NOSTRA TIC, EURASIAnC,

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

ALLAN R. BOARD lrlst,South Carolia

1. Itrodctio
As the twentieth centry draws to close, it is longer reasonable to hold to the

view that Indo-Eropeanis langage isolate - thirty years have a1ready passed since grop of Rssian scholars (most notably Vladislav . i-Svity and Aaron . Dolgopolsky) sccessflly demonstratedthat Indo-European is related to severa1other langage farnilies of northem and centra1Eurasia and the ancient Near East. Since then, not only has this work been contined the Rssians (regrettably, i-Svity was kil1edin an atomobileaccident in 1966), it has a1so been taken nmber of other scholars in other contries, who have verified the initia1 reslts arrived at the Rssians, who have refined the methodology, who have greatly expanded the nmber of cognate sets, who have clarified isses related to phonology, who have identified additiona1grarnmatica1 formantsand have begn to piece together the early development of morphology in each of the daghter langages, and who have made great strides in problerns of sbgroping. 2. Methodology At the present time, some of the work being done in distant lingistic comparison is of very high qa1ity, adhering strictly to the methodologica1 principles established the fonders of Indo-European comparative lingistics, while other work is qite speclative and less methodologica11yrigoros. Moreover, there are two main approaches being tilized: the first approach rna termed "taxonomy first", which seeks ft and foremost to classify langages into valid gropings, that is, into langage farnilies and/or rofarnilis, whilethe second approach termed "reconstrction first", which, as the implies, emphasizes reconstrction. The first approach is reminiscent of the beginnings of Indo-Eropean comparative lingistics, where relationship was first established the early pioneers sch as Rasms Rask, Franz , and Jacob Grimm, and it was only mch later, beginning with Agst Schleicher, that acta1reconstrction took place, thogh the need for reconstrction had been recognized as early as 1837 byheodor Benfey. he two approaches are actal1ynot mta11y exclsive, bt, rather, properly sed, they can inform and

18

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSTRAIC, EURASIAllC

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

19

further n another. 1, persona11y,would give the edge to "taxonomy first". After a11,n cannot successful1y reconstructuntil n has ft established which languages might reasonable an of being genetica11yrelated, that is to say that n must know which languages to compare. (See Rublen 1994: 195-196 for discussion of the difference between classification and reconstruction.) he early founders of Indo-European comparative linguistics placed great importance the comparison of grammatica1forms, and this bias continues to the present day in Indo-Europeanstudies and has n n carried over into the study of other language phyla. However, this overemphasis the comparison of grammatica1forms is far too restrictive and was the reason that the Celtic languages, which developed an unique features, were not immediately recognized as Indo-European. Rather, as noted some sixty ago Holger Pedersen (1931:245):
hat agreement in the inflectiona! system is an especially c!ear and striking proof of kinship, denies. But it is ! anachronism in theory, which has significance in actua1 practice, when such agreement is still designated as the ! va1id proof. No doubted, after the first communication about Tocharian..., that the !anguage was Indo-European, though at that time virtually similarities in inflection had pointed out. Such sirni!arities have since shown, but even where they are a!most obliterated, proof of kinship could adduced from the vocabu!ary and from sound-!aws. Hard!y an will assert that it wou!d impossible to recognize the relationship between, say, Eng!ish and Italian, even without the he!p of other re!ated !anguages or of o!der forms of these two !anguages themse!ves, a!though agreements between the inflectiona1 systems are practica1!y nonexistent. From the modern point of view it must said that proof for re!ationship between !anguages is adduced systematic comparison Qf !anguages in their entirety, vocabu!ary as well as grarnmar. he reason why ear!ier scho!ars fe!t they shou!d disregard the vocabu!ary was that they knew of . method of systematic comparison in this fie!d.

commonly confined to certain semantic spheres (for example, ulturitems) and certain grammatical categories (nouns far more often than verbs). Second, borrowed words an distinguished from native vocabulary expanding the range of comparisonto include additionallanguages. he simplest way to establish genetic relationship is identifying large
number of similar morphs (or a110morphs)

especially

irregularities

in

, ,
;'!

In Chapter of his book Essays in Linguistics, Joseph Greenberg (1957:35-45) lays out set of principles for establishing genetic relationship among languages, and these are worth repeating. Greenberg notes that the only way to establish hypotheses about genetic relationship is comparing languages. However, the problem is in knowing which languages to compare and in knowing what to compare since not aspects of language are equally relevant to comparison. meaningful, comparison must strive to eliminate an resemblances and to separate borrowings from native elements. This is often easier said than done; however, Greenberg lays out two main techniques for detecting borrowed lexical iterns. First, notes that borrowing is most

similar environments in the languages being considered. Another significant indicator of ro genetic relationship is the presence of similar rules of combinability. Unfortunately, historical processes over the passage of time bring about the gradual transformation and eventual elimination of such similarities. longer the period of separation, the lesser the chances will that similarities of morphological forms and rules of combinability will found. Fortunately, there remain other factors that an helpful in determining possible genetic relationship. n signifiCafitfactor is the semantic resemblance of lexical forms. Here, it is importantto to establish recurrent soundmeaning correspondences for reasonably large sample of lexical material. Lexica1 forms with identical or similar meanings the greatest value. Next in value forms that, though divergent in meaning, an convincingly derived, through widely-attested semantic shifts, from earlier forms of identical or similar meaning. chances that lexical resemblances indicate genetic relationshipincrease dramaticaywhen additionallanguages are brought into the comparison and when these new languages also exhibit very large number of recurrent sound-meaning correspondences. Greenberg has termed this method "mass comparison" (more recently, has used the term "multilateral comparison"). considers the comparison of basic vocabulary from large numberof languages from specific, wide geographic area to the quickest and most certain method to determinepossible genetic relationship. Greenberg, lexical data are of paramount importance in attempting to establish genetic relationship among languages, especial1y in the initial stages of comparison. It is only 'after these preliminary steps n undertaken that meaningful comparison an begin. That is to say, and to reiterate, we must first good sense of which languages are likely candidates for comparison. Now let us look at the basic principles underlying the Comparative Method - they summarized as fol1ows: first step involves the arduous task of data gathering, placing special attention gathering the oldest data available. On large amountof lexical material has n gathered, it must careful1y analyzed to try to separate what is ancient from what is an innovation and from what is borrowing. After the native lexical elements n reasonably identified in phylum, the material an compared across phyla to determine

-20
ALLAN R. BOMHARD
NOSTRA IC, EURASIA IC AND INDO-EUROPEAN

21

potential cognates. sufficient body of potential cognates has identified, can begin to work out the sound correspondences. Not only must the regular sound correspondences (that is, those that occr consistently and systematically) defined, exceptions must also explained. Here, widelyattested sound changes (palatalization, metathesis, syncope, assimilation, dissimilation, etc.) provide the key to understanding the origin of most exceptions. In other cases, the analysis of the influence that morphology has exerted provides an understanding of, how particular exceptions into being. Some exceptions, though clearly related, simply defy explanation. of these must noted. The final step involves the reconstruction of ancestral forms and the formulationof the sound laws leading to the forms in the descendant languages, identifying the laws that have produced the regular sound correspondences as weH as the exceptions. The sae principles apply to the reconstruction of gramrnatical forms and rules of combinability and to the identification of the historical transformationsleading to the systems found in the daughter languages. Invariably, it takes the dedicated efforts of several generations of scholars to work out all of the details. Here, we r cite the case of Indo-European - as the most casual reading of Lehmann's book (1993) the heoretical Bases / Ido-Europea Liguistics shows, after nearly two fuH centuries of investigation of what must surely the most thorougbly-studiedlanguage farnily the face of the earth, there still remain man uncertainties about the reconstructionof the Indo-Eropeanparent language. It was necessary to discuss these issues in order to address concerns that have raised about the applicability of traditionalmethods of comparison and internal reconstructionto long-range comparison. It must made perfectly clear that the sae principles are just as applicable to long-range comparison as they are to any other type of linguistic comparison. The fact is, these are the only tools we have. Moreover, they work - their efficacy has proven over and over again. (The most thorough presentationof these methods is to found in Anttila 1989:229-273 and Hock 1991:532-626.) It has clairned that these methodologies break down when tries to apply them beyond rtain tim limit, say, 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. However, these dates are really quite arbitrary. can cite, for example, the case of the aboriginallanguages of Australia. Archaeological evidence indicates that Australia has inhabited human beings for approximately 40,000 years. Though there remain many unsettled questions, such as exactly when Proto-Australian was spoken (probably at least 30,000 years ago), or about how the different languages should subgrouped, and so , all extant languages appear to belong to the sae language farnily (cf. Rublen 1991: 188), and

