NOSTRATIC and ALTAIC ALEXANDER VOVIN Uпiversity О

NOSTRATIC AND ALTAIC

ALEXANDER VOVIN Uпiversity о/ Hawai'i at Мапоа, Hoпolulu

Since the first volume of Шiсh-Svityсh's "Opyt sravneniia nostratichekikh iazykov [An attemptto compare Nostratic languages]" appeared in 1971, it has continuously Ьееn greeted with criticism (Clauson 1973, Andronov 1982, Serebrennikov 1982, Shcherbak 1984, Vine 1991). The only positive eva1uation of the Nostratic theory coming from outside of Nostratic сатр seems to belong to Manaster Ramer (1993, 1994). Despite the fact, demonstratedin the negative reviews, that тanу of the etymologies proposed Ьу Шiсh-Svitусh сan ье dismissed, the task of eva1uatingthe Nostratic theory in genera1remains largely unaccomplished (Manaster Ramer 1994:157). Тhe goa1 of this article is three-fold: first, 1 intend to demonstrate that Nostratic theory cannot ье dismissed out of hand Ьу а responsible historica1 linguist as something not being worthy further discussion; second, that much remains to ье done within the Nostratic macrofarnily, particularly in the area of assessment of its intema1 structure and classification, and third, as the title shows, 1intend to investigate whether Altaic should ье included in Nostratic or not. . 1will investigate in this article the intепеlаtiоnshiрs of three members of the Nostratic farnily: Altaic, Indo-European,and Uralic. Тhe choice of Altaic is due to the fact that ту linguistic interests are connectedmostly with the Altaic farnily, especia11ywith its Eastern members: Japanese, Korean, and Manchu-Tungusic. Besides, 1 have some knowledge of Indo-European and more of Ura1ic. These three branches of Nostratic, as proposed Ьу Шich-Svitусh, cover the Northern area of Eurasia. Meanwhile, ту expertise in three "Southern" Nostratic branches: Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Dravidian is pretty much close to zero, and that naturally 100 те to limiting ту "base of operation" to the first three branches оnlу, with ту emphasis being оп interrelationshipbetween Nostratic and Altaic. 1 consider ту task to ье mainly the eva1uation of Vladislav М. Illich- Svitych's work, and not that of his followers. Therefore, only the first two 258 ALEXANDER VOVIN NOSТRAТIC AND ALTAIC 259 volumes of Шich-Svitусh's Nostratic dictionary (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971, 1976) are 3) PN **Ьurл 'snow/sand storm' > PIE *bher '[to] storm'; PU *рurkл taken into consideration, and the third volume, though it bears Шiсh-Svitусh's 'snowstorm'; РА *Ьоrа/*Ьurл 'storm', 'snowstorm' (Шiсh-Svitусh name оп the cover (Шiсh-Svityсh 1984), is left out since it is mostly compiled Ьу 1971:188-190). a.group of Moscow linguists under the direction of У. А. Dybo. 1 allowed 4) PN **skalu 'to split', 'to cut' > PIE *skel 'to split'; PU *sale 'to split', 'to myself, however, to introducesome rninorchanges, mostly in reconstructions of cut'; РА *calu 'to cut' (Шich-Svityсh 1971: 195-197).' Altaic materials, when it was necessary to correct Шiсh-Svitусh's rnisiakes, or to 5) PN **gi/i/Qu 'smooth and glimmering' > PIE *ghelhw-/*gblеhW- make other changes оп the basis of materials which were not available to him. 'glimmering'; PU *k1!i/л 'smooth and glimmering'; РА *gilu-/*gila- Thus, in particular, 1 have made in Nostratic reconstructions in several cases 'smooth and glimmering' (Шich-Svitусh 1971:229-230). some changes оп the basis of recent proposals Ьу Alexis Manaster Ramer 6) PN **gop'a 'empty', 'ho11ow' > PIE *geup- 'cavity', 'hole', 'pit'; PU (Manaster Ramer 1994). *koppa 'empty', 'ho11ow'; РА *goba-/*gobi- 'empty', 'hollow' (Шiсh- Тhere is certainly а number of individual problems conceming lower-level Svitych 1971:232-233). reconstructions. Thus, for example, though below 1preserved the reconstruction 7) PN **lа 