DOCSLIB.ORG

Complete Bibliography (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Complete Bibliography (PDF) COMPLETE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF JOSEPH H. GREENBERG This bibliography follows the format of the bibliography published in On language (item 204, 723-37; with emendations) and the corrected supplemental bibliography in Language 78.560-64 (2002). The asterisked items have translations or reprints listed in the appendix to the bibliography. 1940 1. The decipherment of the Ben-Ali Diary, a preliminary statement. Journal of Negro History 25.372-75. 1941 *2. Some aspects of Negro-Mohammedan culture-contact among the Hausa. American Anthropologist 43.51-61. 3. Some problems in Hausa phonology. Language 17.316-23. 1946 *4. The influence of Islam on a Sudanese religion. New York: J.J. Augustin. Pp. ix, 73. 1947 5. Arabic loan-words in Hausa. Word 3.85-97. 6. Islam and clan organization among the Hausa. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 3.193-211. *7. Swahili prosody. Journal of the American Oriental Society 67.24-30. 1948 8. The classification of African languages. American Anthropologist 50.24-30. *9. Linguistics and ethnology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 4.140-47. 10. The tonal system of Proto-Bantu. Word 4.196-208. 11. Review of H. Courlander & G. Herzog, The Cow-tail Switch and other West African tales. Journal of American Folklore 51.99-100. 1949 *12. Hausa verse prosody. Journal of the American Oriental Society 69.125-35. 13. The logical analysis of kinship. Philosophy of Science 16.58-64. *14. The Negro kingdoms of the Sudan. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II, 11.126-34. *15. Studies in African linguistic classification: I. Introduction, Niger-Congo family. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5.79-100. *16. Studies in African linguistic classification: II. The classification of Fulani. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5.190-98. *17. Studies in African linguistic classification: III. The position of Bantu. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5.309-17. 1 *18. Review of Malcolm Guthrie, The classification of the Bantu languages. Word 5.81-83. 19. Review of Georges Trenga, Le Bura-Mabang du Ouadai. American Anthropologist 51.485-86. 20. Review of Nathan Ausubel, A treasury of Jewish folklore. Journal of American Folklore 62.440-441. 1950 *21. Studies in African linguistic classification: IV. Hamito-Semitic. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6.47-63. *22. Studies in African linguistic classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6.143-60. *23. Studies in African linguistic classification: VI. The Click languages. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6.223-37. *24. Studies in African linguistic classification: VII. Smaller families; index of languages. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6.388-98. 25. Review of L. D. Turner, Africanisms in the Gullah dialect. Journal of American Folklore 63.381-82. 26. Review of M. A. Bryan, The distribution of the Nilotic and Nilo-Hamitic languages of Africa. Language 26.173-75. 27. Review of H. A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism. Journal of American Folklore 63.120. 28. Review of L. Homberger, The Negro African languages. Language 26.170-73. *29. Review of Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality, ed. D. Mandelbaum. American Anthropologist 52.516-18. *30. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6.162-81. 31. Review of Gunter Wagner, The Bantu of Northern Kavirondo, Vol. 1. American Anthropologist 52.255-56. 1951 32. Vowel and nasal harmony in Bantu languages. Zaire, Revue Congolaise 8.813- 20. 33. Review of Carl Meinhof, Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen. Journal of the American Oriental Society 71.94-95. 34. Review of A. Burssens, Manuel de Tshiluba (Kasayi, Congo Belge). Language 27.438-39. 35. Review of Emil Müller, Wörterbuch der Djaga-Sprache (Madjame-Mundart) gesprochen am Kilimandjaro in Ostafrika. Journal of the American Oriental Society 71.194. 1952 36. The Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) present. Journal of the American Oriental Society 72.1-9. 37. Review of Paul S. Wingert, The sculpture of Negro Africa. Journal of American Folklore 65.104-5. 2 1953 38. An application of New World evidence to an African linguistic problem (Hausa). Mémoires de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire 27.129-31. *39. Historical linguistics and unwritten languages. Anthropology Today, ed. A. L. Kroeber, 265-86. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 40. (With Morris Swadesh). Jicaque as a Hokan language. International Journal of American Linguistics 19.216-22. 41. Review of The ethnographic survey of Africa, 6 vols. American Anthropologist 55.162-3. 42. Review of A. S. Aescoly, Receuil de textes falashas. American Anthropologist 55.:445. 43. Review of P. B. Lekens, Dictionnaire Ngbandi, and H. Hulstaert, Dictionnaire Français-Lomongo. Language 29.576-77. 44. A reply to W. Leslau: The imperfect in South-East Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 73.167-8. 45. Comments in An appraisal of anthropology today, ed. Sol Tax et al, 59-60, 117, 224-5, 232-33, 266-67, 292, 352. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1954 *46. The linguistic approach; The word as a linguistic unit; Language change. Psycholinguistics, eds. C. E. Osgood and T. A. Sebeok, 8-19, 66-70, 146-65. Baltimore: Waverly Press. (Second edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965). *47. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. Method and perspective in anthropology: papers in honor of Wilson D. Wallis, ed. R. F. Spencer, 192-220. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. *48. Studies in African linguistic classification: VIII. Further remarks on method; revisions and corrections. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10.405-15. *49. Concerning inferences from linguistic to non-linguistic data. Language in culture, ed. Harry Hoijer, 3-18. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 50. Comments in Language in culture, ed. Harry Hoijer, 130-31, 133-34, 136, 138, 142-44, 156, 160-61, 172-73, 177-78, 188, 200, 203, 211-12, 214, 224, 229-30, 241, 245, 274-75. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 51. Review of Antoine Meillet & Marcel Cohen, Les langues du monde. American Anthropologist 56.1133-34. *52. Review of D. Westermann & M. A. Bryan, Languages of West Africa. Language. 30.302-9. 53. Review of A. L. Kroeber, The nature of culture, and A. L. Kroeber & C. Kluckhohn, Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions. American Anthropologist 56.568-71. 54. Review of A. Basset, La Langue berbère. American Anthropologist 56.148. 55. Review of W. Schmidt, Die Tasmanischen Sprachen. Word 10.117-119. 56. Review of Guy Atkins (ed.), Unkhoswe Waanyanja. Word 10.117. 1955 *57. Studies in African linguistic classification. New Haven, Connecticut: Compass Press. Pp. 116. *58. Internal a- Plurals in Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic). Afrikanistische Studien zum 80.en Geburtstag Diedrich Westermann gewidmet, ed. Johannes Lukas. 3 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Orientforschung der Wissenschaften der DDR 26.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 59. Review of U. Weinreich, Languages in contact. American Anthropologist 57:167-8. 1956 *60. The measurement of linguistic diversity. Language 32.109- 15. 61. Review of M. F. Smith, Baba of Karo: a woman of the Moslem Hausa. American Anthropologist 58.749-750. 62. Review of M. G. Smith, The economy of Hausa communities of Zaria. American Anthropologist 58.931-933. 63. Review of Oswin Köhler, Geschichte der Erforschung der Nilotischen Sprachen. Language 32.563-67. 64. Review of A.N. Tucker & J.T. ole Mpaayei, A Maasai grammar with vocabulary. Word 12.487-89. 1957 *65. Essays in linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Pp. vii, 108. *66. The nature and uses of linguistic typologies. International Journal of American Linguistics 23.68-77. 67. Nilotic, “Nilo-Hamitic” and Hamito-Semitic: a reply. Africa 27.364-78. 68. Review of A Bushman dictionary, by Dorthea F. Bleek, Language 33.495-7. 1958 *69. The labial consonants of Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Word 14.295-302. 1959 70. An axiomatization of the phonologic aspect of languages. Symposium on sociological theory, ed. Llewellyn Gross, 437-82. New York: Harper and Row. 71. Africa as a linguistic area. Continuity and change in African cultures, ed. W. R. Bascom and M. J. Herskovits, 15-27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. *72. Current trends in linguistics. Science 130.1165-70. *73. Language and evolution. Evolution and anthropology: a centennial appraisal, ed. Betty J. Meggers, 61-75. Washington D.C.: The Anthropological Society of Washington. *74. The origin of the Masai passive. Africa 29.171-6. 75. Review of R. Jakobson & M. Halle, Fundamentals of language. American Anthropologist 61.157-8. 76. Review of W. H. Douglas, An introduction to the Western Desert languages. Language 35.382-5. 77. Review of W.H. Whiteley, A short description of item categories in Iraqw. American Anthropologist 61.163-4. 