DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation / Doctoral Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation / Doctoral Thesis DISSERTATION / DOCTORAL THESIS Titel der Dissertation /Title of the Doctoral Thesis „Kinship and Affinity in Indo-European: Universal, Inherited, Contact, and Area Specific Features of Indo-European Kinship Terms (with a Special Focus on the Iranian Branch)“ verfasst von / submitted by Veronika Milanova, MA angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doktorin der Philosophie (Dr.phil.) Wien, 2020 / Vienna 2020 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / UA 792 327 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt / Sprachwissenschaft field of study as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Melanie Malzahn, Privatdoz. 2 Acknowledgements This dissertation is the fruit of almost six years of hard but absorbing work with ever-surprising results. The research has mostly been carried out at the University of Vienna. However, it also profited much from courses of the Leiden Summer School of Linguistics (2016), of the summer school “Roots of Europe” (2017, Copenhagen), Pavia International Summer School for Indo- European Linguistics (2017), and a research-study stay at Mondes Iranien et Indien (Paris 2019). It is not a simple task to give a full list of people to whom I should express my gratitude. I am greatly indebted to my supervisor, Professor Melanie Malzahn, for her invaluable advice and support, the right proportion of control and freedom of self-expression, endless patience and optimism throughout all these years. Further, this research would not be possible without the Doc- Stipendium of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW) that gave me a great chance to concentrate on my work, take part in international conferences and summer schools. I am also very thankful to all senior colleagues who have educated and consulted me, first of all, professors and lecturers of the University of Vienna (Heiner Eichner, Hans Christian Luschützky, Stefan Schumacher, Martin Peters, Michael Jursa, Karlheinz Mörth, Florian Schwarz, Velizar Sadovski, Stephan Prochazka, and Gebhard Selz). Professor Chlodwig H. Werba (1955–2019), who trained me in Vedic Sanskrit, Old Persian, and Avestan and was eager to see my dissertation ready, will always have a special place in my memory. I would also like to express my gratitude to Profs. Agnes Korn (CNRS, Paris) and Georges-Jean Pinault (EPHE, Paris), and the Fondation Colette Caillat represented by Prof. Nalini Balbir, who organised my research-study stay in Paris in 2019. I am thankful to Profs. James P. Mallory (Queen's University Belfast), Birgit A. Olsen (University of Copenhagen, and Vladimir B. Ivanov (Moscow State University) for giving me advice at the final stages of my work. And I should mention Rimma V. Zhuchaeva and Elena B. Gusynina, professors from the Izhevsk State University, who were the first to introduce me into historical linguistics as I studied there. I would also like to thank the junior colleagues whom I was happy to meet in Vienna and other Universities. Most innovative aspects of this research (in particular, contact and areal studies of kinship terms) were formulated due to collaboration and exchange of ideas with my co-authors and co-applicants, first of all, Sampsa Holopainen (University of Helsinki) and Jeremy Bradley (University of Vienna) but also with András Czentnár (Eötvös Loránd University Budapest) and Terhi Honkola (University of Turku, University of Bristol). Without them this dissertation would not have acquired its unique features. Special thanks to Jeremy for linguistic revision of the text. I am much indebted to Hannes Fellner and Laura Grestenberger (University of Vienna) for their intellectual and moral support in the last year of my work and Stefan Höfler, who was a good example for me how work on a PhD thesis should be done and how one should write an application for a prae-doc scholarship. Other young colleagues that I should mention are Georgios Kostopoulos, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen, and Julian Kreidl, who consulted me on 3 questions pertaining to the Ancient and Modern Greek kinship terminology, Germanic kinship terminologies, and historical phonology of Pashto and Afghan Persian respectively. Finally, I should also express my gratitude to my family and friends back in Russia and in Austria (especially, Behrooz, Armin, and Hadi) for everything that they did to support and motivate me. Veronika Milanova (24.09.2020 Mauerbach) 4 Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 3 ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 11 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 13 0: 1. MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN ANCIENT IE SOCIETIES ........................................................................ 13 0: 2. PIE AND IE KINSHIP TERMS: HISTORY OF RESEARCH AND SOURCES ............................................................ 15 0: 3. THE AIM, TASKS, METHODOLOGY, AND STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ............................................................ 17 CHAPTER I. WHAT KINSHIP TERMS ARE AND WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT TELL US: METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS ........................................................................ 19 I: 1. KINSHIP AS A PHENOMENON OF HUMAN LIFE AND A SUBFIELD OF SOCIO-CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ................. 19 I: 1.1. Concise overview of Kinship Studies. Notions and authors relevant for the present research 19 I: 1.1.1. Basic notions of typological studies of kinship ................................................................................. 