'that over there' > PIE *he-n- 'over there'; PU *а- 'that over there'; of РА vocalism as presented Ьу Шiсh-Svityсh, 1 actually believe that it is not РА *а- 'that over there' (Шich-Svityсh 1971:257-258). valid any longer andeven actually can ье presented only in а tentative form. Тhe 8) PN **li-/**le- 'this' > PIE *fiei-/he- 'this'; PU *i-/*e- 'this'; РА *i-/*e- same, though to а lesser extent, can ье applied to PU vocalism, too. However, 1 'this' (Шich-Svitусh 1971:270-271). think that these particular problems should not prevent us from giving а 9) PN **kal'л 'to bark (а tree)', 'to skin' > PIE *gol- 'naked', 'bald'; PU preliтiпary estiтate of the validity of the Nostratic theory: when Indo-European *kal'л 'skin', 'naked', 'smooth'; РА *Kal2/i/- 'to skin', 'naked' (Шiсh- specialists discuss Indo-Europeanthey still can do it in spite of the fact that there Svitych 1971:289-290). are still particularunsettled problernsin Slavic or Germanic reconstruction. 10) PN **Kar'ii 'bark', 'shell' > PIE *ker 'bark', 'skin'; PU *kore/*kere Тhe fo11owing evaluation of the Nostratic farnily is based оп an ultra- 'bark'; РА *k'Er'ii 'bark' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:341-343). conservative аррroасЬ in phonology and semantics. Тhere are 353 Nostratic 11) PN **~rл 'frost' > PIE *Rer- 'frost', 'ice', 'frozen snow-crust'; PU *kirte, etymologies presented in Шiсh-Svityсh (1971) and Шiсh-Svityсh (1976). 1 have *kirл 'frozen snow-crust'; РА *k'irl(a) 'frost' (lllich-Svitych chosen among them only those which connect Indo-European, Uralic, and 1971:353-354). Altaic, or anу pair of those three branches. Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and 12) PN **~o 'who' > PIE *kwo 'who'; PU *ko-/*ku- 'who'; РА *k'o-/*k'a- Dravidian parallels are not included into the fo11owing lists, even if they are stem of interrogative pronoun(Шich-Svityсh 1971:355-356). present in Шiсh-Svitусh's dictionary. 1 have excluded all suspicious parallels, 13) PN **lip'a 'sticky' > PIE *leip- 'to stick', 'sticky'; PU *Lipa 'slippery', and the most importantrequirement is that these etymologies have identical or 'sticky'; РА *lipa- 'to stick', 'sticky' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1976:18-20). alrnost identical semantics. 1 also excluded all cases when а word is attested in 14) PN **LaНrnlu/ 'swamp' > PIE *lehm 'swamp', 'puddle'; PU *Lampe only one language or dialect within а language farnily, even if such cases are 'swamp', 'lake'; РА *laamu 'sea', 'swamp' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1976:29-30). extremely likely proto-language forms. Needless to say, the phonetic 15) PN **тшjа 'berry' > PIE *mor- 'blackberry'; PU *шarjа 'berry'; РА correspondences among the chosen parallels are regular. *miirV 'berry' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1976:43-45). 16) PN **rni 'what' > PIE *то- stem of interrogative adverbs; PU *rni 'what'; Words соттоп to Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic РА *тУ 'what' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1976:66-68). 1) PN **bok/a/- 'to run away' > PIE *bheug/*bhegw- 'id'; PU *pok-tV- 'to 17) PN **peIНi 'Ье afraid' > PIE *peIН- 'Ье afraid'; PU *pele- 'Ье afraid'; РА run'; РА *p[']Vk- 'run' (РМТ only, if РА aspirated, then uшеlаtеd) (Шiсh- *peeli - 'Ье afraid' (Шich-Svityсh 1976:98-99). Svitych 1971:181). I 2) PN **bura 'to drill' > PIE *bher- 'to 0011';PU *pura '[to] 0011'; РА *bura ' 'to tum' (РТ only) (Шich-Svityсh 1971:186-187). 1 Il1ich-Svitych originally reconstructed PN **calu here; 1 changed it to **skalu following recent proposal Ьу Alexis Manaster Ramer, who demonstrated that PIE clusters could not originate from PN affricates suggested Ьу Illich-Svitych (Manaster Ramer 1994). 260 ALEXANDER VOVIN NOSTRAnC AND ALTAIC 261