comparative work these languages is continuing (cf. Dixon 1980). Anotherexaple that can cited is the case of the Afroasiatic language family. Due to the extremely deep divisions aong the six branches of Afroasiatic (Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Omotic, Cushitic, and Chadic), which are far greater than those found, way of comparison, among the earliest attested branches of Indo-European, the Afroasiatic parent language must placed as far back as 10,000 , or perhaps earlier, according to some scholars. This extremely ancient date notwithstanding, the major sound correspondences have deterrninedwith great accracy (cf. Diakonoff 1992; Ehret 1995), excellent progress is being made in reconstructing the common lexicon (cf. Ehret 1995; Orel-Stolbova 1995), and scholars are beginning to piece together the original morphological patterning, though progress here lags behind other areas. 3. Nostratic large-scale grouping that has proposed at various times and various scholars is the so-called "Nostratic" macrofarnily - the "Nostratic" was first suggested Holger Pedersen in 1903 (it is derived from Latin nostras "or countryman"). Though the "Nostratic Hypothesis" has occupied the efforts of handful of scholars from tim to time, for the most part, it has ignored most scholars - the early work done was simply not of high quality and, therefore, was not convincing. However, beginning in the early 1960's, interest in the Nostratic Hypothesis was revived the work of two Russian scholars, namely, Vladislav . i-Svity and Aaron . Dolgopolsky, who first started working independently and, at later date, through the efforts of Vladimir Dybo, cooperatively. Their work, though not without its own shortcomings (see below, 4), was the first successful demonstration that rt language phyla of northern and central Erasia, as well as the ancient Near East, might genetically related. Following Pedersen, they employed the "Nostratic" to designate this grouping of languages. In particular, i-Svit, in the corse of several publications, culminating in his posthumous comparative dictionary, which is still in the process of publication, included Indo-Eropean, Kartvelian, Afroasiatic, Uralic, Dravidian, and lt in his version of the Nostratic macrofamily. ro his very earliest writings, Dolgopolsky also included Chukchi-Kachatkan and Eskimo-Aleut. The most importantquestion that should addressed is: What is the basis for setting Nostratic macrofarnily? First and foremost, the descendant languages can shown to share large common vocabulary. In an article published in 1965, i-Svit listed 607 possible common Nostratic roots, but nl 378 published to date in his posthumous comparative Nostratic dictionary. It should noted that there are differences between the etymologies

-22
ALLAN R. BOMHARD
NOSRAIC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN

23

proposed in 1965 and the items included in the later dictionary: first, some of the iterns listed in 1965 do not appear in the dictionary; next, rninor changes have been made to several of the earlier etymologies. Dolgopolsky currently claims to have over 2,000 common Nostratic roots, but only small portion of this material has been published to date. In ajoint monograph myself and John . Kerns, entitled The Nostratic Macrofaily, great deal of lexical material is supplied from the Nostratic daughter languages to support601 common Nostratic roots - this has now been expanded to 651 roots in most recent book (Bomhard 1996). It should mentionedhere as well that Greenberg is currently preparing book entitled ldo-Europea ad lts Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Laguage Faily, in which large aount of lexical material will discussed, though Greenberg's Erasiatic is not the sae as Nostratic (see below, 5). As is to expected, the various branches of Nostratic investigated to date exhibit regular sound correspondences (see Appendix 2 for details), though, it should mentioned, there are differences in interpretation between i-Svity and Dolgopolsky the one hand and myself the other. Finally, moderate numberof commongraatical formantshave been recovered. Notable among the lexical iternsuncovered i-Svit, Dolgopolsky, and myself is solid core of common pronorninalstems (these are listed below in Appendix 1, though only the stems represented in Indo-Eropean are given the Proto-Nostratic reconstructions are given according to system; for information other pronoun stems, cf. Dolgopolsky 1984). These pronorninal stems have particular importance, since, as forceflly demonstrated John . Kerns (1985:9-50), pronouns, being aong the most stable elements of language, are particularly strong indicator of genetic relationship (Rublen 1994:92-93 makes the sae point). Kerns (1985:48) concludes (the emphasis is his):
The resu!ts are overwhe!ming. We are forced to conc!ude that the pronomina! agreements between Indo-European and Ura!ic, between Uralic and A!taic, and between Indo-European and A!taic, did not deve!op independent!y, but instead were CAUSED some UNIQUE historica! circumstance. In short, it is extreme!y un!ike!y that the three pronomina! systems cou!d have evo!ved independent!y.

Nostratic stdies are still in their infancy, and there remain many issues to investigated and many details to worked out, but the futre looks extremely exciting and extremely prornising. 4. Critique / Muscovite views Nostratic In this section, 1 would like to make several comments about recent Muscovite research Nostratic. Specifically, 1 will deal with this research as it has been codified in i-Svit's comparative Nostratic dictionary. Let begin stating nequivocaythat 1 have the highest adrnirationfor what scholars of the Moscow School have achieved. Their research has opened new and exciting possibilities and has given Nostratic studies new respectability. However, this does not mean that 1 agree with everything they say. 1 regard their work as pioneering effort and, as such, subject to modification in light of recent advances in linguistic theory, in light of new data from the Nostratic daughter languages, and in light of findings from typological studies that give us better understanding of the kind of patterning that is found in naturallanguages as well as better understanding of what is characteristic of language in general, including langage change. We can begin looking at phonology. In 1972 and 1973, the Georgian scholar Thomas . Gamkrelidze and the Russian scholar Vjaceslav . Ivanov jointly proposed radical reinterpretation of the Proto-Indo-Eropean stop system. According to their reinterpretation,the Proto-Indo-Europeanstop system was characterized the three way contrast glottalized voiceless (aspirated) voiced (aspirated). In this revised interpretation, aspiration is viewed as redndant feature, and the phonemes in question could also realized as allophonic variants without aspiration. Paul J. Hopper independently proposed sirnilar reinterpretationat the sae time (cf. Hopper 1973). his reinterpretation opens new possibilities for comparing Proto-IndoEropean with the other Nostratic daughter languages, especially Protoartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic, of which had sirnilar three-way contrast. he most natural and straightforward assumption would that the glottalized stops posited Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, and Hopper for Proto-Indo-Eropean wold correspond to glottalized stops in Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic, while the voiceless stops would correspond to voiceless stops and voiced stops to voiced stops. That is to say that this is where one should begin when looking for potential cognates. In so doing, one finds that consistent, systematic sound correspondences can indeed established in which the glottalized stops posited Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, and Hopper for Proto-Indo-Eropean correspond to glottalized stops in Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic, and in which the voiceless stops correspond to voiceless stops and voiced stops to voiced stops.