19 I: 1.1.1.1. Kinship and descent ................................................................................................................. 20 I: 1.1.1.2. Family and residence rules ....................................................................................................... 20 I: 1.1.1.3. Kinship and relatives ................................................................................................................ 21 I: 1.1.2. Older typological studies of kinship (evolutionism) and their historical background ...................... 22 I: 1.1.2.1. “Die Naturwissenschaft von Menschen” .................................................................................. 22 I: 1.1.2.2. Matriarchy myth and its critique .............................................................................................. 24 I: 1.1.3. Early cultural critique of evolutionism ............................................................................................. 25 I: 1.1.3.1. Critique of Morgan’s classificatory systems by Kroeber ........................................................... 26 I: 1.1.4. Reanalysis of kinship systems ........................................................................................................... 27 I: 1.1.5. Cultural critique on the (typological) studies of kinship in the 1970–80s ........................................ 29 I: 1.1.6. (Semi-)typological / (semi-)formal and cultural studies of kinship of recent decades ..................... 31 I: 1.1.6.1. Inevitability of research bias .................................................................................................... 32 I: 1.1.6.2. Morgan and Murdock revisited ................................................................................................ 33 I: 1.1.6.3. “Descriptive” vs. “classificatory” revisited ............................................................................... 35 I: 1.2. Studies of areal kinship patterns as a diplomatic solution between typological and cultural studies of kinship (old and yet innovative approach) ............................................................................. 37 I: 1.2.1. Areal / contact studies of cultural and linguistic features ................................................................ 37 I: 1.2.2. Areal / contact studies of kinship patterns ...................................................................................... 39 I: 1.2.3. Actual and potential developments of areal / contact kinship studies ............................................ 42 I: 1.2.4. Kinship terms and terminologies in Central Eurasia ......................................................................... 43 I: 2. KINSHIP TERMS AS A PART OF THE LEXICAL REPERTOIRE OF NATURAL LANGUAGES .......................................... 45 I: 2.1. Arbitrary relationship between kinship terms and social conditions ...................................... 45 I: 2.1.1. Linguistic worldview and linguistic relativity (older research) .......................................................... 45 I: 2.1.2. Cognitive models of the world, conceptual / semantic systems (recent research) .......................... 46 I: 2.1.3. Kinship terms as a part of high-context communication .................................................................. 48 I: 2.2. Kinship terms and universal lexicon ...................................................................................... 51 5 I: 2.2.1. Basic kinship terms and borrowability ............................................................................................. 51 I: 2.2.2. Basic categories
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philological Sciences. Linguistics” / Journal of Language Relationship Issue 3 (2010)
    Российский государственный гуманитарный университет Russian State University for the Humanities RGGU BULLETIN № 5/10 Scientific Journal Series “Philological Sciences. Linguistics” / Journal of Language Relationship Issue 3 (2010) Moscow 2010 ВЕСТНИК РГГУ № 5/10 Научный журнал Серия «Филологические науки. Языкознание» / «Вопросы языкового родства» Выпуск 3 (2010) Москва 2010 УДК 81(05) ББК 81я5 Главный редактор Е.И. Пивовар Заместитель главного редактора Д.П. Бак Ответственный секретарь Б.Г. Власов Главный художник В.В. Сурков Редакционный совет серии «Филологические науки. Языкознание» / «Вопросы языкового родства» Председатель Вяч. Вс. Иванов (Москва – Лос-Анджелес) М. Е. Алексеев (Москва) В. Блажек (Брно) У. Бэкстер (Анн Арбор) В. Ф. Выдрин (Санкт-Петербург) М. Гелл-Манн (Санта Фе) А. Б. Долгопольский (Хайфа) Ф. Кортландт (Лейден) А. Лубоцкий (Лейден) Редакционная коллегия серии: В. А. Дыбо (главный редактор) Г. С. Старостин (заместитель главного редактора) Т. А. Михайлова (ответственный секретарь) К. В. Бабаев С. Г. Болотов А. В. Дыбо О. А. Мудрак В. Е. Чернов ISSN 1998-6769 © Российский государственный гуманитарный университет, 2010 УДК 81(05) ББК 81я5 Вопросы языкового родства: Международный научный журнал / Рос. гос. гуманитар. ун-т; Рос. Акад. наук. Ин-т языкознания; под ред. В. А. Дыбо. ― М., 2010. ― № 3. ― X + 176 с. ― (Вестник РГГУ: Научный журнал; Серия «Филологические науки. Языко- знание»; № 05/10). Journal of Language Relationship: International Scientific Periodical / Russian State Uni- versity for the Humanities; Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics; Ed. by V. A. Dybo. ― Moscow, 2010. ― Nº 3. ― X + 176 p. ― (RSUH Bulletin: Scientific Periodical; Linguistics Series; Nº 05/10). ISSN 1998-6769 http ://journal.nostratic.ru [email protected] Дополнительные знаки: С.