1960 4 78. An Afro-Asiatic pattern of gender and number agreement. Journal of the American Oriental Society 80.317-21. *79. African tongues and tribes. Rotarian 96:4.35, 61-62. *80. The general classification of Central and South American languages. Selected papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, ed. A. Wallace, 791-4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. *81. Linguistic evidence for the influence of the Kanuri on the Hausa. Journal of African History 1.205-12. 82. A method of measuring functional yield as applied to tone in African languages. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics 12.7-16. *83. A survey of African prosodic systems. Culture in history, ed. Stanley Diamond, 925-50. New York: Columbia University Press. 84. Review of Henry M. Hoenigswald, Language change and language reconstruction. American Anthropologist 62.1108-10. 85. Comments in Style in language, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok, 102-3, 426-28. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1961 86. (With John B. Carroll). Two cases of synesthesia for color and musical tonality associated with absolute pitch ability.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Amerind Etymological Dictionary
    An Amerind Etymological Dictionary c 2007 by Merritt Ruhlen ! Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Greenberg, Joseph H. Ruhlen, Merritt An Amerind Etymological Dictionary Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Amerind Languages—Etymology—Classification. I. Title. P000.G0 2007 000!.012 00-00000 ISBN 0-0000-0000-0 (alk. paper) This book is dedicated to the Amerind people, the first Americans Preface The present volume is a revison, extension, and refinement of the ev- idence for the Amerind linguistic family that was initially offered in Greenberg (1987). This revision entails (1) the correction of a num- ber of forms, and the elimination of others, on the basis of criticism by specialists in various Amerind languages; (2) the consolidation of certain Amerind subgroup etymologies (given in Greenberg 1987) into Amerind etymologies; (3) the addition of many reconstructions from different levels of Amerind, based on a comprehensive database of all known reconstructions for Amerind subfamilies; and, finally, (4) the addition of a number of new Amerind etymologies presented here for the first time. I believe the present work represents an advance over the original, but it is at the same time simply one step forward on a project that will never be finished. M. R. September 2007 Contents Introduction 1 Dictionary 11 Maps 272 Classification of Amerind Languages 274 References 283 Semantic Index 296 Introduction This volume presents the lexical and grammatical evidence that defines the Amerind linguistic family. The evidence is presented in terms of 913 etymolo- gies, arranged alphabetically according to the English gloss.
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Harold Greenberg
    JOSEPH HAROLD GREENBERG CORRECTED VERSION* Joseph H. Greenberg, one of the most original and influential linguists of the twentieth century, died at his home in Stanford, California, on May 7th, 2001, three weeks before his eighty-sixth birthday. Greenberg was a major pioneer in the development of linguistics as an empirical science. His work was always founded directly on quantitative data from a single language or from a wide range of languages. His chief legacy to contemporary linguistics is in the development of an approach to the study of language—typology and univerals—and to historical linguistics. Yet he also made major contributions to sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, phonetics and phonology, morphology, and especially African language studies. Joe Greenberg was born on May 28th, 1915, in Brooklyn, New York, the second of two children. His father was a Polish Jew and his mother, a German Jew. His father’s family name was originally Zyto, but in one of those turn-of-the- century immigrant stories, he ended up taking the name of his landlord. Joe Greenberg’s early loves were music and languages. As a child he sat fascinated next to his mother while she played the piano, and asked her to teach him. She taught him musical notation and then found him a local teacher. Greenberg ended up studying with a Madame Vangerova, associated with the Curtis Institute of Music. Greenberg even gave a concert at Steinway Hall at the age of 14, and won a city-wide prize for best chamber music ensemble. But after finishing high school, Greenberg chose an academic career instead of a musical one, although he continued to play the piano every evening until near the end of his life.
