DOCSLIB.ORG

Analytical Contents 1. History of Recognition of the Altaic Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

5 Analytical Contents 0. Preface ...................................................................9 1. History of recognition of the Altaic languages ................................15 1.1. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Turkic languages ..........15 1.1.1. Beginning of description of the Turkic languages . .15 1.1.2. The beginning of Turkic comparative studies ...........................21 1.1.3. Old Turkic language and script – discovery and development of research .....22 1.1.4. Turkic etymological dictionaries .....................................23 1.1.5. Turkic comparative grammars .......................................24 1.1.6. Syntheses of grammatical descriptions of the Turkic languages .............25 1.2. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Mongolic languages . 28 1.2.0. Bibliographic survey of Mongolic linguistics ...........................28 1.2.1. Beginning of description of the Mongolic languages .....................28 1.2.2. Standard Mongolic grammars and dictionaries ..........................31 1.2.3. Mongolic comparative and etymological dictionaries .....................32 1.2.4. Mongolic comparative grammars and grammatical syntheses...............32 1.3. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Tungusic languages ........33 1.3.0. Bibliographic survey of the Tungusic linguistics.........................33 1.3.1. Beginning of description of the Tungusic languages ......................34 1.3.2. Standard descriptions of the Tungusic languages. ........................35 1.3.3. Tungusic comparative grammars and dictionaries. .......................35 1.4. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Korean language ..........35 1.4.1. First descriptions of Korean lexicon and grammar . .35 1.4.2. Korean-Japanese comparisons .......................................36 1.4.3. Korean within Altaic ..............................................36 1.5. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Japonic languages .........37 1.5.1. First Japanese lexicons.............................................37 1.5.2. Early European and American lexicons and grammars of Japanese ..........38 1.5.3. Description of Ryukyuan ...........................................38 1.5.4. Historical phonology and internal reconstruction of Japanese...............39 1.5.5. Relic Japonic traces in the Korean Peninsula............................39 1.5.6. Japanese-Korean comparisons .......................................39 1.5.7. Japanese within Altaic .............................................40 1.6. Formulation of the Altaic hypothesis ......................................41 1.6.0. Bibliographic survey of Altaic linguistics ..............................41 1.6.1. Early period – 17–19th century ......................................41 6 1.6.2. First classic generations – optimists...................................43 1.6.3. First classic generation – skeptics ....................................46 1.6.4. Second optimistic generation ........................................48 1.6.5. Second skeptic generation ..........................................48 1.6.6. First realistic generation............................................51 1.6.7. Second realistic generation..........................................52 1.6.8. Third generation – realistic optimists..................................53 2. Distribution and demography of the living languages ..........................55 2.1. Turkic languages – survey ...............................................55 2.2. Mongolic languages – survey . .68 2.3. Tungusic languages – survey ............................................72 2.4. Korean language – survey ...............................................77 2.5. Japonic languages – survey ..............................................78 3. Models of classification of the Altaic languages ..............................80 3.1. Classification of the Turkic languages .....................................80 3.2. Classification of the Mongolic languages ...................................91 3.3. Classifications of the Tungusic languages.................................. 