    [Show full text]
  • Tocharian Studies
    Tocharian Studies Works 1 This book was kindly reviewed by Ronald Kim & Melanie Malzahn Václav Blažek Tocharian Studies Works 1 Edited by Michal Schwarz Masaryk University Brno 2011 IV This book was published under patronage of the Centre for the Interdiscipli- nar Research of Ancient Languages and Older Stages of Modern Languages (project code: MSM 0021622435) at Masaryk University in Brno and thanks to the grants GAAV No. IAA901640805 & MUNI/21/BLA/2011. All articles are reprinted with kind permission from following journals (in alphabetical order): Archív orientální Historische Sprachforschung Indogermanische Forschungen Journal of Indo-European Studies Lingua Posnaniensis Linguistica Baltica Linguistica Brunensia Tocharian and Indo-European Studies © 2011 Václav Blažek © 2011 Masarykova univerzita ISBN 978-80-210-7645-7 (online : pdf) ISBN 978-80-210-5600-8 (brožovaná vazba) ISBN 978-80-210-5599-5 (Box Set) DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-5600-2011 V Content Preface (Melanie Malzahn) VIII Introduction and Plan of the Works of Václav Blažek X Chronological list of all Tocharian articles of Václav Blažek XII with editorial notes I. Etymology 1 Tocharian Linguistics During the Last 25 Years. Archív Ori- 2 entální 56 (1988), 77-81. Slavic-Tocharian Isoglosses I. Sl. *kъpъ : Toch. *kwip- 10 “shame”. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 5 (1991), 123-128. Slavic-Tocharian Isoglosses II. Sl. *čьlnъ : Toch. *kolmo- 15 “ship”. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 5 (1991), 129- 133. Slavic-Tocharian Isoglosses III. Linguistica Baltica 4 (1995), 19 233-238. Tocharian-Anatolian isoglosses (1-4). Tocharian and Indo-Eu- 25 ropean Studies 7 (1997), 229-233. It is possible to restore Tocharian A ku//// “nave, hub”? Tocha- 30 rian and Indo-European Studies 7 (1997), 234-235.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical Matches Between Sumerian and Hurro-Urartian: Possible Historical Scenarios
    Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2014:4 <http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2014/cdlj2014_4.html> © Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative ISSN 1540-8779 Version: 3 December 2014 Lexical Matches between Sumerian and Hurro-Urartian: Possible Historical Scenarios Alexei Kassian Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Th e paper deals with lexical matches between two ancient Near Eastern languages: Sumerian and Hurrian (Hurro-Urartian); namely, several basic terms (like ‘hand,’ ‘rain,’ etc.), that demonstrate phonetical similarities in both languages, are discussed. Four possible scenarios are evaluated from the typological, etymological and statistical points of view: (1) chance coincidences; (2) lexi- cal borrowings from Sumerian into Hurro-Urartian or vice versa; (3) genetic relationship between Sumerian and Hurro-Urartian; (4) prehistoric language shift : adoption by a Hurro-Urartian (or closely related) group of the Sumerian language or vice versa. Out of these four, two scenarios—lexical borrowings and genetic relationship—are typologically unlikely. Th e statistical probability of chance coincidences is low, although formally this explanation cannot be excluded. Th e fourth scenario—language shift —fi ts linguistic evidence and does not contradict archaeological data. Keywords: Hurrian, Sumerian, Ancient Near East, language contacts, language shift , loanwords, lexicostatistics §1. Introduction a language of the Urartian empire (present-day Armenia §1.1. Th e languages and neighboring areas).2 For the preliterate period, it is §1.1.1. Sumerian is a language spoken in southern Mes- natural to associate the HU people with the Kura-Araxes opotamia (modern Iraq). Its earliest cuneiform attesta- (Early Trans-Caucasian) archaeological culture (Kassian tions date from the late 4th or early 3rd millennium BC, 2010: 423-428 with further references).