    [Show full text]
  • "Evolution of Human Languages": Current State of Affairs
    «Evolution of Human Languages»: current state of affairs (03.2014) Contents: I. Currently active members of the project . 2 II. Linguistic experts associated with the project . 4 III. General description of EHL's goals and major lines of research . 6 IV. Up-to-date results / achievements of EHL research . 9 V. A concise list of actual problems and tasks for future resolution. 18 VI. EHL resources and links . 20 2 I. Currently active members of the project. Primary affiliation: Senior researcher, Center for Comparative Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow). Web info: http://ivka.rsuh.ru/article.html?id=80197 George Publications: http://rggu.academia.edu/GeorgeStarostin Starostin Research interests: Methodology of historical linguistics; long- vs. short-range linguistic comparison; history and classification of African languages; history of the Chinese language; comparative and historical linguistics of various language families (Indo-European, Altaic, Yeniseian, Dravidian, etc.). Primary affiliation: Visiting researcher, Santa Fe Institute. Formerly, professor of linguistics at the University of Melbourne. Ilia Publications: http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-n97-4759 Research interests: Genetic and areal language relationships in Southeast Asia; Peiros history and classification of Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Austroasiatic languages; macro- and micro-families of the Americas; methodology of historical linguistics. Primary affiliation: Senior researcher, Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow / Novosibirsk). Web info / publications list (in Russian): Sergei http://www.inslav.ru/index.php?option- Nikolayev =com_content&view=article&id=358:2010-06-09-18-14-01 Research interests: Comparative Indo-European and Slavic studies; internal and external genetic relations of North Caucasian languages; internal and external genetic relations of North American languages (Na-Dene; Algic; Mosan).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin and Evolution of Word Order
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Caltech Authors The origin and evolution of word order Murray Gell-Manna,1 and Merritt Ruhlenb,1 aSanta Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501; and bDepartment of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 Contributed by Murray Gell-Mann, August 26, 2011 (sent for review August 19, 2011) Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost man”) and uses prepositions. (Nowadays, these correlations are all, attested human languages may derive from a single earlier described in terms of head-first and head-last constructions.) In language. If that is so, then this language—like nearly all extant light of such correlations it is often possible to discern relic traits, languages—most likely had a basic ordering of the subject (S), such as GN order in a language that has already changed its basic verb (V), and object (O) in a declarative sentence of the type word order from SOV to SVO. Later work (7) has shown that “the man (S) killed (V) the bear (O).” When one compares the diachronic pathways of grammaticalization often reveal relic distribution of the existing structural types with the putative phy- “morphotactic states” that are highly correlated with earlier syn- logenetic tree of human languages, four conclusions may be tactic states. Also, internal reconstruction can be useful in recog- drawn. (i) The word order in the ancestral language was SOV. nizing earlier syntactic states (8). Neither of these lines of inves- (ii) Except for cases of diffusion, the direction of syntactic change, tigation is pursued in this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrections to and Clarifications of the Seri Data in Greenberg & Ruhlen's
    Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 51 Article 2 2011 Corrections to and clarifications of the Seri data in Greenberg & Ruhlen's An Amerind Etymological Dictionary Stephen A. Marlett SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Marlett, Stephen A. (2011) "Corrections to and clarifications of the Seri data in Greenberg & Ruhlen's An Amerind Etymological Dictionary," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 51 , Article 2. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol51.02 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol51/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Corrections to and clarifications of the Seri data in Greenberg & Ruhlen’s An Amerind Etymological Dictionary Stephen A. Marlett Seri data have been included in comparative studies of Native American languages of North America, especially those that relate to the putative Hokan family and the putative Amerind family. Since the publication in recent years of much more analyzed Seri data, including those found in the 2005 dictionary, it is important to reassess the data that has been used in earlier comparative studies. This paper examines the data included in Greenberg & Ruhlen’s (2007) An Amerind Etymological Dictionary, corrects mistakes and clarifies the data generally.* The first comprehensive presentation of Greenberg’s view of Amerind (Greenberg 1987) appeared more than twenty years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Mother Tongue 24 Must Be Put Out, After All! the Key Findings Will Simply Be Numbered- No Special Order
    MOTHER CONTENTS ASLIP Business plus Important Announcements TONGUE 4 Obituaries: John Swing Rittershofer (1941-1994) 6 Reviews of Cavalli-Sforza et al's History and Geography of Human Genes. Reviewed by: Rebecca L. Cann, Frank B. Livingstone, and NEWSLETIER OF Hal Fleming THE ASSOCIATION 30 The "Sogenannten" Ethiopian Pygmoids: Hal Fleming FOR THE STUDY OF 34 Long-Range Linguistic Relations: Cultural Transmission or Consan­ lANGUAGE IN guinity?: Igor M Diakonoff 41 Statistics and Historical Linguistics: Some Comments PREHISTORY Sheila Embleton 46 A Few Remarks on Embleton's Comments: Hal Fleming 50 On the Nature of the Algonquian Evidence for Global Etymologies Marc Picard 55 Greenberg Comments on Campbell and Fleming Joseph H. Greenberg 56 A Few Delayed Final Remarks on Campbell's African Section Hal Fleming 57 Some Questions and Theses for the American Indian Language Classification Debate (ad Campbell, 1994): John D. Bengtson 60 A Note on Amerind Pronouns: Merritt Ruhlen 62 Regarding Native American Pronouns: Ives Goddard 65 Two Aspects of Massive Comparisons: Hal Fleming 69 Proto-Amerind *qets' 'left (hand)': Merritt Ruhlen 71 Arapaho, Blackfoot, and Basque: A "Snow" Job: Marc Picard 73 World Archaeological Congress 3. Summary by: Roger Blench 76 Comment on Roger Blench's Report on World Archaeological Congress: Hal Fleming 77 Announcement: Seventh Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference 78 Announcement: 11th Annual Meeting of the Language Origins Society 79 Quick Notes 86 A Valediction of Sorts: Age Groups, Jingoists, and Stuff Hal Fleming Issue 24, March 1995 MOTHER TONGUE Issue 24, March 1995 OFFICERS OF ASLIP (Address appropriate correspondence to each.) President: Harold C.