106 3.4./5. Koreanic & Japonic classification ......................................117 3.6. Altaic classification ...................................................120 4. Etymological analyses of the main ethnonyms or choronyms .................124 4.1. Ethnonym Türk ......................................................124 4.1.1. Primary sources .................................................124 4.1.2. Etymology .....................................................133 4.2. Ethnonym Mongol ...................................................139 4.2.1. Primary sources .................................................139 4.2.2. Etymology .....................................................142 4.3. Ethnonym Tungus ....................................................146 4.3.1. Early attestation .................................................146 4.3.2. Etymology .....................................................146 4.4.1. Choronym Korea ................................................148 4.4.2. Choronym Joseon................................................149 4.5.1. Choronym Japan.................................................151 4.5.2. Ethnonym Wo...................................................152 5. Sketch of the comparative phonetics of the Altaic family ......................156 5.1. Survey of the Turkic comparative phonetics ................................156 7 5.2. Survey of the Mongolic comparative phonetics . .161 5.3. Survey of the Tungusic comparative phonetics .............................165 5.3.1. Correspondences among consonants in the Tungusic languages............165 5.3.2. Corespondences among the consonant clusters in the Tungusic languages....167 5.3.3. Correspondences among vowels in the Tungusic languages ...............168 5.4. Comparison between the Altaic branches ..................................169 5.4.1. System of Gombocz, Ramstedt and Poppe ............................169 5.4.2. System of Illič-Svityč and Cincius...................................171 5.4.3. System of Starostin and his followers ................................173 5.4.4. System of Robbeets ..............................................180 6. Nominal case system in the Altaic languages ...............................182 6.1. Nominal case system in the Turkic languages ..............................182 6.1.1. Nominal case system in the Bulgar-Čuvaš languages ....................182 6.1.2. Nominal case system in the Oghuz languages .........................182 6.1.3. Nominal case system in the Kypčak languages .........................183 6.1.4. Nominal case system in the Karluk languages . .183 6.1.5. Nominal case system in the South Siberian Turkic languages . .184 6.1.6. Nominal case system in the North Siberian Turkic languages . .184 6.1.7. Nominal case system of the reconstructed Turkic protolanguage ...........185 6.2. Nominal case system in the Mongolic languages ...........................185 6.3. Nominal case system in the Tungusic languages ............................187 6.4. Nominal case system in Late Middle Korean ..............................187 6.5. Nominal case system of Old Japanese ....................................188 6.6. Altaic protolanguage system of nominal cases ..............................188 7. Altaic pronominal system .................................................189 7.1. Personal pronouns in the Altaic languages . .189 7.1.1. Personal pronouns of the Turkic languages ............................189 7.1.2. Personal pronouns of the Mongolic languages..........................197 7.1.3. Personal pronouns of the Tungusic languages .........................200 7.1.4. Personal pronouns in Korean .......................................203 7.1.5. Personal pronouns in Old Japanese and Ryukyu dialects (without the number distinction)....................................204 7.1.6. Altaic protolanguage system of personal pronouns ......................205 7.1.7. Survey of partial microsystems of the Indo-European personal pronouns ....207 7.2. Probably inherited Altaic demonstrative pronouns ..........................209 7.3. Altaic interrogative pronouns ...........................................210 8 8. Altaic Numerals in etymological perspective ................................215 8.0. Methodological approach ..............................................215 8.1. Turkic Numerals .....................................................216 8.1.1. Survey of forms of the Turkic numerals...............................216 8.1.2. Sources of the Turkic numerals .....................................220 8.1.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Turkic numerals . .220 8.2. Mongolic numerals . .232 8.2.1. Survey of forms of the Mongolic numerals . .232 8.2.2. Sources of the Mongolic numerals...................................233 8.2.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Mongolic numerals.............234 8.2.4. Comments on the Mongolic numerals ................................244 8.3. Tungusic numerals ...................................................245 8.3.1. Survey of forms of the Tungusic numerals ............................245 8.3.2. Sources of the Tungusic numerals ...................................247 8.3.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Tungusic numerals .............248 8.3.4. Comments on the Tungusic numerals ................................257 8.4.
Recommended publications
  • The Mongolic Languages Routledge Language Family Series