he conclusion seems inescapable that the consistent, reglar correspondences that can shown to exist aong the Nostratic descendant languages as well as the agreements in vocabulary and gramatical formants that have been uncovered to date cannot explained as due to linguistic borrowing and can only accounted for in terms of common origin, that is, genetic relationship - it would simply unreasonable to assume any other possibility. This does not mean that problems have been solved. the contrary,

24

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSTRAIC, EURASIAIC AND INDO-EUROPEAN

25

This, however, is qite different from the correspondences proposed iSvityc. sees the glottalized stops of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic as corresponding to the traditiona1plain voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-Eropean, while the voiceless stops in the former two branches are seen as corresponding to the traditiona1plain voiced stops of Proto-Indo-Eropean,and, fina11y,the voiced stops to the traditiona1voiced aspirates of Proto-Indo-Eropean. i-Svit then reconstrcts Proto-Nostratic the model of Kartvelian and Afroasiatic with the
three-way contrast glottalized

- voiceless

- voiced.

rnistake that i-Svity made was in trying to eqate the glotta1izedstops of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic with the traditiona1plain voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-Eropean. is reconstrction wold make the glotta1ized stops the least marked members of the Proto-Nostratic stop system. i-Svit's reconstrctionis ths in contradictionto typologica1evidence, according to which glotta1izedstops are niforrnly the most higbly marked members of hierarchy (for details phonologica1 markedness in genera1 and the freqency distribtionof glotta1izedstops in particlar, cf. Garnkrelidze 1978). reason that Illic-Svit's reconstrction wold mak the glotta1ized stops the least marked members is as follows. i-Svit posits glotta1icsfor Proto-Nostratic the basis of one or two seerningly solid examples in which glotta1icsin ProtoMroasiatic and Proto-Kartvelian appear to correspond to the traditiona1plain voiceless stops in Proto-Indo-Eropean. on the basis of these examples, assmes that, whenever there is voiceless stop in the Proto-Indo-Eropean examples cites, glotta1ic is to reconstrcted for Proto-Nostratic, even when there are glotta1ics in the corresponding Afroasiatic and Kartvelian forms! This means that the Proto-Nostratic glotta1ics the same freqency distribtion as the Proto-Indo-Eropean traditiona1 plain voiceless stops. Clearly, this cannot correct. bring the reconstrction of Proto-Nostratic into agreement with the typologica1 evidence, .the correspondences between Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic the one hand and Proto-Indo-Eropean the other shold modified so thatthe voiceless stops fond in ProtoKartvelian and Proto-Mroasiatic correspond to the traditiona1plain voiceless stops in Proto-Indo-Eropean (which Garnkrelidze and Ivanov reinterpret as voiceless [aspirated] stops), so that the glotta1ics correspond to the traditiona1 plain voiced stops in Proto-Indo-Eropean (which Garnkrelidze and Ivanov reinterpret as glotta1ics),and so that the voiced stops correspond to the traditiona1 voiced aspirates in Proto-Indo-Eropean (which Garnkrelidze and Ivanov a1so interpret as voiced [aspirates]) (see below, 6.5, for additiona1remarks the revisions proposed Gamkrelidze and Ivanov).

What abot those examples addced i-Svity which appear to spport his proposed correspondences? Some of these examples adrnit to a1temative explanations, while others are qestionable from semantic point of view and shold abandoned. Once these examples are removed, there is an extremely small nmber ( more than handfl) left over that appear to spport his position. However, compared to the massive conter-evidence in which glotta1izedstops in Kartvelian and Afroasiatic correspond to sirnilar sonds (the traditiona1 plain voiced stops) in Proto-Indo-Eropean, even these residal examples sspect. Another major shortcorning is in the reconstrction of the Proto-Nostratic vowel system, which, according to i-Svit, is essentially that of modem Finnish. It simply stretches credibility beyond reasonable bonds to assme that the Proto-Nostratic vowel system cold been preserved nchanged in Finnish, especially considering the many millennia that passed between the dissoltion of the Nostratic parent langage and the emergence of Finnish. No dobt, this erroneos reconstrction abot as reslt of i-Svit's failre to dea1with the qestion of sbgroping. he Ura1icykaghir phylm, of which Finnish is member, belongs to the Erasiatic branch of Nostratic. Now, Erasiatic is severa1 rnillenniayonger than Afroasiatic, which appears to the oldest branch of the Nostratic macrofarnily. Therefore, Afroasiatic mst l key role in the reconstrctionof the Proto-Nostraticvowel system, and the Uralic-ykaghir vowel system mst considered as later development that cannot possibly represent the original state of affairs. Fina1ly, few remarks need to made abot i-Svit's proposed cognate sets in genera1. In some of his proposed etymologies, the correspondences be~een two or three of the branches are sond from semantic point of view, while those addced for the other branches are qestionable. Sometimes, nonexistent or qestionable forms are cited, and these shold removed. nmber of etymologies shold abandoned altogether. These critica1 remarks notwithstanding, however, pwards of two-thirds of the etymologies proposes appear to solid from both phonologica1and semantic points of view or need l rninoradjstments, and this, in itself, is impressive achievement. 5. Erasiatic i-Svity inclded Indo-Eropean, Kartvelian, Afroasiatic, Ura1ic, Dravidian, and Altaic within the Nostratic macrofarnily, and Dolgopolsky added ChkchiK~chatkan and Eskimo-Alet as well. Greenberg incldes Indo-Eropean, Ura11c-ykaghir, Altaic (Mongolian, Chvash-Trkic, and Manch-Tngs), Japanese-Korean (Korean, Ain, and Japanese-Rykyan), Gilyak, Chkchiarnchatkan, and Eskimo-Alet in his Erasiatic langage farnily. Unlike i-

26

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSRA IC, EURASIAIC

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

27

Svityc and myself, does not include Kartvelian, Afroasiatic, nor ElamoDravidian - not because believes that they unrelated, but because believes that these three language phyla are more distantly related to IndoEuropean than are the others, which, a10ngwith Indo-European, form natura1 taxonornic subgrouping. own opinion is close to that of Greenberg. As 1 see the situation, Nostratic includes Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Elamo-Dravidian as well as Eurasiatic, in other words, 1 view Nostratic as higher-level taxonornic entity. Afroasiatic stands apart as an extremely ancient, independentbranch - it was the f1rstbranch of Nostratic to separate from the rest of the Nostratic speech community. Younger are Kartvelian and Elamo-Dravidian. It is clear from an analysis of their vocabulary, pronornina1 stems, and morphologica1systems that Indo-European, Ura1icYukaghir, Altaic, Gilyak, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut are more closely related as group than any one of them is to Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Elamo-Dravidian, and this is the reason that 1 follow Greenberg in setting distinct Eurasiatic subgroup within Nostratic. Finally, Sumerian, which 1formerly considered to Nostratic daughter language, is to seen as related to Nostratic instead. It must noted here that 1 am still uncertain about the exact positioning of Kartvelian and Elamo-Dravidian. Clearly, the Kartvelian pronoun stems are more closely related to those found in Eurasiatic. the other hand, it resembles Mroasiatic in its use of pref1xes, for example. As for Elamo-Dravidian, its pronoun stems about the same number of para11elswith Mroasiatic as they do with Eurasiatic or Kartvelian. However, in both nornina1declension and verba1 conjugation, Elamo-Dravidian is closer to Eurasiatic than to Afroasiatic. present thinking is that Kartvelian is probably closer to Eurasiatic than what 1 indicated in 1994 co-authored book and that the differences are due to innovations within Kartvelian. An attempt at subgrouping is shown in Figure 1 (this is very close tq the schema proposed Rublen 1994:192) and hypothesis about possible paths which the Nostratic sub-groups dispersed across Europe, Asia, and Africa is given in 1.