    [Show full text]
  • Proto-Indo-Europeans: the Prologue
    Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Prologue Alexander Kozintsev Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Saint-Petersburg and Saint-Petersburg State University, Russia This study collates linguistic, genetic, and archaeological data relevant to the problem of the IE homeland and proto-IE (PIE) migrations. The idea of a proto-Anatolian (PA) migration from the steppe to Anatolia via the Balkans is refuted by linguistic, archaeological, and genetic facts, whereas the alternative scenario, postulating the Indo-Uralic homeland in the area east of the Caspian Sea, is the most plausible. The divergence between proto-Uralians and PIEs is mirrored by the cultural dichotomy between Kelteminar and the early farming societies in southern Turkmenia and northern Iran. From their first homeland the early PIEs moved to their second homeland in the Near East, where early PIE split into PA and late PIE. Three migration routes from the Near East to the steppe across the Caucasus can be tentatively reconstructed — two early (Khvalynsk and Darkveti-Meshoko), and one later (Maykop). The early eastern route (Khvalynsk), supported mostly by genetic data, may have been taken by Indo-Hittites. The western and the central routes (Darkveti-Meshoko and Maykop), while agreeing with archaeological and linguistic evidence, suggest that late PIE could have been adopted by the steppe people without biological admixture. After that, the steppe became the third and last PIE homeland, from whence all filial IE dialects except Anatolian spread in various directions, one of them being to the Balkans and eventually to Anatolia and the southern Caucasus, thus closing the circle of counterclockwise IE migrations around the Black Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Kalyan, François, Hammarström
    Journal of Historical Linguistics SPECIAL ISSUE Understanding language genealogy Alternatives to the tree model volume 9 number 1 2019 John Benjamins Publishing Company Journal of Historical Linguistics volume 9 number 1 2019 General Editor Review Editor Silvia Luraghi Eugenio R. Luján University of Pavia University of Madrid Complutense Associate Editors Michela Cennamo Heiko Narrog University of Naples Tohoku University Gunther De Vogelaer Sarah G. Thomason Universität Münster University of Michigan Eitan Grossman Hebrew University of Jerusalem Consulting Editor Joseph C. Salmons University of Wisconsin Editorial Assistant Hope Wilson The Ohio State University John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia Journal of Historical Linguistics Founding Editors Silvia Luraghi Jóhanna Barðdal University of Pavia Ghent University Eugenio R. Luján University of Madrid Complutense Advisory Board Claire Bowern Harold Koch Yale University Australian National University Concepción Company Company Leonid Kulikov Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ghent University Wolfgang U. Dressler Rosemarie Lühr Austrian Academy of Sciences University of Jena Thórhallur Eythórsson Marianne Mithun University of Iceland University of California, Santa Barbara Jan Terje Faarlund Geoffrey S. Nathan University of Oslo Wayne State University Elly van Gelderen Muriel Norde Arizona State University Humboldt-Universtät zu Berlin Dag T. Haug John Charles Smith University of Oslo University of Oxford Bernd Heine Elizabeth Closs Traugott University of Cologne Stanford University Willem Hollmann Ans van Kemenade Lancaster University Radboud University, Nijmegen Paul J. Hopper Margaret E. Winters Carnegie Mellon University Wayne State University Ritsuko Kikusawa National Museum of Ethnology, Japan special issue Understanding language genealogy Alternatives to the tree model Edited by Siva ,alyan, Alexandre François and Harald Hammarström Australian National University / LaTTiCe, CNRS, École Normale Supérieure, Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Save the Trees: Why We Need Tree Models in Linguistic Reconstrution (And When We Should Apply Them)