    The Mongolic Languages Routledge Language Family Series

    THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES ROUTLEDGE LANGUAGE FAMILY SERIES Each volume provides a detailed, reliable account of every member language, or representative language of a particular family. Each account is a reliable source of data, arranged according to the natural system of classification: phonology, mor- phology, syntax, lexicon, semantics, dialectology and socio-linguistics. Each volume is designed to be the essential source of reference for a particular linguistic commu- nity, as well as for linguists working on typology and syntax. The Austronesian Languages of Asia The Manchu-Tungusic Languages and Madagascar Edited by Alexander Vovin Edited by Nikolaus Himmelmann & The Mongolic Languages Sander Adelaar Edited by Juha Janhunen The Bantu Languages The Oceanic Languages Edited by Derek Nurse & Edited by John Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Gérard Philippson Terry Crowley The Celtic Languages The Romance Languages Edited by Martin Ball & James Fife Edited by Martin Harris & Nigel The Dravidian Languages Vincent Edited by Sanford B. Steever The Semitic Languages The Germanic Languages Edited by Robert Hetzron Edited by Johan van der Anwera & The Sino-Tibetan Languages Ekkehard König Edited by Graham Thurgood & Randy The Indo-Aryan Languages LaPolla Edited by George Cardona & Dhanesh The Slavonic Languages Jain Edited by Bernard Comrie & Greville The Indo-European Languages B. Corbett Edited by Paolo Ramat & Anna The Turkic Languages Giacalone Edited by Lars Johanson & Eva Csato The Iranian Languages The Uralic Languages Edited by Gernot Windfuhr Edited by Daniel Abondolo The Khoesan Languages Edited by Raïner Vossen THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES Edited by Juha Janhunen First published 2003 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
  • Contents Abbreviations of the Names of Languages in the Statistical Maps

    Contents Abbreviations of the Names of Languages in the Statistical Maps

    V Contents Abbreviations of the names of languages in the statistical maps. xiii Abbreviations in the text. xv Foreword 17 1. Introduction: the objectives 19 2. On the theoretical framework of research 23 2.1 On language typology and areal linguistics 23 2.1.1 On the history of language typology 24 2.1.2 On the modern language typology ' 27 2.2 Methodological principles 33 2.2.1 On statistical methods in linguistics 34 2.2.2 The variables 41 2.2.2.1 On the phonological systems of languages 41 2.2.2.2 Techniques in word-formation 43 2.2.2.3 Lexical categories 44 2.2.2.4 Categories in nominal inflection 45 2.2.2.5 Inflection of verbs 47 2.2.2.5.1 Verbal categories 48 2.2.2.5.2 Non-finite verb forms 50 2.2.2.6 Syntactic and morphosyntactic organization 52 2.2.2.6.1 The order in and between the main syntactic constituents 53 2.2.2.6.2 Agreement 54 2.2.2.6.3 Coordination and subordination 55 2.2.2.6.4 Copula 56 2.2.2.6.5 Relative clauses 56 2.2.2.7 Semantics and pragmatics 57 2.2.2.7.1 Negation 58 2.2.2.7.2 Definiteness 59 2.2.2.7.3 Thematic structure of sentences 59 3. On the typology of languages spoken in Europe and North and 61 Central Asia 3.1 The Indo-European languages 61 3.1.1 Indo-Iranian languages 63 3.1.1.1New Indo-Aryan languages 63 3.1.1.1.1 Romany 63 3.1.2 Iranian languages 65 3.1.2.1 South-West Iranian languages 65 3.1.2.1.1 Tajiki 65 3.1.2.2 North-West Iranian languages 68 3.1.2.2.1 Kurdish 68 3.1.2.2.2 Northern Talysh 70 3.1.2.3 South-East Iranian languages 72 3.1.2.3.1 Pashto 72 3.1.2.4 North-East Iranian languages 74 3.1.2.4.1
  • Drastic Demographic Events Triggered the Uralic Spread to Appear in Diachronica