    [Show full text]
  • Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan Relationship
    Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan relationship The first part of the present study, following a general introduction (§ 1), presents a classifi- cation and approximate glottochronological dating for the Algonquian-Wakashan languages (§ 2), a preliminary discussion of regular sound correspondences between Proto-Wakashan, Proto-Nivkh, and Proto-Algic (§ 3), and an analysis of the Algonquian-Wakashan “basic lexi- con” (§ 4). The main novelty of the present article is in its attempt at formal demonstration of a genetic relationship between the Nivkh, Algic, and Wakashan languages, arrived at by means of the standard comparative method, i. e. establishing a system of regular sound cor- respondences between the vocabularies of the compared languages. Proto-Salishan is con- sidered as a remote relative of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan; at the same time, no close (“Mosan”) relationship between Wakashan and Salish has been traced. Additionally, lexical correspondences between Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan, and Proto-Salishan are also reviewed. The conclusion is that no genetic relationship exists be- tween Chukchi-Kamchatkan, on the one hand, and Algonquian-Wakashan, languages (Nivkh included), on the other hand. Instead, it seems more likely that Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan has borrowed words from Wakashan, Salishan, and Algic (but probably not vice versa; § 5). The Algonquian-Wakashan, Salishan and Chukchi-Kamchatkan common cultural lexicon is also examined, resulting in the identification of numerous “cultural” loans from Wakashan and Salish into Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan. Borrowing from Salishan into Proto-Nivkh was far less intensive, as there are no reliable Nivkh-Wakashan contact words.
    [Show full text]
  • В Е С Т Н И К Р Г Г У R S U H B U L L E T
    В Е С Т Н И К Р Г Г У R S U H B U L L E T I N Ежемесячный научный журнал Scientific Monthly Серия «Языкознание» Linguistics Series № 5 (2009) Москва Moscow 2009 Институт языкознания Российской Академии наук Российский государственный гуманитарный университет Вопросы языкового родства Международный научный журнал № 1 (2009) Москва 2009 Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Russian State University for the Humanities Journal of Language Relationship International Scientific Periodical Nº 1 (2009) Moscow 2009 Вопросы языкового родства: Международный научный журнал / Рос. Акад. наук. Ин-т языкознания; Рос. гос. гуманитар. ун-т; под ред. В. А. Дыбо. ― М.: Изд-во РГГУ, 2009. ― № 1. ― xii + 164 с. ― (Вестник РГГУ: Ежемесяч- ный научный журнал; Серия «Языкознание»; № 5). Journal of Language Relationship: International Scientific Periodical / Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics; Russian State University for the Humanities; Ed. by V. A. Dybo. ― Moscow: RSUH Publishers, 2009. ― Nº 1. ― xii + 164 p.. ― (RSUH Bulletin: Scientific Monthly; Linguistics Series; Nº 5). ISSN 1998-6769 http ://journal.nostratic.ru journal@ nostratic.ru Гарнитура Таймс Нью Роман / Times ew Roman™ typeface © 2006 The Monotype Corporation Дополнительные знаки: С. Г. Боᴫотов / Add-on symbols by S. G. Bolotov Компьютерная верстка: С. Г. Боᴫотов / Typeset by S. G. Bolotov © 2008 ISSN 1998676-9 9 771998 676003 ote from the Editors Dear friends and colleagues! It is a great pleasure for us to finally be able to present the first issue of our brand new “Journal of Language Relationship”. The Journal, jointly issued by the Russian State University for the Humani- ties and the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Science, is a peer-reviewed edition that will be published on a semi-yearly basis and, as its title implies, will be fully dedicated to issues of establishing, verifying, and clarifying various aspects of genetic relationship between the world’s languages and language groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical-Comparative Linguistics Linguistique Historico-Comparative
    HISTORICAL-COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS LINGUISTIQUE HISTORICO-COMPARATIVE SOME NOSTRATIC ETYMOLOGIES: SUPPLEMENT I 1. Introduction In my recently-published joint monograph with John C. KERNS entitled The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship (BOMHARD - KERNS 1994), I listed and discussed 601 possible Nostratic etymologies. Since writing this book, my research has continued, and, as a result, I have changed my mind about a small number of the etymologies listed in the book, and I have accumulated material for new etymologies. In this paper, I would like to present a number of additional Nostratic etymologies. First, however, I will begin by giving a brief introduction to the basic assumptions made in my book. 2. The Nostratic Languages One large-scale grouping of languages that has been proposed at var- ious times and by various scholars is the so-called “Nostratic” macro- family — the name “Nostratic” was first suggested by Holger PEDERSEN in 1903 (it is derived from Latin nostras “our countryman”). Though the “Nostratic Hypothesis” has occupied the efforts of a handful of scholars from time to time, for the most part, it has been ignored by most schol- ars — 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 by the work of two Russian schol- ars, namely, V.M. ILLICH-SVITYCH and A.B. DOLGOPOLSKY, who first started working independently and, at a 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 certain language phyla of northern and central Eurasia, as well as the ancient Near East, might be genetically related.
