DOCSLIB.ORG

The Uralic Languages Fennic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Uralic Languages Fennic This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 25 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Uralic Languages Daniel Abondolo Fennic Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315003283.ch3 Tiit-Rein Viitso Published online on: 18 Dec 1997 How to cite :- Tiit-Rein Viitso. 18 Dec 1997, Fennic from: The Uralic Languages Routledge Accessed on: 25 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315003283.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 Fennic Tiit-Rein Viitso The Fennic branchof the Uralic family is a dialect continuumthat is usually divided into seven languages:Livonian, Estonian, Votic, Ingrian, Finnish, Karelian and Veps. A Lude languagehas sometimesbeen extractedfrom Karelian as an eighth language,but Ludes identify themselvesas Karelians. Estonian (one million speakers)and Finnish (five million speakers)are discussed in separate chapters in this volume. The remaining Fennic languageshave becomelanguages of bilingual minorities in their traditional territories; they are Votic (25 speakers),Ingrian (300 speakers),Karelian (62,500 speakers)and Veps (6,000 speakers)in Northwest Russia, and Livonian (15 native speakers)in Latvia. Livonian j j Livonian (liiv6 keel, raandakeel 'coastlanguage'), as spokenin Kurland, is relatively homogenous.Three dialects, West, Central and East Livonian, differ from eachother only slightly. The poorly attesteddialect of historical Livonia, spokento the north of the lower reachesof DaugavaRiver, became extinct in the nineteenthcentury. There has been literature in Livonian since the translationof the Gospel according to Matthew into Western and EasternLivonian in 1863 and the publicationofthe samegospel in a Central-and-EasternLivonian compromise languagein 1880. In the 1920s a new orthography was elaborated.The Livonian literary languagewas annihilated with the Soviet occupationof Latvia. Most Livonians were forced to leave their homeland(Uv6d Randa); they now live scatteredamong other nations. Not until 1989 were a few booklets publishedonce again in Livonian and efforts begun to revive the language. Livonian is the most innovative Fennic language.The chief characteristic featuresof Livonian are: Two distinctive lexical tones: the level tone and the glottalizedllaryngealized one (or stf/Jd; often from *h; indicatedin this chapteras +); Gradation of both historically long and short stressedsyllables with short vocalism; Long and shortfalling diphthongsuo: uo, Ie: ie; 96 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:16 25 Sep 2021; For: 9781315003283, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315003283.ch3 FENNIC 97 Map 3.1 Fennic:North/South and East/West Divisions E E Ve Ve F Finnish E K Karelian E E E Ve Veps E I Ingrian E Estonian E Vo Votic L Livonian E E Source: Adaptedfrom Itkonen 1980.7,as reproducedin Szfj 1990: 154. Rising diphthongs and triphthongs that can occur in up to five tone and quantity patterns,e.g. k:'dgZD 'ships', k:'o+ig?J 'ship (sP)" IUozm?J 'warp (sP)" tu+ oig?Jz 'birchbark',luoima 'warp (sNG)', aiga 'edge(sNG)', a+ig?J 'edge(sP)" azg?J 'time, weather(sP), aiga 'time, weather(sNG)" IQ+Qigi 'asunder'; Delabializationof the p[roto-]F[ ennic] labial front vowels; Reminiscencesof metaphony; The contrastivebehaviour of bisyllabic a- and a-stems vis-a-vis U-, z- and ?J-stemsin inflectional paradigms; The dative case; Near-completeloss of the externallocal cases. Estonian Estonian (eesti keel, older style: maakeel) is spoken mainly in Estonia. Translationsof scriptureinto Estoniandate from 1535. Alongside the North Estonianliterary language(formerly called the Tallinn language)the South Estonianliterary language(the Tartu language)was usedin SoutheastEstonia Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:16 25 Sep 2021; For: 9781315003283, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315003283.ch3 98 FENNIC from the fIrst half of the seventeenthup to the secondhalf of the nineteenth century; the degenerationof the Tartu languagebegan with the publicationof the Bible