    Drastic Demographic Events Triggered the Uralic Spread to Appear in Diachronica

    Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread To appear in Diachronica Riho Grünthal (University of Helsinki) Volker Heyd (University of Helsinki) Sampsa Holopainen (University of Helsinki) Juha Janhunen (University of Helsinki) Olesya Khanina (Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences) Matti Miestamo (University of Helsinki) Johanna Nichols (University of California, Berkeley; University of Helsinki; Higher School of Economics, Moscow) Janne Saarikivi (University of Helsinki) Kaius Sinnemäki (University of Helsinki) Abstract: The widespread Uralic family offers several advantages for tracing prehistory: a firm absolute chronological anchor point in an ancient contact episode with well-dated Indo-Iranian; other points of intersection or diagnostic non-intersection with early Indo-European (the Late PIE-speaking Yamnaya culture of the western steppe, the Afanasievo culture of the upper Yenisei, and the Fatyanovo culture of the middle Volga); lexical and morphological reconstruction sufficient to establish critical absences of sharings and contacts. We add information on climate, linguistic geography, typology, and cognate frequency distributions to reconstruct the Uralic origin and spread. We argue that the Uralic homeland was east of the Urals and initially out of contact with Indo-European. The spread was rapid and without widespread shared substratal effects. We reconstruct its cause as the interconnected reactions of early Uralic and Indo-European populations to a catastrophic climate change episode and interregionalization opportunities which advantaged riverine hunter-fishers over herders. Keywords Uralic; Finno-Ugric; Indo-European; Yamnaya; Indo-Iranian; Siberia; Eurasia; Seima-Turbino, 4.2 ka event; linguistic homeland Note: In-text references have not yet been fully deanonymized. 2 Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread (Contents, for convenience) Main text (pp.
  • On the Similarities and Differences Between the Mongolic, Tungusic, and Eskimo-Aleut Languages

    On the Similarities and Differences Between the Mongolic, Tungusic, and Eskimo-Aleut Languages

    ON THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MONGOLIC, TUNGUSIC, AND ESKIMO-ALEUT LANGUAGES Shinjiro Kazama Tokyo University of Foreign Studies This paper is an attempt at a contrastive typological analysis of selected struc- tural features of three language families: Mongolic, Tungusic, and Eskimo- Aleut (EskAleutic). While Mongolic and Tungusic, together with Japanese (Japonic) and Korean (Koreanic), are known to share many structural features in the context of the so-called Altaic phenomenon, many of these features are not particularly diagnostic and might even be regarded as coincidental with perhaps the single exception of obviative person marking. This is a feature attested also in Eskimo-Aleut. The present paper offers a somewhat more detailed discussion of this, as well as of other typological similarities and differ- ences between the three language families in the areal context of the North Pacific region. Данная статья является попыткой сопоставительного типологического анализа некоторых особенностей монгольских, тунгусских и эскимосско-алеутских языков. Как известно, монгольские и тунгусские языки, а также японский и корейский языки, имеют немало общих черт в контексте так называемого алтайского феномена, но многие из них не имеют особенно большого диагностического значения и могут быть даже случайными. Исключением является обвиативное лицо, которое встречается и в эскимосско-алеутских языках. Эта черта, а также некоторые другие типлогические совпадения и расхождения между названными группами языков рассматриваются в статье в контексте Северо-Тихоокеанского региона. 1. INTRODUCTION In Kazama (2003) I attempted to contrast typologically three so-called Altaic language groups (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic), together with the Korean and Japanese languages. I endeavoured to contrast these languages in detail, dealing with as many features as possiblе.
  • Origins of the Japanese Languages. a Multidisciplinary Approach”

    Origins of the Japanese Languages. a Multidisciplinary Approach”

    MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master’s Thesis “Origins of the Japanese languages. A multidisciplinary approach” verfasst von / submitted by Patrick Elmer, BA angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2019 / Vienna 2019 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 066 843 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Masterstudium Japanologie UG2002 degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Mag. Dr. Bernhard Seidl Mitbetreut von / Co-Supervisor: Dr. Bernhard Scheid Table of contents List of figures .......................................................................................................................... v List of tables ........................................................................................................................... v Note to the reader..................................................................................................................vi Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research question ................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................
  • Causative/Inchoative Verb Alternation in Altaic Languages: Turkish, Turkmen, Nanai and Mongolian

    Causative/Inchoative Verb Alternation in Altaic Languages: Turkish, Turkmen, Nanai and Mongolian