    Paper has been accepted for Publication in the Journal of Historical Linguistics. When referring to it before it has officially appeared, please quote as: Jacques, G. and List. J.-M. (2018): Save the trees: Why we need tree models in linguistic reconstrution (and when we should apply them). Journal of Historical Linguistics. Save the Trees: Why We Need Tree Models in Linguistic Reconstruction (and When We Should Apply Them)* Guillaume Jacques and Johann-Mattis List February 26, 2018 Skepticism against the tree model has a long tradition in historical linguistics. Although scholars have emphasized that the tree model and its long-standing counterpart, the wave theory, are not necessarily incompatible, the opinion that family trees are unrealistic and should be completely abandoned from historical linguistics has always enjoyed a certain popularity. This skepticism has further increased with recently proposed techniques for data visualization which seem to confirm that we can study language history without trees. We show that the concrete arguments brought up in favor of anachronistic wave models do not hold. In comparing the phenomenon of incomplete lineage sorting in biology with processes in linguistics, we show that data which does not seem to be resolvable in trees may well be explained without turning to diffusion as an explanation. At the same time, methodological limits in historical reconstruction may easily lead to an overestimation of regularity, which may in turn surface as conflicting patterns when trying to reconstruct a coherent phylogeny. We illustrate how trees can benefit language comparison in several examples, but we also point to their drawbacks in modeling mixed languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen
    FINNISCH-UGRISCHE FORSCHUNGEN Zeitschrift für finnisch-ugrische Sprach- und Volkskunde Unter Mitwirkung von Fachgenossen herausgegeben von Sirkka Saarinen Tapani Lehtinen Johanna Laakso Ulla-Maija Forsberg Anna-Leena Siikala Band 61 Heft 1–3 Helsinki 2012 Redaktion der Zeitschrift fuf61�indd 1 30�12�2012 15:51:33 Chefredakteurin Sirkka Saarinen Redaktionssekretärin Anna Kurvinen Deutsche Redaktion Gabriele Schrey-Vasara Layout Anna Kurvinen Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Alho Alhoniemi, Raimo Anttila, Hans-Hermann Bartens, Michael Branch, Kaisa Häkkinen, László Honti, Juha Janhunen, László Keresztes, Jorma Koivulehto, Lars-Gunnar Larsson, Ilse Lehiste †, Ildikó Lehtinen, József Liszka, Pekka Sammallahti, Seppo Suhonen †, Ülo Valk, Vilmos Voigt ISSN 0355-1253 ISBN 978-952-5667-41-7 Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy Sastamala 2012 fuf61�indd 2 30�12�2012 15:51:33 Inhalt Band 61 – Heft 1–3 Häkkinen, Jaakko After the protolanguage: Invisible convergence, false divergence and boundary shift ����������������������������7 – 28 Blažek, Václav Was there a Volgaic unity within Finno-Ugric? ����������������������������������������������������������������������������29 – 91 Knüppel, Michael Ugrisch und Penuti ��������������������������������������������92 – 109 Kutscher, Silvia Emotionsverben im Estnischen: Konstruktionsvarianz und Kausalstruktur �����������������������������������110 – 134 Besprechungen Salminen, Esa-Jussi Ein grundlegendes Werk zur Deklination im Udmurtischen (Н� В� Кондратьева: Категория падежа имени существительного в удмуртском языке) ����������������������������������������������������������������������135
    [Show full text]
  • Save the Trees
    Author copy of: Jacques, Guillaume and List, Johann-Mattis (2019): Save the trees. Why we needAuthors tree modelsmanuscript. in historical This article linguistics will appear (and whenin the we Journal should of applyHistorical them). Linguistics Journal ofin 2018, HistoricalVolume Linguistics.8. Issue and 9.1. page 128-166. number DOI: so far https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.17008.mat unknown. Save the Trees: Why We Need Tree Models in Linguistic Reconstruction (and When We Should Apply Them) Guillaume Jacques¹ and Johann-Mattis List²* ¹Centre des Recherchers Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale, Paris ²Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, *corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Skepticism against the tree model has a long tradition in historical linguistics. Although scholars have emphasized that the tree model and its long-standing counterpart, the wave theory, are not necessarily incompatible, the opinion that family trees are unrealistic and should be completely abandoned from historical linguistics has always enjoyed a certain popularity. This skepticism has further increased with recently proposed techniques for data visualization which seem to confirm that we can study language history without trees. We show that the concrete arguments brought up in favor of anachronistic wave models do not hold. In comparing the phenomenon of incomplete lineage sorting in biology with processes in linguistics, we show that data which does not seem to be resolvable in trees may well be explained without turning to diffusion as an explanation. At the same time, methodological limits in historical reconstruction may easily lead to an overestimation of regularity, which may in turn surface as conflicting patterns when trying to reconstruct a coherent phylogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Arvord, Språkfamiljer Och Metoder
    Arvord, språkfamiljer och metoder Rune Westerlund Språksläktskap Språkförändring Språklagar Komparativ språkhistorieforskning Arvord, lånord Rekonstruktion av tidigare stadier Glottokronologi (lexikostatistik) Språkträd Vågteorin för några uralspråk (ugriska och finska språk) syd- central- öst- nenets enets nganasan selkup kväniska meänkieli SAMISKA SAMOJEDSPRÅK finska ingermanl. URALISKA olonets. karelska mansi liviska östersjö- UGRISKA chanit votiska finska ungerska vepsiska volgafinska permiska estniska mari mordvisn. moksja erza udmurt. komi ©Rune Westerlund Räkneorden 1–3 i några indoeuropeiska ”tidiga” språk *oynos *duwo: *treyes PE *ainaz *twai *thrijiz (protogermanska) u:nus duo tre:s (latin) oinos dvai treis (keltiska) hei:s dúo: trei:s (klassisk grekiska) se wi trai (tokhariska B) ai:ns dwa:i trijan (preussiska; baltiskt språk) jedinu diva trije (kyrkslaviska) éka dvá trí (sanskrit) ek dui tin (nepali) Den germanska ljudskridningen Bl.a. blir indoeuropeiska tonlösa klusiler tonlösa frikativor. lat. OE engelska ON svenska mod. fr. pf ped- fot foot fot- [fu:t] pied dt tþ [θ] tri- þri- three þri- [tre:] trois kh cord- heorte heart hjarta [jæʈ:a] cœur [k-] [k-] Hur blev *kannabiz hampa? Grimms lag kh, bp; Verners lag /n/ före /p/ /m/ (urgermanska) *hannapa hænep hennep hanef hampr (anglosax.) (medellågty.) (medelhögty.) (fornisl.) hemp hennep Hanf hampa eng. nederl. ty. sv. Exempel på förändringar i Luleå med omnejd under de senaste 60 åren (i sht hos den manliga befolkningen). Fonetiskt: långt/kort /e/ före /r/ eller andra retroflexer
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Tocharian
    Ústav srovnávací jazykovědy Univerzita Karlova 19-23 listopadu 2012 Introduction to Tocharian Ronald I. Kim Adam Mickiewicz University [email protected] 1. Introduction 1.1. Historical background and external history 1.1.1. Discovery and documentation TOCHARIAN is the conventional name for two related, extinct Indo-European (IE) languages known from documents found in the oases of the Tarim River basin north of the Taklamakan desert in Xinjiang (Chinese Turkestan). general term German alternatives obsolete (see below) Tocharian A (TA) Osttocharisch (East Tocharian) Turfanian Tocharian B (TB) Westtocharisch (West Tocharian) Kuchean A few Tocharian manuscripts were acquired by the Russian consuls Berezovskij and Petrovskij in Kašgar already in the 1890s, but the great bulk were uncovered by archaeological “missions” to Xinjiang in the years preceding World War I, led by • Britain: Sir Aurel Stein • Germany (Prussia): Albert von le Coq • France: Paul Pelliot • Japan: Count Ōtani Kōzui In addition to a wealth of Middle Iranian documents, the expeditions brought back others in unknown languages, written in the “slanting” Brāhmī script of Central Asia. In 1908, the German philologists Emil Sieg and Wilhelm Siegling conclusively identified them as non-Indo- Iranian IE languages, which they labeled “Indo-Scythian”; they also succeeded in distinguishing TA and TB. These Western missions to China ceased with the outbreak of the war; other than Langdon Warner of Harvard University (U.S.), who led an expedition in the early 1920s, no Western scholars