in North Estonianin 1739. Estonian dialects are usually classifIed into three main groups: (1) Northeasterncoastal dialect, (2) North Estonian (consisting of the Insular, Western, Central and Easterndialects), (3) South Estonian (including the Mulgi, Tartu, andVoru dialects).This classifIcation,however, is incompatible with data from the other Fennic languages;accordingly, a classifIcationinto fIve main groups is to be preferred: (1) Coastal,(2) Northeast,(3) East, (4) North and (5) South Estonian. With the exception of the Coastal and Northeastgroups, all Estonian dialects contrastthree syllabic quantities in stressedsyllables. The North Estonian literary dialect has assimilatedand supersededalmost all otherEstonian dialects. CoastalEstonian, spoken on the southerncoast of the Gulf of Finland, was originally closer to the Finnish dialects than to any other dialect group of Estonian.Coastal Estonian never had the backunrounded vowel e. Northeastand East Estonian,together with Votic proper, stem from one protodialect; they sharethe merger *0 > *e in about twenty stems and the assimilation*st > ss; NortheastEstonian has beeninfluenced by Coastaland, later, by North Estonian.East Estonian was influencedfIrst by Southand later by North Estonian. SouthEstonian probably split directly from proto-Fennic.In somecases it hasretained pF (and evenproto-Uralic) *cj, e.g. latisi 'child' < *lapcji, katisi 'two' « *kakcji < *kakti), kuudzi 'nail, claw'. On the other hand, it has undergonethe characteristicchanges *kti > *kcji > *tjs\ *kt > *tt after the vowel of the first syllable. Votic Votic (vatPtPaa ceeti, maaceeli) is presently spoken in coastal villages of Vaipooli, Northwest Ingermanland,east of the mouth of the Luga River. Vaipooli Votic was the westernmostdialect of Votic proper. Votic properhas usually beendivided into West and EastVotic. West Votic was a dialect chain (Vaipooli, Pontizoo, Maci, Orko) characterizedby loss of word-fInal -G « *-k) and -h, which were still retainedin EastVotic; on the otherhand, West Votic had preservedword-fInal -n in the fIrst-person singular suffIx of the verb (similarly to non-SouthEstonian), whereas in East Votic the loss of -n was total (as in South Estonianand Livonian). Other dialects of Votic were Kukkuzi on the easternbank of the Luga River, which became extinctin the 1980s, and Krevin. The Krevin dialect was spokenby descendantsof Votic war prisonerswho were movedto the vicinity of Bauska,Latvia, about 1445 by the Teutonic Order. Krevin becameextinct in the nineteenthcentury and is very poorly attested.There was nevera Votic scripture. Votic properprobably separatedfrom Eastand NortheastEstonian around Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:16 25 Sep 2021; For: 9781315003283, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315003283.ch3 FENNIC 99 1000CEo In Votic proper,pF *k hasgone to *c beforefront vowels. Kukkuzi Votic never had the vowel *e. On the other hand, both Votic proper and Kukkuzi have merged*ps and *ks into hs - hz and, similarly to Northeast and East Estonian, have assimilated *st to an *ss which is susceptibleto gradation(ss - s) in Votic properand Kukkuzi. Kukkuzi Votic was originally a North Fennicdialect that was first influencedby Votic proper andlater byLower Luga Ingrian. Ingrian Ingrian, or Izhor (izoran keeli, earlier also karjalan keeli) may havehad five dialects resulting from dialect split, with the possible exception of Lower Luga Ingrian, which may well have developedon the basisof a Votic proper or Kukkuzi Votic substratum.Lower Luga Ingrian is spokenalong the Rosona River in EstonianIngermanland (still annexedby Russia)and on both banks of the lower reachesof the Luga River; Soikkola Ingrian is spokenon the Sojkino peninsula;Hevaha Ingrian is spokenin the vicinity of the Koltusi River. The Upper Luga, or Oredd,dialect, spokeninland, becameextinct in the 1970s. The North Ingrian that was spokenby the Orthodox population north of the Gulf of Finland has beenFennicized and probably servedas the substratumfor the .Ayriimoinen dialect, traditionally classified as a form of SoutheastFinnish. An attemptto createan Ingrian literary