18) PN **р'ш'/а! 'to tear', 'to break', 'to split' > РIE *(s)per- 'to tear', 'to 15) PN **KиPsa 'to die oиt', 'to extingиish' > РIE *gWes- 'to die oиt'; PU break'; PU *рша 'to break'; РА *p'or2ti/*p'tir2ti 'to tear', 'to crush' (Шiсh- *kиpsa-/ *kopsa- 'to die oиt' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:311). Svitych 1976:100-101). 16) PN **~ap'a 'paw' > РIE *керН 'paw', 'hoof; PU *kappa 'paw' (Шiсh- 19) PN **~apl.la'to hit' > РIE *tep- 'to hit', 'to poиnd'; PU *tappa- 'to hit', 'to Svitych 1971:347). kick'; РА *t'api 'to hit', 'to forge', *t'api 'to kick' (Шich-Svityсh 17) PN **lф- 'to lick', 'to lар' > РIE *lak- 'to lick', 'to lар'; PU *lakka- 'to 1976:108-109). . lick', 'to lар' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1976:15). .20) PN **wol(a) 'big' > РIE *wel 'big'; PU *wola 'many'; РА *оlа 18) PN **iejna 'soft', 'weak' > РIE *lei 'soft', 'weak'; PU *iejna 'weak' 'many' (Шich-Svitусh 1976: 109-111). (Шich-Svitусh 1976:26-27). 19) PN **iiwa 'dirt' >РIE *lеи(Н) 'dirt', 'silt'; PU *iiwa 'dirt', 'sand', Words соттоn to Indo-European and Uralic 'marsh' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1976:27). 1) PN **bara > РIE *bher- 'good'; PU *para 'good' (Illich-Svitych 1971:175). 20) PN **ion~a 'to Ьепд' > РIE *lenk 'to Ьепд'; PU *iol)ka 'to Ьепд' (Шich- 2) PN **bergiil 'high' > РIE *bhergh/*bhregh 'id.'; PU *p/e/r-kV- 'id.' Svitych 1976:27-28). (Saтoyedic оn1у)(Шich-Svityсh 1971:177). 21) PN **Lawsa 'not stretched', 'weak' > РIE *leиs 'not stretched', 'weak'; 3) PN **bиr'a 'to ЬоН', 'to seethe' > РIE *bhreи 'id.'; PU *pиra 'id.' (Шiсh- PU *Lawsa 'not stretched', 'weak' (Шich-Svitусh 1976:31-32). Svitych 1971: 190). 22) PN **manл 'тац', 'та1е' > РIE *mIo/n 'man'; PU *тanсе 'тап', 'person' 4) PN **~ajl,1a'glimmer' > РIE *sReih 'id.'; PU *saja 'id.' (Шiсh-Svityсh (Шich-Svitусh 1976:58-59). 1971:199-200). 23) PN **mоLл 'to break to pieces' > РIE *mel- 'to break to pieces', 'to grind'; 5) PN **skеlл 'to jиmp' > РIE *(s)Rel 'id.', PU *сеlл 'id.' (РА para11elis PU *moLa- 'to break', 'to break to pieces' (Шich-Svitусh 1976:69-70). dиbioиs) (Illich-Svitych 1971:203-204). 24) PN **mщ:л 'to wash' > РIE *mesg- 'to wash', 'to dive'; PU *mиske- 'to 6) PN **giф 'handlarm' > РIE *ghes- 'id.', PU *kate- 'id.' (Шiсh-Svitусh wash' (Шich-Svitусh 1976:71-72). 1971:227). 25) PN **nirni 'пате' > РIE *Нпбm 'id.'; PU *nimе 'id.' (Шich-Svityсh 7) PN **Henka 'to Ьиm' > РIE *Heng- 'to Ьиm', *HIJg-п-i 'fIre'; PU *еl)kл 1976:82-83). 'to Ьиm' (Illich-Svitych 1971:245-246). 26) PN **Ntiqл 'now' > РIE *пиН- 'id.'; PU *Ntikл 'id.' (lllich-Svitych 8) PN **Hera 'to tитЫe down', 'to fa1l to pieces' > РIE *fier- 'to tиmЫe 1976:97-98). down', 'to fa1l to pieces'; PU *era- 'to tиmЫe down', 'to fa11to pieces' 27) PN **p'o'jqa!**p'odqa 'thigh' > РIE *bhe/dh/ 'id.'; PU POClka (Illich-Svitych 1971:246-247). 'id.' (Illich-Svitych 1976:102-103). 9) PN **Homsa 'meat' > РIE *(Н)mеms 'id.'; PU *оrnSа 'id.' (Illich-Svitych Words соттоn to Uralic and Altaic 1971:252-253). 10) PN **Ноsл 'ash-tree' > РIE *hwes 'id.'; PU *oska 'id.' (Illich-Svitych 1) PN **ЫСа 'sma11' > PU *piCV 'sma11' (Ba1tic Fennic only), РА *Ыса 1971:255). 'sma11'(РТ *Ыса, РМ *bicV) (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:178). 11) PN **jaНи/**joHи 'to gird' > РIE *iehws- 'to gird', 'girdle'; PU *jбул 2) PN **bilwi 'cloиd' > PU *pilwe 'id.', РА *bulYt 'id.' (РТ only) (Illich- 'girdle' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971:278-279). Svitych 1971:179-180). 12) PN **kanрл 'soft excrescence' > РIE *gemb 'excrescence', 'fиngиs'; PU 3) PN **Ьиr(Н)л/**Ьоr(Н)л 'dиst', 'loose groиnd' > PU *роrл 'dиst', 'dirt', *kатрл 'fиngиs' (Illich-Svitych 1971:291-292). 'groиnd'; РА *ООf1'dиst', 'loose groиnd' (Illich-Svitych 1971:187-188). 13) PN **karл/**kиrл 'crane' > РIE *gerH 'id.'; PU *karke/*kurke 'id.' 4) PN **Hanga 'to ореп moиth' > PU *aIJa 'moиth'; РА *aIJa 'opening', (Illich-Svitych 1971:292-293). 'moиth' (Illich-Svitych 1971:244-245). 14) PN **kojHa 'skin', 'bark' > РIE *gWeiН 'skin'; PU *koja 'bark' (lllich- 5) PN **Н/Е/rni 'to sиck', 'to swallow' > PU *irnе- 'to sиck'; РА *ii.rnV-'to Svitych 1971:299-300). sиck', 'to swa11ow'(Illich-Svitych 1971:248-249). 262 ЛLБXANDБR VOVIN NOSТRAnC AND AL TAIC 263