    International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 10, No. 5; 2020 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Causative/Inchoative Verb Alternation in Altaic Languages: Turkish, Turkmen, Nanai and Mongolian Wenchao Li1 1 Department of Japanese Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China Correspondence: Wenchao Li, Department of Japanese Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. E-mail: [email protected] Received: July 30, 2020 Accepted: September 25, 2020 Online Published: September 29, 2020 doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n5p399 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n5p399 Abstract The purpose of the study is two-fold. First, a statistical analysis of the morphology of causative/inchoative verb alternation is carried out in Japanese and in 13 Altaic languages, i.e., Turkish, Turkmen, Nanai, Khakas, Udihe, Uzbek, Sakha, Manchu, Kyrgyz, Mongolian, Kazakh, Ewen, and Azerbaijani. The findings reveal that causative/inchoative verb alternation (a) can be realised via the insertion of an infix (‘-uul-’, ‘-e-’, ‘-g-’, etc.); (b) can be inchoative root-based, with transitive verbs derived via attaching a suffix to the inchoative verb roots (‘-dur-’, ‘-t-’, ‘-ir-’, ‘-dyr-’, ‘-wəən-’, ‘-buwəən-’, ‘-r-’, ‘-wənə-’, ‘-nar-’, ‘-ier-’, ‘-er-’, ‘-bu-’, ‘-ʊkan-’); (c) can be causative verb-based, with inchoative verbs being derived via attaching a suffix to the causative verb roots (‘-p-’, ‘-n-’, ‘-ul-’, ‘-il-’); and (d) can be realised via consonant alternation (‘-r-’ (transitive) / ‘-n-’ (intransitive); ‘-t-’ (transitive) / ‘-n-’ (intransitive)). This study further attempts to pin down the affiliation of these languages with the Japanese language. It compares the morphological findings with Japanese bound morphemes in causative/inchoative verb alternation and then delves into the phonological issues, i.e., consonant alternation and vowel harmony.
  • Survey of the World's Languages

    Survey of the World's Languages

    Survey of the world’s languages The languages of the world can be divided into a number of families of related languages, possibly grouped into larger stocks, plus a residue of isolates, languages that appear not to be genetically related to any other known languages, languages that form one-member families on their own. The number of families, stocks, and isolates is hotly disputed. The disagreements centre around differences of opinion as to what constitutes a family or stock, as well as the acceptable criteria and methods for establishing them. Linguists are sometimes divided into lumpers and splitters according to whether they lump many languages together into large stocks, or divide them into numerous smaller family groups. Merritt Ruhlen is an extreme lumper: in his classification of the world’s languages (1991) he identifies just nineteen language families or stocks, and five isolates. More towards the splitting end is Ethnologue, the 18th edition of which identifies some 141 top-level genetic groupings. In addition, it distinguishes 1 constructed language, 88 creoles, 137 or 138 deaf sign languages (the figures differ in different places, and this category actually includes alternate sign languages — see also website for Chapter 12), 75 language isolates, 21 mixed languages, 13 pidgins, and 51 unclassified languages. Even so, in terms of what has actually been established by application of the comparative method, the Ethnologue system is wildly lumping! Some families, for instance Austronesian and Indo-European, are well established, and few serious doubts exist as to their genetic unity. Others are quite contentious. Both Ruhlen (1991) and Ethnologue identify an Australian family, although there is as yet no firm evidence that the languages of the continent are all genetically related.
  • Aleksandra Jarosz, Miyako-Ryukyuan and Its Contribution to Linguistic