languagewas made in 1932-7. Finnish Finnish (suomenkieli) is spokenmainly in Finland, Sweden,and Ingerman- land. Finnish dialects have been traditionally classified into West Finnish (SouthwestFinnish, SouthernTransitional, Hiime, SouthPohjanmaa, Central and North Pohjanmaa,Deep North) and East Finnish (Savo and Southeast Finnish). This classification seems somewhat oversimplified: West and SoutheastFinnish as groups are too heterogeneousand should rather be divided into separategroups. Karelian Karelian consistsof North (or Viena), South, Aunus (or Olonec) and Lude Karelian. North Karelianis spokenin North Karelia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contents Abbreviations of the Names of Languages in the Statistical Maps
    V Contents Abbreviations of the names of languages in the statistical maps. xiii Abbreviations in the text. xv Foreword 17 1. Introduction: the objectives 19 2. On the theoretical framework of research 23 2.1 On language typology and areal linguistics 23 2.1.1 On the history of language typology 24 2.1.2 On the modern language typology ' 27 2.2 Methodological principles 33 2.2.1 On statistical methods in linguistics 34 2.2.2 The variables 41 2.2.2.1 On the phonological systems of languages 41 2.2.2.2 Techniques in word-formation 43 2.2.2.3 Lexical categories 44 2.2.2.4 Categories in nominal inflection 45 2.2.2.5 Inflection of verbs 47 2.2.2.5.1 Verbal categories 48 2.2.2.5.2 Non-finite verb forms 50 2.2.2.6 Syntactic and morphosyntactic organization 52 2.2.2.6.1 The order in and between the main syntactic constituents 53 2.2.2.6.2 Agreement 54 2.2.2.6.3 Coordination and subordination 55 2.2.2.6.4 Copula 56 2.2.2.6.5 Relative clauses 56 2.2.2.7 Semantics and pragmatics 57 2.2.2.7.1 Negation 58 2.2.2.7.2 Definiteness 59 2.2.2.7.3 Thematic structure of sentences 59 3. On the typology of languages spoken in Europe and North and 61 Central Asia 3.1 The Indo-European languages 61 3.1.1 Indo-Iranian languages 63 3.1.1.1New Indo-Aryan languages 63 3.1.1.1.1 Romany 63 3.1.2 Iranian languages 65 3.1.2.1 South-West Iranian languages 65 3.1.2.1.1 Tajiki 65 3.1.2.2 North-West Iranian languages 68 3.1.2.2.1 Kurdish 68 3.1.2.2.2 Northern Talysh 70 3.1.2.3 South-East Iranian languages 72 3.1.2.3.1 Pashto 72 3.1.2.4 North-East Iranian languages 74 3.1.2.4.1
    [Show full text]
  • Saami and Scandinavians in the Viking
    Jurij K. Kusmenko Sámi and Scandinavians in the Viking Age Introduction Though we do not know exactly when Scandinavians and Sámi contact started, it is clear that in the time of the formation of the Scandinavian heathen culture and of the Scandinavian languages the Scandinavians and the Sámi were neighbors. Archeologists and historians continue to argue about the place of the original southern boarder of the Sámi on the Scandinavian peninsula and about the place of the most narrow cultural contact, but nobody doubts that the cultural contact between the Sámi and the Scandinavians before and during the Viking Age was very close. Such close contact could not but have left traces in the Sámi culture and in the Sámi languages. This influence concerned not only material culture but even folklore and religion, especially in the area of the Southern Sámi. We find here even names of gods borrowed from the Scandinavian tradition. Swedish and Norwegian missionaries mentioned such Southern Sámi gods such as Radien (cf. norw., sw. rå, rådare) , Veralden Olmai (<Veraldar goð, Frey), Ruona (Rana) (< Rán), Horagalles (< Þórkarl), Ruotta (Rota). In Lule Sámi we find no Scandinavian gods but Scandinavian names of gods such as Storjunkare (big ruler) and Lilljunkare (small ruler). In the Sámi languages we find about three thousand loan words from the Scandinavian languages and many of them were borrowed in the common Scandinavian period (550-1050), that is before and during the Viking Age (Qvigstad 1893; Sammallahti 1998, 128-129). The known Swedish Lapponist Wiklund said in 1898 »[...] Lapska innehåller nämligen en mycket stor mängd låneord från de nordiska språken, av vilka låneord de äldsta ovillkorligen måste vara lånade redan i urnordisk tid, dvs under tiden före ca 700 år efter Kristus.