g z
(1)

() .~ .~ ..::

Figure 1: Nostratic Languages

28

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NSRA, URASI AND INDO-EUROPEAN

29

6.Ido-Europea Let us now look at Indo-Eropeanand discuss some of what is to gained comparing Indo-Eropean with the other Nostratic languages. foHowing gains mentionedas being aong the most important:() better understanding of the laryngeals, () better understandingof root strctre patteming, () better understanding of the origin of verb morphology, () better understandingof the origin and development of vowel gradation, and () support for the Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, and Hopper reinterpretation of Indo-European consonantism. We now look at each one ofthese in more detail. 6.1 Larygeals According to Kurylowicz and those who foHow his theories (such as Sturtevant and Lehmann, aong others), Indo-European is assumed to have had for laryngeals, which symbolized as *1, *2, *, and *4 (Kurylowicz writes *~1' *~2' *~3' and *i?4)' Other scholars posit only three laryngeals, denying the existence of *4' and, still others posit as few as one laryngeal or as many as twelve. For the sake of argument, we will stick with the for laryngeals posited Kurylowicz. Now, of the other Nostratic branches, only Afroasiatic has fuHset of laryngeals. Though Semitic is traditionally assumed to have had six laryngeals, the Afroasiatic parent language most likely had only for, naely, glottal stop /, voiceless laryngeal (or glottal) fricative /hI, and voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives lhI and /1/. Extremely good correspondences can established between Mroasiatic and Indo-European, and, as result, it is now possible to establish the probable phonetic values of the laryngeals: we can nf1flthat *1was glottal stop / and *4was voiceless laryngeal fricative /h/ as originally suggested Sapir, Strtevant, and Lehmann, while *2 was probably the voiceless and voiced multiply-articulated pharyngeal/laryngeal fricatives Ihh/ and /l-fil,and *was probably originally identical to *2. That is to say that there is evidence from the other Nostratic languages to support positing * distinct from *2 in Indo-Eropean. Note that both of these two laryngeals the sae reflex in Hittite, namely, - (initially)and -(medially). he only reason that two separate laryngeals were set in IndoEropean Kurylowicz in the first place was to account for several cases of nonapophonic *0. However, these exaples can accounted for much better assuming that this single, combined *2 and * changed contiguous original * to *0 along the lines of what is found in modem r dialects. (It shpuld noted here that Ihh/ and /fjJ)/are to derived from earlier voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives lhI and /1/ respectively - for details the

1: Dispersal ofthe Nostratic Langages

30

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSRAIC,

EURASIAIC

N INDO-EUROPEAN

31

development of the laryngea1s in Indo-European, cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1994: 47-56; for good introductionto the Laryngea1 Theory, see Lindeman 1987.) 6.2 Root structurepatteig Comparison of Indo-European with the other Nostratic branches, especia11y artvelian and Afroasiatic, a110ws us to refine the theories of Benveniste (1935: 147-173) and, in so doing, to trace the development of root structure patterning from the earliest times down to the appearance of the individua1 daughter languages. he most ancient patterningttlay assumed to have been as follows: 1. here were initia1 vowels in the earliest form of pre-Indo-European. Therefore, every root began with consonant. 2. Origina11y,there were initia1 consonant clusters either. Consequently, every root began with one and only one consonant. 3. Two basic syllable types existed: () * and () *, where = any non-syllabic and V =any vowel. Permissible root forms coincided exactly
with these two syllable types.

that time. Fina11y, it was at this stage of development that the syllabic allophones of the resonants into being. he stress-conditioned ablaut a1ternations gave rise to two distinct forms of extended stems:

1: Root in full-grade and accented, suffix in zero-grade: *-. 2: Root in zero-grade, suffix in full-grade and accented: *-. When used as verba1 stem, 1 could undergo further extension. However, 2 could further extended means of "determinative". Further addition of determinative or suffixes pointed to nornina1 stem. According to Benveniste, "suffix" was characterized two a1ternatingforms (*-et-/*-t-, *-en-/*-n-, *-ek-/*-k-, etc.), while "determinative" was characterized fixed consonantal form (*-t-, *-n-, *-k-, etc.). In its beginnings, ablaut was merely phonologica1alternation. During the course of its prehistorica1 development, however, Indo-European gradua11y grammatica1izedthese ablaut a1ternations. Indo-European had constraints permissible root structure sequences. In terms of the radica1revision of the Indo-Europeanconsonant system proposed Garnkrelidze, Ivanov, and Hopper, these constraint laws stated as follows:
1. ro~t contained at least one non-glotta1ic consonant.

4. verba1stem could either identica1with root or it could consist of root plus single derivationa1morpheme added as suffix to the root: *-. Any consonant could serve as suffix. 5. Nornina1stems, the other hand, could further extended additiona1 suffixes. In the earliest form of Indo-European, there were three fundamenta1stem types: () verba1 stems, () nomina1and adjectiva1stems, and () pronornina1 and indeclinable stems. he phonemicization of strong stress accent disrupted the patterning outlined above. he positioning of the stress was morphologica11ydistinctive, serving as means to differentiate grarnmatica1categories. All vowels were retained when stressed but were either weakened (= "reduced-grade") or tota11y eliminated (= "zero-grade") when unstressed: the choice between the reducedgrade versus the zero-grade depended upon the position of the unstressed syllable relative to the stressed syllable as well as upon the laws of syllabicity in effect at

2. When both obstruents were non-glottalic, they had to agree in voicing. he Indo-European root structure constraint laws thus merely voicing agreement rule with the corollary that two glotta1ics cannot co-occur in root. Comparison of Indo-European with the other Nostratic branches indicates, however, that the forbidden root types must have once existed. Two rules formulated to account for the elirninationof the forbiddentypes: 1. rule of progressive voicing assimilation set to account for the elirninationof roots whose consonanta1elements origina11ydid not agree in
voicing: *

- * > * - *, * -* > * - *D, etc.

32 2.

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSTRAIC, EURASIAIC N INDO-EUROPEAN

33

rule of regressive deglottalization set to accont for the elimination of roots containing two glottalics: *' - *' > * - *', etc. This rule finds close parallel in Geers' Law in Akkadian.