6) PN **?е- negative verb > PU *е- id.; РА *е- id. (Шiсh-Svitусh 24) PN **fiа'i'rл 'young', 'newly Ьоrn' > PU *fiбrе 'id.'; РА *fiar2V 'id' (Шiсh- 1971:264-265) Svitych 1976:83-85). 7) PN **kа1л 'fish' > PU *ka1a 'fish', РА *ka11V- 'wha1e' (Шiсh-Svityсh 25) PN **fiiimл 'soft' > PU *fiiimлkл/*fiimлkл 'soft'; РА *fiamV/*fiimV 'soft' 1971:288-289). (Шich-Svitусh 1976:86-87). I1 8) PN **kaJlН/л 'to go', 'to stroH'> PU *kШа- 'to go', 'to stroll'; РА *kiil- 'to 26) PN **fiоhrл 'wet', 'swamp' > PU *ii&rл 'wet', 'swamp'; РА *fiбru 'wet', соте' (Шich-Svityсh 1971:293-295). 'swamp' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1976:89-90). 9) PN **koja 'moth', 'larva' > PU *koja 'moth'; РА *kuja 'moth', 'larva' 27) PN **fiiIS:a 'neck', 'jugular vertebrae' > PU *fiika 'vertebrae', (Шich-Svityсh 1971:298,-299). 'neck', 'joint'; РА *fiika 'neck', 'jugular vertebrae', 'coHar' 10) PN **kojwa 'birch' > PU *kоjwл 'birch'; РА *юЪа 'birch' (Шiсh-Svityсh (Шich-Svitусh 1976:92). 1971:300). 11) PN **kолл 'to skin' > PU *kоо'л-/*kuо'л- 'id.'; РА *koLa- 'id.' (Шiсh- Words соттоп to Indo-European and Altaic Svitych 1971:300-301). 1) PN **bAНli 'wound', 'pain' > РIE *ЬЬеЫ 'wound', 'pain'; РА *Ьаа12 12) PN **ktil'л 'to feel cold', 'cold' > PU *kULma 'cold', 'to feel cold'; РА 'wound' (РТ only) (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:172). *Кбl'V 'to feel cold', 'cold' (Шich-Svitусh 1971:304-305). 2) PN **ba1ga- 'sparkle' > РIE *bhelg-/*bbleg- 'id.'; РА *ba1kV- 'id.' (РТ 13) PN **kUiл 'snake', 'worm' > PU *kоiл 'worm'; РА *kuli 'snake', *Ьа1Ю-,РК *pV[+back]lk- 'bright', 'clear', Р] *para-Ci- 'clear ир') (Шiсh- 'worm' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971:308-309). Svitych 1971:174-175). 14) PN **Кита 'upside down' > PU *lшта 'upside down'; РА *k'om(a) 3) PN **bari 'take' > РIE *bher- 'take', 'bring'; РА *Ьan- 'take', 'get' (РТ 'upside down' (Шich-Svityсh 1971:310--311). *bar'i-,РМ *bari-) (Шich-Svitусh 1971:176-177). 15) PN **KитТii 'fog' > PU *ktimta 'fog', 'smoke'; РА *kiida- 'fog' (Шiсh- 4) PN **bor'a 'brown', 'grey' > PIE *bher 'brown', РА *bor2 'brown', 'grey' Svitych 1971:312). (РТ *bor2, РМ *bora) (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:183-184). 16) PN **IS:аwingл 'armpit' > PU *kajI)a1a 'id.'; РА *k'awiI)i 'id.' (Шiсh- 5) PN **buHi 'to grow' > РIE *ЬЬеиН 'to grow', 'to Ьесоте'; РА *ЬШ- 'to Svitych 1971:312). Ье'; ?? PU *риае 'tree' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971:184-185). 17) PN **IS:a/lИIa 'tongue' > PU *kёlе 'tongue', РА *k'Ша 'tongue', 'to 6) PN **biiIS:a'to bend' > РIE *bheug-/*bheugh- 'id.'; РА *bOka-/*Ьiikа-'id.' speak' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:346-347). (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971: 191). 18) PN **IS:e 'who' > PU *ke- 'who', РА *k'e- 'who' (Шiсh-Svityсh 7) PN **dEwHi 'to blow', 'to shake' > РIE *dheuH 'to blow', 'to shake'; РА 1971:348-349). *dEbi 'blow', 'towave' (Шich-Svitусh 1971:217-218). 19) PN **IS:ulл 'to faН' > PU *kulл- 'to faН'; РА *k'ulV- 'to fa1l' (Шich- 8) PN **diga 'fish' > РIE *dhgh-u-H 'id.'; РА *diga 'id.' (Шiсh-Svitусh cites Svitych 1971:358-359). only РМ *jiga-sun, a1soР] *(d)iwo) (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971:219). 20) PN **iii~ 'to pierce', 'to prick' > PU **iiikkл 'to pierce', 'to prick'; РА 9) PN **giipA 'to bend' > РIE *gheub- 'to bend', 'bent'; РА *giibii-/*gobii- 'to *liikii- 'to pierce' (Шich-Svityсh 1976:28-29). bend' (Шich-Svityсh 1971:236-237). 