    [Show full text]
  • URALIC MIGRATIONS: the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE Václav
    URALIC MIGRATIONS: THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE Václav Blažek For the classification of Fenno-Ugric/Uralic languages the following scenarios have been proposed: (1) Mari, Mordvin and Fenno-Saamic as coordinate sub-branches (Setälä 1890) Saamic Fenno- -Saamic Balto-Fennic Fenno- -Volgaic Mordvin Fenno- Mari -Permic Udmurt Fenno-Ugric Permic Komi Hungarian Ugric Mansi. Xanty (2) Mordvin and Mari in a Volgaic group (Collinder 1960, 11; Hajdú 1985, 173; OFUJ 1974, 39) Saamic North, East, South Saami Baltic Finnic Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian, Olonets, Ludic, Fenno-Volgaic end of the 1st mill. BC Vepsian, Votic, Estonian, Livonian 1st mill BC Mordvin Fenno- -Permic Volgaic Mari mid 2nd mill. BC Udmurt Finno-Ugric Permic end of the 8th cent. AD Komi 3rd mill. BC Hungarian Uralic Ugric 4th mill. BC mid 2st mill. BC Mansi, Xanty North Nenets, Enets, Nganasan Samoyedic end of the 1st mill. BC South Selkup; Kamasin (3) A model of a series of sequential separations by Viitso (1996, 261-66): Mordvin and Mari represent different separations from the mainstream, formed by Ugric. Fenno-Saamic Finno- Mordvin -Ugric Mari Uralic Permic Ugric (‘Core’) Samoyedic (4) The first application of a so-called ‘recalibrated’ glottochronology to Uralic languages was realized by the team of S. Starostin in 2004. -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 +500 +1000 +1500 +2000 Selkup Mator Samojedic -720 -210 Kamasin -550 Nganasan -340 Enets +130 Nenets Uralic Khanty -3430 Ugric Ob- +130 Mansi -1340 -Ugric Hungarian Komi Fenno-Ugric Permic +570 Udmurt -2180 Volgaic -1370 Mari -1880 Mordva -1730 Balto-Fennic Veps +220 Estonian +670 Finnish -1300 Saamic Note: G.
    [Show full text]
  • Locality, Neutrality, and Contrast: a New Resolution to the Votic Paradox
    Locality, neutrality, and contrast: A new resolution to the Votic paradox Daniel Currie Hall, Saint Mary’s University nels 48 • háskóli íslands • október 2017 Outline 1 Introduction 2 The paradox illustrated 3 Theoretical questions 4 The contrastive status of /i/ 5 Proposal: A new resolution to the paradox 6 Consequences 1 Introduction 1.1 The language Votic (also Vod, Votian; endonym Vaďďa tšeeli or Vađđa ceeli; iso-639 code vot): Finland • Uralic ▶ Finno-Ugric ▶ Finnic ▶ Votic Helsinki • Spoken in western Russia (four villages in Leningrad ࢫ Oblast; Kuznetsova et al. 2015: 135) Gulf of Finland ࢝ · St. Petersburg ·· ࢫ Villages with Votic speakers • “The total number of Votic speakers now could be6to Tallinn 10” (Heinsoo & Kuusk 2011: 172). • “At present, Votic is almost never used as a means of Estonia Russia communication” (Kuznetsova et al. 2015: 137). Figure 1: Location of Votic 1.2 The paradox The Votic paradox, identified by Blumenfeld & Toivonen (2016): • /i/ is transparent to vowel place harmony (as in Finnish). ☛ This suggests that /i/ is not specified for place. • But /i/ conditions a front allophone of /l/. ☛ This suggests that /i/ is specified for place. Blumenfeld & Toivonen’s solution: • Place is specified on /i/, but it is not contrastive. • Non-contrastive features are ‘weak,’ and sometimes ignored (Calabrese 1995; Nevins 2010; Rhodes 2010). • Harmony applies only to contrastive specifications. • /l/ allophony is sensitive to all specifications. My proposal: • Place is contrastive on /i/ in Votic… • …but it is marked by a different feature from the one that participates in vowel harmony. d. c. hall locality, neutrality, and contrast nels 48 2 The paradox illustrated 2.1 Harmony Front–back vowel pairs participate in place harmony, which propagates from left to right: (1) Front stem + elative /-ssA/ (Ahlqvist 1856; Ariste 1968) a.