Person 1 2 3

Singlar hutta-h hutta-t hutta-s

Plral

hutta-hu h + h)
hutta-ht h + t) hutta-hS h + s)

According to Gamkrelidze, Bartholomae's Law is later manifestation of the progressive voicing assirnilation rule, applied to contact seqences. 6.3 Verb morph%gy Comparison of Indo-Eropean with Uralic reveals many striking sirnilarities verb morphology and allows s to ascertain th~u1tirnate~rigin o~ the ~th~matlc verb endings: they can nothing else bt earller possesS1ve sfflxes,. Slrl~ to what is fond in Uralic and A1taic. Th earliest forms of the athematlc ndgs were most likely as follows (for details, cf. Bornhard 1988; see also Villar 1991:244-252):

Person 1 2 3

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

Plral *- *-te *-en

This earlier system partially preserved in Tocharian . Now compare the following system of personal endings, which are assmed to have existed in Proto-Uralic (cf. Hajd 1972:40 and 43-45):
"i

Person 1 2 3

Singlar *- *-te *-se

Plral *- (+ Plral) *-te (+ Plral) *-se (+ Plral)

These endings srvive in Elarnite as well, especially in the 2nd and 3rd persons ( the way, the 1st singlar ending, -h, is, of corse, related to the 1st singlar perfect ending *- of traditionalIndo-Eropean, which is fond, for example, in Lwian in the 1st singlar preterite ending -, in Hittite in the 1st singlar ending -lJi, and in Greek in the 1st singlar perfect ending -; this e?ding ~y also related to the Kartvelian 1st person personal prefix of the sbJect ss, *xw- [Gamkrelidze-Macavariani 1982:85 reconstruct *w-, however], as sggested Ivanov and Palmaitis) - compare, for example, the conjgation of hutta- "to do, to make" from iddle Elarnite (cf. Reiner 1969:76; Grillot-Ssini 1987:33):

Traces of the 2nd singlar ending are also fond in Dravidian - McA1pin (1981: 120) reconstructs Proto-Elamo-Dravidian2nd person ending *-ti (> ProtoElarnite *-t~,Proto-Dravidian *-ti). This is significant archaism, since it bears apparent resemblance to the common Elamo-Dravidian 2nd person personal prononstem, which reconstructed as *ni. Traces of these endings can fond in the A1taic langages too, as in the Trkish agreement markers -(I)m (1st singlar) and - (3rd singlar verba1) or -(s)l(n) (3rd singlar norninal). In Proto-Trkic, the 1st singlar possessive sffix was *-, while the 3rd singlar was *-s. 1st singlar possessive sffix was also *- in Proto-Tngs, and tbe 2nd singlar was *-t - the 3rd singlar possessive sffix, the other hand, was *-n, which rnirs what is fond in Smerian. Finally, we note that 3rd singlar in -s is also fond in Kartvelian (cf. Old Georgian c'er-s "writes"). 2nd singlar ending *-t is preserved in Hittite and Tocharian. This was later replaced what hadbeen the 3rd singlar, namely, *-s. Watkins (1962) has discssed the extensive evidence from the Indo-Eropean daghter langages for an original3rd singlar ending in *-s. It was Watkins who also showed that the 3rd singlar indicative was originally characterized the fndamentalending zero. *-n- fond in the 3rd plral was relic of the 3rd person ending fond in Tngs, Kartvelian (cf. Old Georgian c'er-en "they write"), and Smerian. development of the 3rd singlar ending *-t was later change, thogh this still d fairly early since it is fond in ittite and the other Anatolian daghter langages - this *-t was added to the 3rd plral ending *-n- at the same time, yielding the new ending *-nt-. most recent change mst have been the development of the so-called "primary" endings, which were bilt pon the socal1ed "secondary" endings the addition of the deictic particle *-i meaning "here and now". It mentioned that this deictic particle has Nostratic origin, corning from widely-represented proximate demonstrative stem meaning "this one here". Proto-Uralic is assmed to have had two conjgational types (cf. Hajd 1972:43-44): () dtnintiv (objective) conjgation, which was characterized the 3rd singlar in *-s and which was sed with transitive verbs, and () an indtnintiv (sbjective) conjgation, which was characterized the 3rd singlar in zero and which was sed with intransitive verbs. Th same

34

ALLAN R. BOMARD

NOSTRA11C, EURASIA11C N INDO-EUROPEAN

35

two conjugationa1typeS were found in Proto-Indo-European, except that they were used to contrast active versus stative. Indeed, the active-stative contrast appears to the more ancient in both Ura1icand Indo-European. After all of the changes described above had taken place, the resulting ProtoIndo-Europeanathematic endings were as fol1ows:

Person 1 2 3

I. Primary Singu1ar Plura1 *-mi *- *-si *-te *-ti *-nti

. Secondary Singu1ar Plura1 *- *- *-s *-te *-t *-nt

Note: he 1st person plura1 endings have different extensions in the various daughter languages: *-mes(i), *-mos(i), *-men(i), *-mon(i). In volume 1 (draft version 3, dated 9 March 1995), Graar, of his forthcoming book /do-Eropean nd /ts Closest Relatives: The Erasiatic Langage Family, Greenberg discusses the evidence for Eurasiatic first-person singular pronoun stem *k. Now, the perfect had its own set of endings, one of which has hitherto defied explanation, narnely, the ft person perfect endings in *-k- found, for exarnple, in Tocharian k "1was", LatinfcI "1 made", Greek 6r11Ca "1 placed", etc. In Greek, separate stem type developed, the so-ca11ed"1Ca-perfect",based upon the -k- endings. This development took place in the early prehistory of Greek itself and is not representative of the' Indo-European state of affairs. Al1 indications are that the *-k- endings belonged exclusively to the first person singu1ar in Proto-Indo-European. Thus, both in function and form, the *-kendings clearly belong with the Eurasiatic first person singular pronoun stem *k reconstructed Greenberg. Recently, severa1 scholars have tried to show that Indo-European is to reconstructed as an active-stative language. Indeed, such an interpretationseerns to clarify many problerns in the early dia1ects. According to this interpretation, th~ so-called "perfect" of traditiona1Indo-European is seen as originally stative (cf. Lehmann 1993:218). Comparison with other Nostratic languages a110wsus to fm this view. 6.4 Vowel gradation he development of vowel gradation is extremely complicated and would require far more space to discuss than is allotted for this paper. Therefore, 1 will only

dea1 with severa1 key points. Ever since Hirt, it has been assumed an scholars that early Indo-European went through stage of development . charactenzed phonemic stress and that this stress caused the weakening and/or loss of .the vowels of unaccented syl1ables, that is to say that the stress was responSlble for the development of the quantitativeablaut a1temations. Furthermore, according to this theory, it is assumed that, at later date, stress phonemically non-distinctiveand was replaced an accent system characterized phonemi~p~tchand that this pi~chaccent.was responsible for the development of ~e .qualitative ablaut 1tmts. Kurylowicz, however, argued that the qualitative ablaut a1te~~tio.nswere ancient and preceded the changes brought about the. phoneffilClZation of strong stress accent. Comparison with the other Nostratlc languages, especia11yartvelian, indicates that Kurylowicz was correct. Indo-European inherited the qua1itative ablaut a1temations from Nostrati~.In recen~paper entitled " Prehistory of the Indo-European Vowel Syst~m ~nCo~paratl:e and Typologica1 Perspective", Greenberg (1990) supplies V1g e:ldence 10 support of this view. he phonemicization of strong stre~s a~ent early Indo-European brought about complete restructuring of the lnhen.tedvowel sy~tem. same thing happened in Kartvelian, the way. Another lmportant pomt concerns the early prehistory of the * *0 ablaut gradation. In an article published in 1965, l1ank tried to show that this gradation series should reinterpretedas *~ (schwa) * gradation. It looks as ~ough l1ank pretty close to the truth, though only for the oldest ~n<>,d ?f development. W note that this older system is partia11ypreserved Hlttite, where *~ appears as (or i) and * is preserved as such. he development of *~ to * is fairly easy to explain: * assumed to have been the ?orma1 allophone of *~ under stress. typologica1 para11elrna observed 10the Northwest Caucasian languages Ubykh and Circassian, where g ~omes under stress. For the latest period of development, namely, the period before the emergence of the non-Anatolian daughter languages, the ~~y

~adit~on~ s~stem of five long and short vowels is surely correct. Fina11y, there is litt1e 1diti that Nostratic had phonemic long vowels. Therefore, long vowels assumed to have arisen solely in Indo-European proper.