21) PN **Ла/mНlu 'bird-cherry tree' > PU *Обmе 'bird-cherry tree'; РА 10) PN **gUjRa 'wild [anima1]'> РIE *ghWer- 'wild [anima1]'; РА *gora */d/ime 'bird-cherry tree' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1976:37-38). 'game', 'wild anima1' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971:237). 22) PN **mifia 'woman', 'fema1erelative' > PU *шпа 'daughter-in-law'; РА 11) PN **gUrл 'hot charcoa1s' > РIE *gWher-'to Ьиrn', 'hot', 'hot charcoa1s'; *mi[fi/n]a 'woman', 'daughter-in-law' (Р] *шСа, *bQ-minа 'woman'; РК РА *gur(V)- 'to Ьиrn', 'hot charcoa1s' (Шich-Svityсh 1971:239). *minol-i 'daughter-in-law'). РА not given Ьу Шiсh-Svitусh (- А.У.) 12) PN **HoIS:i 'point', 'spike' > РIE *Нек- 'point', 'spike'; РА *оЬ 'arrow' (Шiсh-Svityсh 1976:68-69). (РТ only) (Шich-Svityсh 1971:251-252). 23) PN **тиП 'to turn' > PU *murл- 'to turn'; РА *тиП 'to turn' (Шiсh- 13) PN **Hora 'to rise' > РIE *hwer- 'to rise', 'to move'; РА *ora-/*ora- 'to Svitych 1976:74-75). rise', 'to ascend' (Шich-Svitусh 1971:254-255).

I1 264 ALEXANDER VOVIN NOSТRATIC AND ALTAIC 265

14) PN **?i1i 'deer' > PIE *fie1-n- 'deer'; РА *i1i 'deer' (Шich-Svityсh case of borrowing, the direction of borrowing woиld Ье likely either from PIE to 1971:272-273). РА via PU, or from РА to PIE via PU. However, иnder either of these scenarios 15) PN **kamи- 'to seize', 'to sqиeeze' > PIE *gem- 'to seize', 'to sqиeeze', the nиmber of PIE-PA etymologies not present in PU woиld ье either 'to take'; РА *kamи- 'to seize', 'to sqиeeze', 'to take' (PU *kamа-lл/*kama- insignificaпt or non-existent. Therefore, since the nиmber of PIE-PA is опlу rл 'haпdfиl' is far-fetched semaпtica11y)(Шich-Svityсh 1971:290-291). slightly less thaп nиmberof PIE-PU апд PU-PА para11els,both scenarios сап ье 16) PN **kаjwл- 'to chew' > PIE *gieи-/*gieи- 'to chew'; РА *kRb/a/- 'to exclиded. Second, thoиgh the possibility of borrowing Ьу both PIE aпd РА chew'. (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:293) from PU theoretica11yexists, it сап ье easily dismissed оп historical groиnds: the 17) PN **~Ш 'black', 'dark' > PIE *ker-(s)- 'black', 'dark'; РА *k'arla technologica11ymore advaпced PIE апд РА societies were иnlikely to borrow 'black' (Шich-Svityсh 1971:337-338). from а hиnter/gatherercommunity lше PU. Even more faпtastic woиld Ье а 18) PN **~b/i/ 'Ье11у', 'intestines' > PIE *Kerp/*Кrep 'Ье11у', 'Ьоду'; РА proposa1that both PIE апд РА have а PU "sиbstratиm"; nothing in the above *k'arlbi 'Ье11у'(Шich-Svityсh 1971:338-340). para11elsor in their distribиtionseems to indicate sиch а possibility. Fina11y,апу 19) PN **Is:.оrл'worm' > PIE *kwr-mi- 'id.'; РА *KorV 'id.' (Шiсh-Svityсh of these scenarios сап Ье easily dismissed оп phonological groиnds. 1971:358). Let иs consider that а11above examples are 10aпwords.Let иs take first six: 20) PN **Is:.tipa'to boil', 'inflate' > PIE *kеи(Н)р 'to OOil';РА *k'opa- 'to 1) PN **bok/a/- "to rиn away" > PIE *bheиg/*bhegw- "id"; PU *pok-tV- "to inflate', 'to foam', 'to froth' (Шich-Svityсh 1976:363-365). 21) PN **NajRa 'тап', 'та1е' > PIE *ner 'id.'; РА *fiarV 'id.' (Шich-Svityсh rиn"; РА *p[']Vk- "rиn" (РМТ опlу, if РА aspirated, then иnrelated) (Шiсh- Svitych 1971:181) 1976:92-93). 2) PN **bura "to drill" > PIE *bher- "to 0011";PU *pura "[to] 0011";РА *bura 22) PN **рщсл 'flea' > PIE *bblиs/*plиs 'flea'; РА *ptiraga/*btiraga 'flea' (Шiсh-Svitусh 1976:92-93). "to tиrn" (РТ опlу) (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:186-187). 3) PN **Ьиrл "snow/saпd storm" > PIE *bher "[to] storm"; PU *рurkл 23) PN **qo~ 'to set fire', 'fire' > PIE *He[:]t 'fire', 'fireplace'; РА *ooti "snowstorm"; РА *Ьоrа/*Ьurл "storm", "snowstorm" (Шiсh-Svityсh 'fire', 'spark' (Шich-Svitусh 1976: 103-104). 