    [Show full text]
  • B. the Program in Uralic and Altaic Studies Originated During the Academic Year
    B. The Program in Uralic and Altaic Studies originated during the academic year 1960-1961, when it was known as a Comittee on Uralic and Altaic Studies. In the academic year 1961-1962 ta Jt it was transformed into a Program which then dealt, mainly with Uralic Studies - Finnish and Hungarian language and area studies. As it expanded a more complete range of courses in Uralic and Altaic Language and Area Studies were offered, and to-day the Program is probably the most comprehensive of its kind in the United States, and enjoys a world-wide reputation. Uralic and Altaic Studies is a relatively unconventional field of study concerned with an area that plays an increasing role in world affairs and embarces a great part of the Eurasian Continent. It compriaes a field of study which has hitherto been neglected in the United States. This Program now provides the much needed research facilities for graduate and doctoral students which enables them to become specialized in this field, and meets the growing need for specialists and academicians in this area. The Program offers a degree of Mafter of Arts with specialization in either Uralic or Altaic Studies. An Independent doctoral Program in Uralic and Altaic will be established during the course of the coming year. In the meantime, candidates for the Ph.D. degree present their specialization in Uralic or Altaic Studies to the curricular unit appropriate to the student' a major interest, such as linguistics, history, Asian Studies, folklore, etc. Apart from these above mentioned degrees, the Program also offers a Certificate in Hungarian Studies which is designed to stimulate interest and specialization among students who would already have accumulated some of the requirements towards unkhux another degree.
    [Show full text]
  • The Finnish Korean Connection: an Initial Analysis
    The Finnish Korean Connection: An Initial Analysis J ulian Hadland It has traditionally been accepted in circles of comparative linguistics that Finnish is related to Hungarian, and that Korean is related to Mongolian, Tungus, Turkish and other Turkic languages. N.A. Baskakov, in his research into Altaic languages categorised Finnish as belonging to the Uralic family of languages, and Korean as a member of the Altaic family. Yet there is evidence to suggest that Finnish is closer to Korean than to Hungarian, and that likewise Korean is closer to Finnish than to Turkic languages . In his analytic work, "The Altaic Family of Languages", there is strong evidence to suggest that Mongolian, Turkic and Manchurian are closely related, yet in his illustrative examples he is only able to cite SIX cases where Korean bears any resemblance to these languages, and several of these examples are not well-supported. It was only in 1927 that Korean was incorporated into the Altaic family of languages (E.D. Polivanov) . Moreover, as Baskakov points out, "the Japanese-Korean branch appeared, according to (linguistic) scien tists, as a result of mixing altaic dialects with the neighbouring non-altaic languages". For this reason many researchers exclude Korean and Japanese from the Altaic family. However, the question is, what linguistic group did those "non-altaic" languages belong to? If one is familiar with the migrations of tribes, and even nations in the first five centuries AD, one will know that the Finnish (and Ugric) tribes entered the areas of Eastern Europe across the Siberian plane and the Volga.
    [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]
  • On the Similarities and Differences Between the Mongolic, Tungusic, and Eskimo-Aleut Languages
    ON THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MONGOLIC, TUNGUSIC, AND ESKIMO-ALEUT LANGUAGES Shinjiro Kazama Tokyo University of Foreign Studies This paper is an attempt at a contrastive typological analysis of selected struc- tural features of three language families: Mongolic, Tungusic, and Eskimo- Aleut (EskAleutic). While Mongolic and Tungusic, together with Japanese (Japonic) and Korean (Koreanic), are known to share many structural features in the context of the so-called Altaic phenomenon, many of these features are not particularly diagnostic and might even be regarded as coincidental with perhaps the single exception of obviative person marking. This is a feature attested also in Eskimo-Aleut. The present paper offers a somewhat more detailed discussion of this, as well as of other typological similarities and differ- ences between the three language families in the areal context of the North Pacific region. Данная статья является попыткой сопоставительного типологического анализа некоторых особенностей монгольских, тунгусских и эскимосско-алеутских языков. Как известно, монгольские и тунгусские языки, а также японский и корейский языки, имеют немало общих черт в контексте так называемого алтайского феномена, но многие из них не имеют особенно большого диагностического значения и могут быть даже случайными. Исключением является обвиативное лицо, которое встречается и в эскимосско-алеутских языках. Эта черта, а также некоторые другие типлогические совпадения и расхождения между названными группами языков рассматриваются в статье в контексте Северо-Тихоокеанского региона. 1. INTRODUCTION In Kazama (2003) I attempted to contrast typologically three so-called Altaic language groups (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic), together with the Korean and Japanese languages. I endeavoured to contrast these languages in detail, dealing with as many features as possiblе.