6.5 /do-Eropean consonantism here are intema1 inconsistencies in the traditiona1reconstruction of the IndoEuropean stop system that make that system highly improbable from typologica1 point of view. In order to address these problems, Thomas Gamkre.lidzeand Vjaceslav Ivanov, the one hand, and l Hopper, the other, 1ddtlproposed, in 1972 and 1973 respectively, radica1

36

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSTRATIC,

EURASIAIC

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

37

reinterpretationof the Indo-European stop system. According to ~amkrelidze, Ivanov, and Hopper, the traditionalplain voiced stops are to remterpreted as glottalized stops (that is, ejectives). Furthermore, acc?~ding to ~e v~rsion of the theory proposed Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, the trdital l v01celess stops are to reinterpretedas voiceless aspirates, while the traditional voiced aspirates are to remain unchanged. In this revised interpretation,aspiration is viewed as phonernically redundant feature, and the pho'nemes in question could also realized as allophonic varipnts without aspiration. Strong support for this theory is provided comparison of Indo-European with artvelian and Afroasiatic, both of which have three-way contrast, in the series of stops and affricates, of voiceless (aspirated) glottalized - voiced. Accordingto views Nostratic, though not according to the views of Illic-Svityc and Dolgopolsky, the IndoEuropean glottalized stops (the traditionalplain voiced stops) correspond ~xactly to glottalized stops in Kartvelian and Afroasiatic, while the voiceless (asp1fated) stops in Indo-European correspond to identical sounds in Kartvelian and Afroasiatic, and the voiced (aspirated) stops of Indo-European correspond to voiced stops in artvelian and Afroasiatic. It should noted that the voiced aspirates were probably late development in Indo-European,and this series ma assumed to have originally been characterized plain voicing, without aspiration. (For an excellent survey ofthe Glottalic Theory, cf. Salmons 1993.)

REFERENCES
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. istorical ad Coparative Liguistics. 2nd revised edition. Amsterdal1) & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Benveniste, Emile. 1935. Origies de l foratio des os ido-europee. Reprinted 1973. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneve. Bimbam, Henrik. 1977. Liguistic Recostructia: /ts Patetials ad Liitatias in New Perspective. (= Joural ! /nda-European Studies Moagraphs, 2.) Washington: Institte for the Stdy of Man. Bornhard, Allan R. 1984. Taward Prata-Nastratic: New Appraach ( the Coparisa ! Prato-/da-Eurapean and Prata-Afraasiatic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. _' 1986. Review of Vitalij . Shevoroshkin & Thomas L. Markey, eds., Typalagy, Relationship, ad ie. Diachranica 3.269-281. ( revised version of this review appeared in Mather Tague, isse 10, AprilI990.) _' 1988. "The Prehistoric Development of the Athematic Verbal Endings in Proto-Indo-Eropean". Liguistic Happening i Meary ! Schwartz: Studies i Aatalia, /talic, and Other /do-Eurapea Laguages, ed. Yol L. Arbeitman, 475--488. Lovain: Peeters. _' 1990. " Srvey of the Comparative Phonology of the So-Called 'Nostratic' Langages". Liguistic Change ad Recanstructio. Methadolagy, ed. Philip Baldi, 331-358. The Hage: Moton. ( Rssian language version of this paper also appeared in Vaprasy Jazykoznanija 1988:5.50-65.) 1991. "Lexical Parallels between Proto-Indo-Eropean and Other Langages". Studia Etyolagica /daeurapaea: Meariae . J. Va Widekes (/915-/989) Dicata, ed. L. Isebaert, 47-106. Leven: Peeters. _' 1992. "The Nostratic Macrofamily (with Special Reference to IndoEropean)". Word 43.61-83. _' 1996. /da-Eurapea and the Nostratic Hypathesis. Charleston: Signm Desktop Pblishing. Bornhard, Allan R. & John . Kerns. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofaily: Study i Distat Linguistic Relatiaship. Berlin and New York: Moton de Gruyter. Burrow, Thomas. 1973. The Saskrit Laguage. 3rd edition. London: Faber & Faber. Diakonoff, Igor . 1992. Prata-Afrasia ad Old Akkadian: Study i istarical Phoetics. Princeton: Institte of Semitic Stdies. Dixon, Robert . W. 1980. The Languages ! Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dolgopolsky, Aaron. 1984. " Personal Pronons in the Nostratic Langages". Liguistica et Philologica: Gedekschrift fur Bjor Callider (/894-/983), ed. Otto Gschwantler, il R6dei, & Herrnann Reichert, 65-112. Vienna: Wilhelm Bramiiller. Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Recostructing Prata-Afraasiatic (Prata-Afrasia): Vowels, , Casaants, ad Vocabulary. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Gamkrelidze, Thomas . 1978. " the Correlation of Stops and Fricatives in Phonological System". Universals ! Laguage, ed. Joseph . Greenberg, vol. 2, Phonology, 9--46. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Garnkrelidze, Thomas . & Vjaceslav . Ivanov. 1972. "Lingvisticeskaja tipologija i rekonstrukcija sistemy indoevropejskix smycnix". Kaferecija

Traditional Indo-European bh t d dh k g gh kw gw gwh

Gamkrelidze-Ivanov p[h] ' b[h] d[h] t[h] t' g[h] k[h] k' kw[h] k'w gw[h]

Not only have we barely scratched the surface inthis short survey, there are whole areas that have not even been touched upon - noun morphology and the question of homelands, for example (both of these are discussed in most recent book [Bomhard 1996]). Yet, enough has been given to show that comparison of Proto-Indo-European with other Nostratic languages can add new dimension to our understandingof Indo-Europeanprehistory.

38

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSTRAIC,

EURASIAIC

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

39

sravitel,o-istoriceskoj gramatike idoevropejskix jazykov, pradvartel'ye aterialy. 15-18. Moscow: Nauka. 1973. "Sprachtypo!ogie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindo_' germanischen V erschliisse". Phoetica 27 .150-156. (German version of Gamkre!idze & Ivanov 1972.) 1984. ldoevropejskij jazyk i idoevropejcy: Rekostrukcija i istoriko_' tipologiceskij aaliz prajazyka i protokul'tury. 2 vo!s. Tbi!isi: Publishing House of the bi!isi State University. (Eng!ish trans!ation, 1995: ldo-Europea ad the ldo-Europeas: Recostructio ad istorical Typological Aalysis / Protolaguage ad PrIJto-ultr, Mouton de Gruyter.) Garnkrelidze, homas . and Givi Macavariani. 1982. Soatsyste ud Ablaut i de Kartwelsprache. Eie Typologie der Struktur des Geeikartwelische. German trans!ation Winfried Boeder. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr Ver!ag. Greenberg, Joseph . 1957. Essays i Liguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1990. "The Prehistory of the Indo-European Vowel System in _' Comparative and Typo!ogica! Perspective". Proto-Laguages ad ProtoCultures, ed. Vitaly Shevoroshkin, 77-136. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Forthcoming. ldo-Europea ad lts Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic _' Laguage Faily. 2 vo!s. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gril1ot-Susini, Fran~oise. 1987. Eliets de graaire ilaite. Paris: Editions Recherche sur !es Civi!izations. Hajdu, Peter. 1972. "The Origins of Hungarian". The Hugaria Laguage,' ed. Lorand k & Samu Imre, 15-48. The Hague: Mouton. Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Priciples / Historical Liguistics. 2nd edition. Berlin & New ork: Mouton de Gruyter. Hopper, ! J. 1973. "G!otta!ized and Murmured .Occ!usives in Indo-European". Glossa 7.141-166. I1lic-Svityc, V(ladis!av) M(arkovic). 1965. "Materia!y k sravnite!'nomu s!ovaru nostraticeskix jazykov". Etiologija 1965.321-73. _' 1971- . Opyt sraveija ostraticeskix jazykov (seitoxaitskij, kartvel'skij, idoevropejskij, ural'skij, dravidskij, altajskij). 3 vo!s. Moscow: Nauka. Kems, J. A!exander & Benjamin Schwartz. 1972. Sketch / the ldo-Europea Fiite Verb. Leiden: . J. Bril1. Kems, John . 1985. ldo-Europea Prehistory. Huber Heights: Centerstage Printing, Inc. Lehmann, Winfred . 1993. Theoretical Bases o/ldo-Europea Liguistics. New ork: Rout!edge. Lindeman, Frederik Otto. 1987. /troductio to the 'Larygeal Theory'. Os!o: Norwegian 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 Etyological Dictioary: Materials /or Recostructio. Leiden: . J. Brill. Pedersen, Holger. 1931. The Discovery / Laguage: Liguistic Sciece i the Nieteeth Cetury. Eng!ish trans!ation John Webster Spargo. Mid!and book edition 1962. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1965. "The IE Vowe! System and Qualitative Ablaut". Word 21.86-101.