24) PN **zap'a 'to Ьоlд' > PIE *sep- 'to Ьоlд', 'to иndertake smth.'; РА *Japa 1971: 188-190). 4) PN **ska1и "to split", "to cиt" > PIE *skel "to split"; PU *sa1e "to split", "to 'to Ьоlд', 'to arraпge' (Шich-Svitусh 1976:111). cиt"; РА *са1и"to cиt" (Шiсh-Svityсh 1971:195-197). Statistical distribution оС the above etymologies 5) PN **gi/i/l:lи "smooth апд glimmering" > PIE *ghelhw-/*gblеhW- "glimmering"; PU *kl/i/л "smooth апд glimmering"; РА *gilи-/*gila- PIE РА "smooth апд glimmering" (Шiсh-Svitусh 1971:229-230). PU 47 47 6) PN **gop'a "empty", "ho11ow"> PIE *geиp- "cavity", "Ьоlе", "pit"; PU РА 44 *koppa :'empty", "ho11ow"; РА *goba-/*gobi- "empty" , "ho11ow" (Шich- Svitych 1971:232-233). As a1ways, the existence of para11elsbetween the two or more laпgиages тау invite three possible interpretations: 1) а11these para11elsare raпdom апд дие to Let иs sиppose that the fo11owingexamples are а1110anwords with the сЬапсе; 2) they are 10aпwords;3) they demonstratethat laпgиages in qиestion are direction of borrowing: PIE > PU > РА. If they are PIE 10anwords in РА related. In oиr case, the possibility of а sheer сЬапсе сап ье rи1eдoиt from the borrowed via PU, we are faced with а phonetic development which will ье very beginning becaиse а11 our para11els are based оп regu1ar phonetic difficиlt to explain in а sitиationof borrowing: correspondences, the very existence of those woиld ье impossible in case of raпdom para11els.Therefore, we are left with two choices опlу: 10aпwords or C[+voice] > C[-voice] > C[+voice] соттоп heritage. C[-stор]С[+stор]> C[-stop] > С [+stop] Borrowing seems a1soиnlikely, дие to the fo11owingconsiderations, thoиgh How соиlд PIE voiced stops possibly have Ьееп borrowed into PU as the sma11ernиmberof PIE-PА para11elsтау lеад to sиch sиspicion. First, in the voiceless, bиt passed оп to Altaic as voiced? How соиlд а PIE clиster have Ьееп 266 ЛLEXЛNDБR VOVIN NOSTRAТIC AND ЛLТЛIС 267

Ьопоwеd into PU as single fricative but resurface in РА as an affricate? If we Thus, 1соте to the general conclusion that Nostratic theory, at least conceming assume the opposite direction of Ьопоwing, that is РА > PU > PIE, we again Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic, is а valid working hypothesis, which cannot find ourselves in по better position: ье disrnissed right out-of-hand. However, that does not mean that all problems a,resolved now, and that Nostratic now has the same status as, let us say, Indo- C[+voice] > C[-voice] > C[+voice] European. Be10w 1 intend to address one of the numerous issues which C[+stop] > C[-stop] > C[-stор]С[+stор] Nostraticists face and which must Ье solved before Nostratic can reach the same level of credibility as 10wer-leve1farni1iesconstitutingit. Quite sirnilar1yto the previous scenario, РА voiced stops Ьесоте voice1ess in PU, but resurface as voiced in РШ. РА affricates shift to PU fricatives, but the Let us 100k at the personal pronouns in different branches of Nostratic as reconstructed Ьу У. М. Шiсh-Svitусh (1971:6): 1atter generates consonant c1usters in РШ. We will confront the same phono1ogicalnonsense if we assume that al1these paral1e1sare due to Ьопоwing "Г' "thou" "we" inc1. "we" exc1. "уои" Ьу РШ and РА from PU. Let us add two more examp1esfrom аЬоуе: PN **rni **!iI**Si **та **nл **1ii РА 17) PN **pelНi "Ье afraid" > РШ *pelН- "Ье afraid"; PU *pe1e- "Ье afraid"; РА *bi/*rnin- *ti/*si *bli/*miin- ?*ta PU *rni/*rninл-*ti/*tuu- *mii/*me *pee1i- "Ье afraid" (Шiсh-Svityсh 1976:98-99). *Ш PD *та[а] 18) PN **р'ш'/а/ "to tear", "to break", "to sp1it"> РШ *(s)per- "to tear", "to *-ti *naam incl. PIE *me/mene- *te/tewe- *me-s *ne-/*noo- оЫ. break"; PU *рша "to break"; РА *р'бr2ii1*р'tir2ti "to tear", "to crush" *-te РКА *naj, *n- (Шiсh-Svityсh 1976:100-101). *me/*rni *se-/*si- (оЫ.) *т- РАА *?