    Aleksandra Jarosz, Miyako-Ryukyuan and Its Contribution to Linguistic

    Miyako-Ryukyuan and its contribution to linguistic diversity Aleksandra Jarosz (Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan) Abstract The paper provides introductory information on Miyako-Ryukyuan (Miyakoan). Miyakoan belongs to the Sakishima branch of the Japonic language family, the concept of which counterbalances the until-recently prevalent notion that Japan should be a linguistically homogenous country, and Japanese a language isolate with many unintelligible “dialects”. Following the statement that the endangered Miyako- Ryukyuan language is in an urgent need of extensive documentation and in-depth description, as well as producing more works in English devoted to it, the author introduces a few topics that may be of interest to Japanese/ Japonic linguists and language typologists alike: the “apical” vowel, syllabic consonants, focus marking strategies and formal modality markers. Each topic has been exemplified by Miyako- Ryukyuan samples from Nikolay Nevskiy’s Taishō-era handwritten fieldnotes, as retrieved and analyzed by this author. 1 Foreword The goal of this paper is to exemplify the ways in which Miyako-Ryukyuan (or Miyakoan), an endangered language of the southern periphery of Japan, contributes to the linguistic diversity in Japan and worldwide. The concept of Japonic languages – i.e. of the family to which Miyako-Ryukyuan belongs – which interprets the ethnolects of Japan as multiple related languages rather than as Japanese and its dozens of often unintelligible “dialects”, is still relatively new, only gaining popularity in the last ten-fifteen years. Few research results have so far been made available to the English-speaking readers1, and therefore, the topic of Japan’s endangered languages is still often absent from discussions concerning language documentation or linguistic typology.
  • Genomic Insights Into the Formation of Human Populations in East Asia

    Genomic Insights Into the Formation of Human Populations in East Asia

    Article Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03336-2 The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood owing to a lack 1,2 Received: 19 March 2020 of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people . Here we report genome-wide data from 166 East Asian individuals dating to between 6000 bc and Accepted: 5 February 2021 ad 1000 and 46 present-day groups. Hunter-gatherers from Japan, the Amur River Published online: 22 February 2021 Basin, and people of Neolithic and Iron Age Taiwan and the Tibetan Plateau are linked Check for updates by a deeply splitting lineage that probably reflects a coastal migration during the Late Pleistocene epoch. We also follow expansions during the subsequent Holocene epoch from four regions. First, hunter-gatherers from Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by individuals who speak Mongolic and Tungusic languages, but do not carry ancestry characteristic of farmers from the West Liao River region (around 3000 bc), which contradicts theories that the expansion of these farmers spread the Mongolic and Tungusic proto-languages. Second, farmers from the Yellow River Basin (around 3000 bc) probably spread Sino-Tibetan languages, as their ancestry dispersed both to Tibet—where it forms approximately 84% of the gene pool in some groups—and to the Central Plain, where it has contributed around 59–84% to modern Han Chinese groups. Third, people from Taiwan from around 1300 bc to ad 800 derived approximately 75% of their ancestry from a lineage that is widespread in modern individuals who speak Austronesian, Tai–Kadai and Austroasiatic languages, and that we hypothesize derives from farmers of the Yangtze River Valley.
  • Permutation Test Applied to Lexical Reconstructions Partially Supports the Altaic Linguistic Macrofamily

    Permutation Test Applied to Lexical Reconstructions Partially Supports the Altaic Linguistic Macrofamily

    Evolutionary Human Sciences (2021), 3, e32, page 1 of 10 doi:10.1017/ehs.2021.28 RESEARCH ARTICLE Permutation test applied to lexical reconstructions partially supports the Altaic linguistic macrofamily Alexei S. Kassian1* , George Starostin2,3* , Ilya M. Egorov1 , Ekaterina S. Logunova4 and Anna V. Dybo5 1School of Advanced Studies in the Humanities, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia, 2Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, 3Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, USA, 4Institute of Linguistics, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia and 5Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia *Corresponding authors. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]. Abstract In this paper, we present the results of our analysis of the 110-item basic wordlists for four reconstructed and one ancient languages, the linguistic ancestors of five language families which are hypothesized to constitute the Altaic (a.k.a. Transeurasian) macrofamily: Proto-Turkic, Proto-Mongolic, Proto- Tungusic, Middle Korean and Proto-Japonic wordlists. Protolanguage wordlists were reconstructed according to strict criteria of semantic reconstruction, based on accurate semantic glossing of forms in daughter languages. Each involved form was encoded into a bi-consonantal CC-shaped sequence using the consonant class method, after which a recently developed weighted permutation test was applied. In a typical situation, our algorithm makes a small number of type 1 errors (false positive), but the num- ber of type 2 errors (false negative) can be substantial. Our main finding is that pairs between the Nuclear Altaic taxa – Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic – as well as the Turkic-Japonic and Tungusic-Japonic pairs demonstrate significant p-values.
  • Origins of the Verbalizer Affixes in the Japonic Languages