    [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 Indo-European Languages the Indo-European Linguistic Family
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Indo-European Languages Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 Bernard Comrie Published online on: 20 Nov 1997 How to cite :- Bernard Comrie. 20 Nov 1997, The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives from: The Indo-European Languages Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203880647.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives Bernard Comrie Introduction: Genetic and Areal Affiliations The other chapters in this book are essentially inward-looking in terms of their Indo-European perspective, examining reasons for positing the genetic unity of the Indo-European languages and ways of accounting for their differ­ entiation from a single ancestor language.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 the Altaic Hypothesis
    4 The Altaic Hypothesis To complete our overview of Altaic philology, we must say something about one of the most controversial aspects of Altaic studies, the so- called Altaic Hypothesis (AH). Also referred to as the Altaic Theory, the AH is a by-product of comparative research in the field of Uralic and Altaic linguistics. When, in the 19th c., enough data had been collected by individuals investigating the Finno-Ugric and Altaic languages (or, to be more precise, the ones we now call the Finno- Ugric and Altaic languages), certain apparent relationships between the languages of these groups were noticed. Further investigations caused a number of scholars interested in historical linguistics to establish correlations between these languages and propose a genetic rapport between them, as indeed was being done by their colleagues in the field of Indo-European languages. The way this process occurred is, briefly, as follows. Although the theory developed in the 19th c. and flourished in the 20th, it first germinated in the 18th c. with von Strahlenberg, whom we met in connection with his work on Kalmyk. On the basis of his knowledge of several languages (which he had acquired during his extensive travels) and the similarities which he discovered among them, he classified their speakers into six groups: 1) Uighurs, i.e. the Finno-Ugric speaking people, the Baraba Tatars and the Huns, 2) Turco-Tatars, 3) Samoyeds, 4) Mongols and Manchus, 5) Tungus, and 6) the tribes between the Black Sea and the Caspian. This first classification was rough, unscientific and incorrect. The Finno-Ugric people cannot be grouped together with the Baraba Tatars who are a Turkic tribe; and the tribes between the Black and Caspian Seas belonged to several different ethnic groups speaking different lan- guages: Turkic, Iranian and Caucasian languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Families Indo-European Is Just One of Many Large Language Families in The
    Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction, 5th edition, Chapter 8: Families, 1 Families Indo-European is just one of many large language families in the world today. A brief survey of some other language families will help illustrate the extraordinary diversity of human language. [Add Anchors for the following families] [Uralic] [Austroasiatic] [Indo-Pacific] [Nilo-Saharan] [Altaic] [Tai-Kadai] [Australian] [Khoisan] [Caucasian] [Sino-Tibetan] [Afroasiatic] [The Americas] [Dravidian] [Austronesian] [Niger-Congo] Uralic The Uralic family (see Table 1) contains about twenty languages and has approximately 22 million speakers. Uralic languages are spoken in a band across the northern part of Europe, all the way from northern Norway to Siberia. Uralic has two major branches: Samoyed and Finno-Ugric. The Samoyed branch contains a handful of languages spoken in northern Russia, particularly in areas around the Ural Mountains, and also in Siberia. The most widely spoken Finno-Ugric language is Hungarian. Other Finno-Ugric languages are Finnish, Lapp (also known as Lappish or Saame, spoken in northern Scandinavia and northwestern Russia), Estonian (Estonia), Livonian (Latvia), Karelian (eastern Finland and northwestern Russia), Erzya, and Cheremis (both spoken in the former USSR). Uralic languages are primarily agglutinating and most have postpositions with SOV or SVO word order. The nouns often have many cases (Finnish has Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction, 5th edition, Chapter 8: Families, 2 fifteen), which appear to have developed historically from postpositions that became attached to nouns as suffixes. [back to top] Altaic Languages belonging to the Altaic family are spoken in a continuum from Turkey to Siberia, and China. The membership of the Altaic family (see Table 2) includes three main branches—Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic.
    [Show full text]