Reiner, Erica. 1969. "The E!amite Language". Altkleiasiatische Sprache ed . . Spu!er, 54-118. Leiden: . J. Bril1. ' Ruhlen,. .M~rritt. 1991. Guide t? t~e World's Laguages. !m 1: C!asslflcatl(~n. Stanford: Stanford UvfSlt Press. (Reprinting, with the addition of <\postscnpt rec~n~deve!opments, of the origina!1987 edition.) _' 1994. The Orzg / Laguage: Tracig the Evolutio / the Mother Togue. New York: John Wi!ey & Sons, Inc.
Salmons, Joseph . 1993: The Glottalic Theory: Survey ad Sythesis.

(= Joural

/ /do-Eur.opea Stud,es Moographs, 10.) McLean, .: Institute for the Stud y of . Szemere!lyi, Oswa!d. 1990. .Eifiihru8. i die vergleichede Sprachwissescha/t. ~th edltlOn: Darmstadt: Wlssenschaft!lche Buchgesellschaft. Vl!~ar, ~ranclsco: 1991. Los idoeuropeos los or{gees de Europa: Leguaje hlStorza. Madfld: Gredos. . . Watkins, Orig is O 1, h S 19a t, if the Celtic v:erb. / . "' . Ca!vert. 1962. /do-Europea . orzst. Du!: Th Du! ' ' Instltutefor Advanced Studies.

40
di

ALLAN R. BOMHARD
1: Distribution Nostratic Pronoun Stems

NOSRAIC,

EURASIAIC

ANO INOO-EUROPEAN

41

. Personal Pronoun Stems

ProtoNostratic Proto IE ProtoProtoKartvelian Afrasian ProtoUralic ProtoDravidian ProtoAltaic

Sumerian

*mi-j*me- "-/ (1st sg.) *-

*-, *-

"m[i]-

"

*; (> ")

(-), -, - -

"-/" m;J- "--/ (1st pl. *-incl.) "wa-/"w;J(1st pl.) we-/ " .wo-; "wey-

.-

"

.(> "-)

4. Elamo-Dravidian: 2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_is found in Elamite in ( 2nd sg. and pl. verb ending -( and in Dravidian in ( appositional marker -( of ( 2nd sg. in pronominalized nouns and as verb suffix of ( 2nd sg. 5. Altaic: 1st sg. stem ";- has '1' in ( Altaic daughter languages, while ( 1st pl. stem "- has in Mongolian (= 1st pl. exclusive); ( initial "- is preserved in ( oblique cases, however; ( 2nd sg. stem "(;_has (5; 'you' in Mongolian. 6. Sumerian: (-), -, - '1' are Emesal forms; - is 1st pl. possessive suffix, 'our'; -z is 2nd sg. possessive suffix, 'your'. 7. Etruscan: he 1st sg. stem ";-/"is preserved in (nominative) ; , (accusative) ;; ();, but this is uncertain since ( ''; ( 2nd sg. stem preserved in ( pronoun stem meaning of ( Etruscan form is unknown - however, ( 2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_ is clearly ref1ected in ( Etruscan verbal imperative endings -(;, -$, -$;. 8. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: pronouns of ( 1st and 2nd persons sg. and pl. are as follows in Chukchi: Singular 1 2 .:>- .:>-! Plural mu-r; tu-r;

.wa-

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

.-

*.-

"(;-

"(

*1;, "(

za-e, -z

9. Gilyak: 1st pl. inclusive stem "ma-/"nI;J- is preserved in ( 1st pl. inclusive pronoun - 'we' (note also 1st dual ll.'-g;); ( 2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_is preserved in the 2nd sg. pronoun {5; 'you'. 10. Eskimo-Aleut: 1st sg. stem ";-/"- is preserved in ( West Greenlandic 1st sg. relative possessive suffix -, while ( 2nd sg. stem "(;_/"(_is preserved in ( 2nd sg. absolutive possessive suffix -(;)(. plural forms r - and -(;( respectively.

1. Indo-European: 1st sg. stem ";-/"- is used in the oblique cases (! in ( Celtic r, where it has spread into the nominative as well); the 1st pl. inclusive stem "ma-/"m;J- is preserved in 1st person plural endings; the 1st pl. stem "wa-/"w;J- is preserved as independent 1st person plural pronoun stem and in 1st person dual andlor plural verb endings; ( 2nd sg. reconstructions "(1' "(- represent later, Post-Anatolian. forms. 2. Kartvelian: 1st pl. stem "-/";J- is found in Svan tij 'we'. 3. Afrasian: The 1st sg. stem ";-/"- and 1st pl. inclusive stem "ma-/"m;J- found only in Chadic as independent pronouns; the 1st sg. stem ";-/"- serves as ( basis of the 1st sg. verbal suffix in igh1and East Cushitic; ( 1st pl. stem "wa-/"w;J- is found in Egyptian and Chadic (in Egyptian, " means '1, ').

42

ALLAN R. BOMARD

NOSRAIC, EURASIAIC N INDO-EUROPEAN

43

. Demonstrative

Pronoun Stems

ProtoNostratic

Proto IE

ProtoProtoKartvelian Afrasiari"

ProtoUralic

ProtoDravidian

ProtoAltaic

Sumerian

.sa-/.s:;l-

.so-

.s .'-

.sjj *ta; *Ia *.'-

3. Sumerian: The demonstrative stem .7;-/.7- is found in 'hither, here'. 4. Etruscan: The proximate stem .,ha_/.,h:;l_ is preserved in ;', ' 'this'; the stem .""a-/."":;I- is preserved in (archaic ), 'this'. 5. Gilyak: The proximate stem .,ha_/.,h:;l_ is preserved in (proximate) ad' 'this'; the stem .""/."":;1- is preserved in kd' 'that'. 6. Eskimo-Aleut: The stem .,ha_/.,h:;l_ is preserved in the Inuit (also ll Inupiaq) prefix '-, which added to an demonstrative form whose coreferent has already focused.

.'_/ .'_ .th:;l(proximate)

.tu(distant) .""-/ .Jch:;l-

.to

.""-,

.-k-

.ka-

kho-, .",,;.dY;.tY;-/.t-

.dY;-/.d- .-dhe

.7;-/.7-

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

.' 1(proximate) (proximate)

.7-/.7:;1- .7-/.7-

*8(distant) ., -
.