    [Show full text]
  • Скачать № 5 (106), 2013 (Pdf)
    Российский государственный гуманитарный университет Russian State University for the Humanities RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN № 5(106) Academic Journal Series: Philology. Linguistic Studies. Journal of Language Relationship Issue 9 (2013) Moscow 2013 ВЕСТНИК РГГУ № 5(106) Научный журнал Серия «Филологические науки. Языкознание» / «Вопросы языкового родства» Выпуск 9 (2013) Москва 2013 УДК 81(05) ББК 81я5 Главный редактор Е.И. Пивовар Ответственный секретарь Б.Г. Власов Редакционный совет серии «Филологические науки. Языкознание» / «Вопросы языкового родства» Председатель Вяч. Вс. Иванов (Москва – Лос-Анджелес) Х. Айхнер (Вена) М. Е. Алексеев (Москва) В. Блажек (Брно) У. Бэкстер (Анн Арбор) В. Ф. Выдрин (Санкт-Петербург) М. Гелл-Манн (Санта Фе) Ф. Кортландт (Лейден) А. Лубоцкий (Лейден) Л. Хайман (Лос-Анжелес) Редакционная коллегия серии: В. А. Дыбо (главный редактор) Г. С. Старостин (заместитель главного редактора) Т. А. Михайлова (ответственный секретарь) К. В. Бабаев А. В. Дыбо А. С. Касьян С. В. Кулланда И. С. Якубович ISSN 1998-6769 © Российский государственный гуманитарный университет, 2013 УДК 81(05) ББК 81я5 Вопросы языкового родства: Международный научный журнал / Рос. гос. гуманитар. ун-т; Рос. акад. наук. Ин-т языкознания; под ред. В. А. Дыбо. ― М., 2013. ― № 9. ― xii + 166 с. ― (Вестник РГГУ: Научный журнал; Серия «Филологические науки. Язы- кознание»; № 5(106)). Journal of Language Relationship: International Scientific Periodical / Russian State Uni- versity for the Humanities; Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics; Ed. by V. A. Dybo. ― Moscow, 2013. ― No. 9. ― xii + 166 p. ― (RSUH Bulletin: Scientific Peri- odical; Linguistics Series; No. 5(106)). ISSN 1998-6769 http://www.jolr.ru/ [email protected] Дополнительные знаки: С. Г. Болотов Add-on symbols by S.
    [Show full text]
  • Obituary SERGEI ANATOLYEVICH STAROSTIN (March 24, 1953 - September 30, 2005)
    Obituary SERGEI ANATOLYEVICH STAROSTIN (March 24, 1953 - September 30, 2005) John D. Bengtson and Václav Blažek On the last day of September 2005 the shocking news bulletin flew round the web: Sergei Starostin has died! Everybody who knew him was paralyzed. After a collective 37 (20+17) years of strong friendship, the authors of this obituary cannot keep any impersonal distance from this great scholar and still greater man. For an objective evaluation it is necessary to know his life and work. Sergei Starostin was born on March 24, 1953, in Moscow. In 1970, when he was seventeen, he began his studies at the Department of Structural and Applied Linguistics of the Faculty of Philology of the Moscow State University. One of his best-known teachers of that time was A. A. Zaliznjak. At the same time he worked intensively with the Japanese research group. At this time he also began to participate in the so-called ‘Nostratic Seminar’, led by Aron Dolgopol’skij and Vladimir Dybo, once the closest collaborators with V. M. Illiç- Svityç. In this time a strong generation of comparativists in various fields was nurtured here. Besides Starostin these included, for example, Ilya Peiros, specialist in Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic languages, and frequent co-author with Starostin, Evgenij Xelimskij [Eugene Helimski], specialist in Uralic and Slavic languages, Olga Stolbova, specialist in Afroasiatic, and especially in Chadic languages. In 1975 Starostin finished his undergraduate university study. He continued with postgraduate study at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow, and after three years he found employment there.
    [Show full text]