    [Show full text]
  • Blažek : on the Internal Classification of Indo-European Languages: Survey
    Blažek : On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: survey Linguistica ONLINE. Added: November 22nd 2005. http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/blazek/bla-003.pdf ISSN 1801-5336 On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: survey[*] Václav Blažek The main purpose of the present study is to confront most representative models of the internal classification of Indo- European languages and their daughter branches. 0. Indo-European 0.1. In the 19th century the tree-diagram of A. Schleicher (1860) was very popular: Germanic Lithuanian Slavo-Lithuaian Slavic Celtic Indo-European Italo-Celtic Italic Graeco-Italo- -Celtic Albanian Aryo-Graeco- Greek Italo-Celtic Iranian Aryan Indo-Aryan After the discovery of the Indo-European affiliation of the Tocharian A & B languages and the languages of ancient Asia Minor, it is necessary to take them in account. The models of the recent time accept the Anatolian vs. non- Anatolian (‘Indo-European’ in the narrower sense) dichotomy, which was first formulated by E. Sturtevant (1942). Naturally, it is difficult to include the relic languages into the model of any classification, if they are known only from several inscriptions, glosses or even only from proper names. That is why there are so big differences in classification between these scantily recorded languages. For this reason some scholars omit them at all. 0.2. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984, 415) developed the traditional ideas: Greek Armenian Indo- Iranian Balto- -Slavic Germanic Italic Celtic Tocharian Anatolian [*] Previously unpublished. Reproduced with permission. [Editor’s note] 1 Blažek : On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: survey 0.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Euskaro- Caucasian Hypothesis Current Model (2017)
    The Euskaro- Caucasian Hypothesis Current model (2017) A proposed genetic relationship between Basque (Vasconic) and the North Caucasian John D. Bengtson language family. Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory | Evolution of Human Language Project | February 2017 The Euskaro-Caucasian Hypothesis: Current model I. History of the hypothesis II. Description of the languages compared III. Grammatical evidence for Euskaro-Caucasian (excerpts) IV. Lexical evidence for Euskaro-Caucasian (excerpts) V. Euskaro-Caucasian Phonological correspondences (excerpts) VI. Chronology of Euskaro-Caucasian: a family about 9 millennia old VII. Anthropological scenario of Euskaro-Caucasian: linguistics, archaeology, genetics VIII. References Note: This presentation is a highly abridged summary of the evidence for this hypothesis. For more information please contact the author. I.A. The Euskaro-Caucasian hypothesis: from general to specific: The embryo of Euskaro-Caucasian (Basque as a relative of languages in the Caucasus region) was nurtured by several eminent scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including Hugo Schuchardt (1842-1927), Heinrich Winkler (1848–1930), Nikolay Yakovlevich Marr (1865-1934), Alfredo Trombetti (1866-1929), Christianus Cornelius Schuchardt Uhlenbeck (1866-1951), Georges Dumézil (1898-1986), René Lafon (1899-1974) and Karl Bouda (1901-1979). At the earlier stages, due to the primitive state of Caucasian linguistics, it was unclear whether the Caucasian part of the Euskaro-Caucasian family included all native Caucasian languages, South Caucasian (= Kartvelian) as well as North Caucasian (= Abkhazo- Adyghean + Nakh-Daghestanian), or only some of them. Thus, until about three decades ago, many Euskaro-Caucasian lexical and grammatical comparisons used data from Kartvelian as well as North Caucasian languages.
    [Show full text]