    Origins of the Verbalizer Affixes in the Japonic Languages

    ORIGINS OF THE VERBALIZER AFFIXES IN THE JAPONIC LANGUAGES Tyler Lau Advisors: Claire Bowern and Stephen R. Anderson May 1st, 2012 ABSTRACT The affix that verbalizes adjectives in the Japonic languages is traditionally viewed as deriving from one of two constructions: *ku a(r)-, an adverbializer + existential verb, or *-sa a(r)-, a nominalizer + existential verb (Martin 1987, Bentley 2001, Chamberlain 1895, etc.). However, Izuyama (1997) argues that this view is taken at face value and ignores phonological correspondences with the southern Japonic languages, notably Yaeyama and Yonaguni. She argues instead that the form originates in the completive forms of three or four reconstructed verbs *s(u), *k(u), *i(r ∼s), all meaning ‘to do’. In my work, I gathered comparative morphological and phonological evidence from wordlists, grammars and my own fieldwork with a speaker of Okinawan, to test these hypotheses. However, my findings also lead me to reject Izuyamas reconstruction of *i(r~s) as a valid reconstruction of ‘to do’ or as relevant to the verbalizer affix. Rather, I establish its origins in a Proto-Ryukyuan verb *er- ‘to get,’ descending from Proto-Japanese *e- that grammaticalized to attach to consonant-stem verbs, to create an inchoative or valency-changed class of vowel-stem verbs. I also tentatively reconstruct the verb ‘to do’ as *as-, a transitive form of the verb *ar- ‘to exist.’ In agreement with Izuyama, however, I found that there is ample evidence supporting the hypothesis that the verbalizer affix originates in the completive and/or past form of verbs meaning ‘to do’ and provide both comparative and theoretical evidence for this claim.
  • 1. the Kalmyk Language

    1. the Kalmyk Language

    Seth Cable Field Methods Spring 2016 Ling404 Some Basic Background on the Kalmyk Language 1 1. Genetic Affiliation The Kalmyk language (/χalymg keln/) is the westernmost member of the Mongolic languages. (1) Map of the Mongolic Language Family 2 The internal classifications within Mongolic are controversial, but the following is one proposal Mongolic Dagur Central Southern Moghol Western Central Eastern Northern Oriat, Kalkha (Mongolian), Kharchin Buryat Kalmyk, Ordos, Korchin, … … … 1 The information in this handout is taken from such sources as Knyazev (2015), Bläsing (2003), and the articles “Kalmyk Oriat” and “Kalmyk People” on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/). 2 “Linguistic map of the Mongolic languages” by Maximilian Dörrbecker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolic_languages#/media/File:Linguistic_map_of_the_Mongolic_languages.png 1 Seth Cable Field Methods Spring 2016 Ling404 (2) Some Features of the Mongolic Languages The following are features common in the Mongolic languages; we should therefore be on the look for them in Kalmyk. a. Agglutinative, suffixal morphology Both nouns and verbs can appear with a string of suffixes, with little contextual allomorphy or irregularity. b. Rich case system on nouns. c. Head-Final Word Order Sentences are typically verb-final; the languages have postpositions rather than prepositions; etc. d. Front vowels can be rounded (/y/, /ø/) e. Vowel harmony The vowels of suffixes are subject to phonological rules that make them ‘match’ the vowels of the root. 2. Sociolinguistic Properties (3) Locations Spoken: Principally the Republic of Kalmykia in the Russian Federation 2 Seth Cable Field Methods Spring 2016 Ling404 (4) Dialects Spoken a. Dörbet (spoken mainly in the west) b.