.(distant) -, (-)

*-'*-, .-/.*i-'*e-,

-/. NOTES:

1. Indo-European: The stem .dY;-/.d- is only preserved as suffixed particle .-tfhe; the stem .-/.- has derivative .7--/.7--. 2. Altaic: The stem .tha-/.th:;l- is used as the distant demonstrative in Altaic: Mongolian (.

sg.) ( .te-r-e) 'that', (. l.) tede 'those'; Tungus(Solon)'; 'that'; Manchu' 'that'.

--

44

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSRATIC, EURASIAllC

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

45

. Relalive and Interrogative

Stems

Appendix 2: Nostratic Sound Correspondences

ProtoProtoNostratic IE

ProtoProtoartvli Afrasian

ProtoUralic

ProtoProtoDravidian A1taic

Sumri

ProtoProtoNostratic IE -"-"'-'d-dt""-"-

ProtoProtoKartvelian fasi --'-'d-d--, [--,-f'-'d-dt-

ProtoUralic -w--

ProtoProtoDvidi A1taic -pp-I-vv-pp-I-v-"-"-d-d-

ProtoEskimo ---

'ki, 'ke
(relative) 'Jcwhi'kwhe_1 (inter.) *mi-/*e(inter.) *a-f*:l(relative) 'Jcwh 0-1 *kwhi_ *-/**mi-, 'mi**mi*;

'ki-, 'ke-

"-"('-) (-'-) d"-d"-

'ku, 'ko

('ki-, 'ke-)

-t"1'-t'-

t"-t"1'-1'd"-d"t"-t"1'-t's-sd"-d"\"-\"\'-t'-

t-t1'-1'g-gek-eke'k'-e'k'sk-sk3-3-'-'-

-tt'-t'dY-dty-ty\'-

t-tt-t(t)t-tty-tyty-tyty-tytysY-SY---s-

t-! (!)t-t(t)t-t(t)-()-()-()-c(c)-I-y-()-()-()-()-

t--

t"-t"t-d3--1-d"-"-3s-s-

t-tt-t----

*e-I*o-

*-

('mi)

'?-, '?'?(relativeand inter.)

NOTES:

'?()-

'

'-

'-

dy-dtyh_ -ty"\'-\'sy-s3-3"-"'-'-

-t'ysY-sy3-3-'-'-

1. Kartvelian: relative 1 interrogative stem '?- is found in Sv (interrogative)jar 'who?', (ltiv)jrdj 'who', (indefinite)jer 'somebody, something'. 2. Altaic: interrogative stem 'mi-I'me- is found in the Turkish interrogative partic1es mi, l, ,. 3. Sumerian: interrogative stem 'mi-I'me- occurs in -n- 'when?', - 'where?', 'where to?'. relative 1 interrogative stem '?-, '?- preserved in the interrogative stems - 'who?' (animate) and - 'what?' (inanimate), if - represents original

3--1-d"-".-

----

'-.
4. hukhi-mhtk: he interrogative stem 'mi-I'me- is preserved in mel)in 'who?'. 5. Eskimo-Aleut: interrogative stem 'Jcwha_I'Jcwh~_is preserved in the Proto-Eskimo interrogative pronoun 'ki(a) 'who?' and in 'qal)4 'when?', 'qavcil 'how m?', *qaku 'when (in future)?'. interrogative stem 'mi-I'me- is prese<rved in the Proto-Eskimo enclitic particle 'mi 'what about?'.

s-sz-z-

s-ss-s-

s-sz-z-

s-sz-z-

s-sz- (?) -z- (?)

-ss-s-

46
ProtoN05tratic ProtoIE

ALLAN R. RD

NOSRAnC,

EURASlAnC

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

47

ProtoKartvelian

ProtoAfrasian

ProtoUralic

ProtoDravidian

ProtoAltaic

ProtoE5kimo

Proto- ProtoN05tratic IE '1-'11\-1\1-1h-hU)-U)~-~-

Proto- ProtoProtoartvelian Afrasian Uralic 0-0-'1-'1h-1\1-1h-h0-00-00-00-0-

ProtoProtoDravidian Altaic 0-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-0-

ProtoE5kimo 0-00-00-00-0-

-_ __ '-'~-~g-gkh_ _kh_ k'-k'gW_ _gw_

kwh_

dh_dh_ th_
_th_

---

1'-t'5-5gh_ _gh_ kh_kh_

'-'~-~g-gk-kk'-k'gW/U-

3-3-'-'5-5g-g-

--

--~-~-

-()-()-()-()k-k-

--/-d_
__

-5-5g-gkh-kh./-gk-gg-gkh-kh./-gk-gg-gkh-kh./-g-

----

1-

0-

-1h-h-

-00-0-

k--

k-kk'-k'gw_ _gw_

k-

k-

k'-k'gwh_

-k(k)k-

-kk--

-k(k)k-k(k)k-kk-k(k)k-k(k)k-k-k(k)-

k-, q-k-,q-k-,-qk-,q-k-,-qk-,q-k-,q-k-,-qk-, q-k-,-qk-, q-k-, q-k-,-qk-, q-k-,-qk-, q-k-,-qi-i-

-w-w-

-w-w-

- -/0w-w--

-w-w---1-1-1-

-w-w--

-/0--/0--

--

---

_gWh_
kwh_ _kwh_ k'w-

_kwh_
k'w.

_k'w. G-Gqh_ _qh_ q'q'w_ _q'w. !,!_ _!,!_ !,!'-!,!'-

_k'w. gh_ _gh_ kh_kh_

-gw/Ukw/u-kw/uk'w/u-k'w/uG-Gq-qq'-q'q'W/U-q'W/U--

kw_
_kw_ k'w.

_k'w_

k-k(k)k-kk--

----

----

--J:!-J:!1-1-1-

---

--

--

---

--/-- --\)-

--\)-

-\)1-1-IY-

-1-1-1-

-1-1-

-\)1-1-IY-

-q'-

k'-k'k'w. _k'w. khk'_kh_

-Gq-qq'-

1-1-IY-

-1-

k-

k-

-k(k)k-

k-k(k)k-k(k)-kt-!(-

k-gk-gkh-kh./-g-

-q'q'w.

-kk-k5-51I-5-

r-r-r-

r-

-1r-

-r-r-

-r-r-

r-r-r-

r-r-rY-

r-r-r-

-r-/-r-.-

-r-

_q'w. !,!-!,!!,!'-!,!'-

k-g-

-k'-

48

ALLAN R. BOMHARD

NOSTRAIC,

EURASIAIC

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

49

ProtoNostratic

ProtoIndo-European

ProtoKartyelian

ProtoAfrasian

ProtoNostratic

ProtoUralic

ProtoDrayidian

ProtoAltaic'

ProtoEskimo

i ;J u

i,
, ,;)

,
, , ';)

i , i u

i i, U u

i ;J u

i ,

i u

1,i ){?) , , 0,6

i ;J u i u

iy ;Jy

',

, 1, , 1

, , ', 1 ', 1, 1

iy, i , i ,l , i , i , i

iy iy,

iy ;Jy

iy,i , ,

iy,I , , , , ii ,

' ;Jy iy

, ', , 1

, , ', i , ', 1

iw ;JW uw ew aw ow

ii,uw,ii ew, aw, iiw, ii u,o,iiw,ow,ii ew,uw,ii ow,iiw,ii , ow,iiw,ii

iw,u ew, UW,U ew, U aw, U OW,U

iw iw,uw uw ew aw ow

iw ;JW
UW

iw ew
UW, U

iv, i , , , , v,

' ;Jy \

ew aw ow

ew aW,aw OW,O

.Note: he developments ofthe sequences .iy, .~y, .. ., -, ., .iw. .~W. .w, .ew, .aw, .ow in Proto-Altaic are unclear.