,andР А * t' - cor respondsto Р А А *1- ,

bи t not t o Р А А * t- ( cf. t he а Ь о у е char t of personal pronouns in di fferent

Nostraticbranches). Comparealso PN **-т А direct object sи ff1x> Р IE *т ; PU

NOS RAТ I C AND ALTAI C

269

*-т; PD *-т; Р А *-bal*-ba, which exhibits thesame broken correspondences

(Ш ich-Svityсh 1976:48). It is not possble to claim that there are different

correspondencesfor lexical and grammaticalmorphemes, sncethereare regular

correspondencesfor other grammatical markers: PN **т А nominalizingaffix >

Р А А *т - , Р К *т - , Р I E * -т о , PU *-mal*ma, PD *-mai , Р А *-mal*-ma.

Thus, theunes,capableconclusoni s that Р А personal pronounsare unreated

to Indo-Eи ropeanor Uralic personal pronouns. Т hat creates an obvious

distinctionbetween Altaic о п о п е sde, and Uralic with Indo-Eи ropean о п the

other: theс о т т о п origin of Р IE andPU personal pronounsseems to ь е beyond

anу reasonabledoubt.Р IE andPU exhibit, therefore, а consderably moreclose-

knitreationshipwith еа сЬ other than anу of themwith Altaic, or, as far as о п е

сanjudge о п thebass of theа Ь о уе chart of personal pronouns, with anу other

Nostratic language.

Iц sum,theаЬ о у е review of PIE, PU, andР А parallesshows that they are

based о п regular sound correspondences and therefore are not random. Т he

phonological natи re of these correspondences is sи ch that they cannot ь е

attribи tedtoborrowingether.That leaves only о п е option:Altaic is likey to ь е

reated to both Р IE and PU. However, takinginto consderationthelack of the

со тт о п personal pronouns,1beieve that it та у ь е prematи retoclassfy Altaic

as Nostratic : it та у Ь е, infact,reated toNostraticо п а deeper leve, that is to

ь е а member of another macrofamily, coordinatewith Nostratic. In particular,

someAltaic-Eskimo-Aleи t andAltaic-Nivxparalles т а у look п о 1esspromisng

than Altaic and Nostratic. However, this problem falls outsde the scope and

limitsof thispaper and1 will not discuss it here. Before this and т anу other

questionscoи ld ь е answered with anу degree of certainty, о п е must first reach а

consderable improvementswithin reconstructionAltaic proper. Only after this

preiminary work is done, it will ь е safer to compareAltaic with other language

families, and to find its exact placeamongthem.

I

Abbreviations

Р А

Р А А

PD

Р IE

Р ]

Р К

Р К А

Р М

Р М Т

PN

Proto-Alta c

Proto-Afro- Asatic

Proto- Dravidian

Proto- Indo-Eи ropean

Proto-Japanese

Proto- Korean

Proto-Kartvei an

Proto- Mongolian

Proto-Manchи - Tungus

Proto-Nostratic


8/8

270

ALEXANDER VOVIN

Р Т

PU

Proto- Turkic

Proto-Ura1ic

REFERENCES

Andronov, Mikhal S 1982. Iz istor ii k lassf ikatsi dravidi iskikh iazykov .

Serebrennikov 1982а , 140-194.

Clauson, Gerard. 1973. Nost rat ic . Jouma о the Roya Asat ic Society

1973.46-55.

I ll ich-Svi tych, Vladisav М . 1971. Opyt sravп eп i ia п ostrat icheskikh iazykov

(seт itokhaт itskii, kartve' skii, iп doevropeskii, ura' skii, dravidiiskii, ata skii),

vol. 1. 1п troductioп . Coтparative dictioп ary (Ь -lО . Moscow: Nauka.

_' 1976. Opyt sravп eп i ia п ost rat icheski kh i azykov ( seт i tokhaт i tskii ,

kartve'skii, iп doevropeskii, ura'skii, dravidiiskii, ata skii), vol. 2. Coтparative

dictioп ary (l-з). Moscow: Nauka.

_' 1984. Opyt sr avп eп i ia п ost rat icheski kh i azykov ( seт i tokhaт i tski i,

kartve' skii, iп doevropeskii, ura' skii, dravidiiskii, ata skii), vol. 3. Coтparative

di ct ioп ar y ( p- q) . Compi led Ь у У . А . Dybo and others о п t he bass of I lli ch-

Svitych's files. Moscow: Nauka.

Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1993. О п Illich-Svitych's Nostratic Theory . Sudies iп

Laп guage 17.205-249.

_' 1994. Clusters or Affricates in Kartveian and Nostrat ic? Diachroп ica

11.157-170.

Serebrennikov, Boris А . 1982а. Teoreticheskie osп ovy klassfikatsi iazykov т ira:

Р г о Ы е т у rodstva. Moscow: Nauka.

_' 1982Ь . Problema dostatochnosti osnovaniia v gipotezakh,

kasa ushchikhsa geneticheskogo rodstva iazykov . Serebrennikov 1982а , 6-62.

Shcherbak, Alekse М . 1984. О nost rat icheskikh issedovani iakh s pozi ts i

tiurkologa . Voprosy iazykozп aп iia 33.6.30-42.

Vi ne, Br ent . 1991. I ndo- Eur opean and Nost rat ic . 1п doger тaп i sche

Forschuп geп 96.9-35.

Documents

Nostratic and Altaic - Alexander Vovin