аn-tл, *t- *m(n) *nahnu Assurning that these two examples as well as previous six are all PU loanwords If we isolate the РА line from this chart and Ьауе а closer look at it, we will in РШ and РА, we are faced with the following developments: discover that it has а strange pecu1iarity, unparalle1ed Ьу any other Nostratic PU C[-voice] > РШ C[+voice], C[-voice] branch: > РА C[+voice], C[-voice] "Г' "thou" "we" incl. "we" excl. "уои" PU C[-stop] > РШ C[-stор]С[+stор] РА *bi/*rnin- *ti/*si *bii/*miin- ?*ta > РА C[+stop] АНpronounsexcept "уои" Ьауе double forms starting either with *Ь- or *т- for Under this scenario PU voiceless stops chaotically Ьесоте either voiceless or the fшt person and either with *s- or *t- for the second person. Let us exaтine voiced in РШ and РА, yet PU fricatives produce РА affricates and РШ clusters. personal pronounsin different branches of Altaic: One can possibly bring forward an argument that all these words were Personal pronouns in different Altaic branches: "Ьопоwеd" not from proto-languages, but from different 1anguages and in different times. However, this is higbly unlikely since all these parallels are РМТ PJ РК РМ РТ attested throughout these three language farnilies, and, therefore, must go back "1" *Ы *ban *na *Ы *Ьiin to all three proto-languages (the reader will remember that 1 cut off all paral1els "те" *rnin- *rnin-/*na- *Ьiin-/*тiin- with lirnited attestation). In addition, the regularity in сопеsроndеnсеs under .. "thou"j *si *sQ- *san such а scenario would not exist, and we would ье faced with the chaotic system "thee"j *sin- of сопеsроndеnсеs or with several different systems of сопеsроndеnсеs which "thou"2 *na *ne occur when we deal with loanwords from different languages at different times. "thou"3 *ci < *ti Therefore, the only reasonable solution to this problem is to adrnit that "thee" 3 *cim-/*cin- common genetic origin is the likeliest hypothesis to explain all these parallels. <*tin- 268 ALEXANDER VOVIN NOSТRAТIC AND ALTAIC 269

(b)иri *-т; PD *-т; РА *-bal*-ba, which exhibits the same broken correspondences "we" excl. *Ьи *Ьan * *Ьа *bir2 "иs" excl. *тип- *тan- (Шich-Svityсh 1976:48). It is not possible to claim that there are different (b)иri correspondences for lexical and grammaticalmorphemes, since there are regular "we" incl. *bi:t *Ьan * *bida *bir2 "иs" incl. *mfu-t- *bidan- correspondences for other grammatical markers: PN **тА nominalizing affix > РАА *т-, РК *т-, РIE *-то, PU *-mal*ma, PD *-mai, РА *-mal*-ma. "уои"1 *sии *sQ- *sir2 "уои" 1оЫ. *sииn- Thus, the unes,capableconclusion is that РА personal pronouns are unrelated "уои" 2 *па *пеЬиу to Indo-Eиropeanor Uralic personal pronouns. Тhat creates an obvious "уои"з *ta distinction between Altaic оп опе side, and Uralic with Indo-Eиropean оп the "уои" 3 оЫ. *tan- other: the соттоп origin of РIE and PU personal pronouns seems to ье beyond anу reasonable doubt. РIE and PU exhibit, therefore, а considerably more close- It becomes clear from this chart that forms with initial *т- for the f1rst knit relationship with еасЬ other than anу of them with Altaic, or, as far as опе person are secondary: they appear only in oblique cases, due to assimilation of сan judge оп the basis of the аЬоуе chart of personal pronouns, with anу other *Ь- Ьу nasality to the following formant *-п-. As for the second person, the Nostratic language. form with initial *t- is attested only in Mongolic, and it is not related to РМТ, Iц sum, the аЬоуе review of PIE, PU, and РА parallels shows that they are PJ, and РТ forms with *s-, since РМ *t- does not correspond to РМТ, PJ, and based оп regular sound correspondences and therefore are not random. Тhe РТ *s-. Тherefore, the isolated Mongolic form сan hardly Ье projected onto аРА phonological natиre of these correspondences is sиch that they cannot ье level. Therefore, the following reconstrиction of РА pronoиns seems to Ье in attribиtedto borrowing either. That leaves only опе option: Altaic is likely to ье order: related to both РIE and PU. However, taking into consideration the lack of the соттоп personal pronouns,1believe that it тау ье prematиreto classify Altaic lsg. *ЬУ(-п-)"1" 1pl. *ЬV -n-l-r2- "we" as "Nostratic": it тау Ье, in fact, related to Nostratic оп а deeper level, that is to *па- "те" ье а member of another macrofamily, coordinate with Nostratic. In particular, 2sg. *sV(-п-) "thou" 2pl. *sV-п-l-r2- "уои" some Altaic-Eskimo-Aleиt andAltaic-Nivx parallels тау look по 1ess promising ?*па "thoи" than Altaic and Nostratic. However, this problem falls outside the scope and However, Шich-Svityсh provides the following correspondences for Altaic and limits of this paper and 1 will not discuss it here. Before this and тanу other other Nostratic languages (1971: 147-150): questions coиld ье answered with anу degree of certainty, опе must first reach а considerable improvements within reconstruction Altaic proper. Only after this PN РАА РКА РIE PU PD РА preliminary work is done, it will ье safer to compare Altaic with other language **Ь- *Ь- *Ь- *ЬЬ- *р- *р- *Ь- families, and to find its exact place among them. **т- '*т- *т- *т- *т- *т- *т- Abbreviations **t- *t- *t- *d- *t- *t- *t- РА **1- *1- *1- *t- *t- *t- *t'- Proto-Altaic РАА **s- *~- *s- *s- *s- *с- *s- Proto-Afro- Asiatic PD Proto- Dravidian I Therefore, if опе admits that РА and Nostratic personal pronoиns are related, РIE Proto- Indo-Eиropean that will violate this system of correspondences: РА *Ь- is not а reflex of PN Р] Proto-J apanese **т-, and РА *s- is not а reflex of PN **1-.Moreover, еуеп if we accept РМ *ti РК Proto- Korean "thou" and *ta "уои" as РА, that still will ье violating correspondences: РМ *t- РКА Proto- Kartvelian тау reflect only РА *t'- and never РА *t-, and РА *t'- corresponds to РАА *1-, РМ Proto-Mongolian bиt not to РАА *t- (cf. the аЬоуе chart of personal pronouns in different РМТ Proto-Manchи- Tungus Nostratic branches). Compare also PN **-тА direct object sиff1x> РIE *т; PU PN Proto-Nostratic 270 ALEXANDER VOVIN

РТ Proto- Turkic PU Proto-Ura1ic

REFERENCES Andronov, Mikhail S. 1982. "Iz istorii klassifikatsii dravidiiskikh iazykov". Serebrennikov 1982а, 140-194. Clauson, Gerard. 1973. "Nostratic". Joumal о! the Royal Asiatic Society 1973.46-55. Illich-Svitych, Vladislav М. 1971. Opyt sravпeпiia пostraticheskikh iazykov (seтitokhaтitskii, kartvel' skii, iпdoevropeiskii, ural' skii, dravidiiskii, altaiskii), vol. 1. 1пtroductioп. Coтparative dictioпary (Ь-lО. Moscow: Nauka. _' 1976. Opyt sravпeпiia пostraticheskikh iazykov (seтitokhaтitskii, kartvel'skii, iпdoevropeiskii, ural'skii, dravidiiskii, altaiskii), vol. 2. Coтparative dictioпary (l-з). Moscow: Nauka. _' 1984. Opyt sravпeпiia пostraticheskikh iazykov (seтitokhaтitskii, kartvel' skii, iпdoevropeiskii, ural' skii, dravidiiskii, altaiskii), vol. 3. Coтparative dictioпary (p-q). Compiled Ьу У. А. Dybo and others оп the basis of Illich- Svitych's files. Moscow: Nauka. Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1993. "Оп Illich-Svitych's Nostratic Theory". Studies iп Laпguage 17.205-249. _' 1994. "Clusters or Affricates in Kartvelian and Nostratic?" Diachroпica 11.157-170. Serebrennikov, Boris А. 1982а. Teoreticheskie osпovy klassifikatsii iazykov тira: РгоЫету rodstva. Moscow: Nauka. _' 1982Ь. "Problema dostatochnosti osnovaniia v gipotezakh, kasaiushchikhsia geneticheskogo rodstva iazykov". Serebrennikov 1982а, 6-62. Shcherbak, Aleksei М. 1984. "О nostraticheskikh issledovaniiakh s pozitsii tiurkologa". Voprosy iazykozпaпiia 33.6.30-42. Vine, Brent. 1991. "Indo-European and Nostratic". 1пdogerтaпische Forschuпgeп 96.9-35.