DOCSLIB.ORG

George, S., Ed.: Language Isolates, 4 Volume

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GEORGE, S., ED.: LANGUAGE ISOLATES, 4 VOLUME SET VOLUME I Part 1: Isolated Languages of Europe 1.1 Basque 1. R. L. Trask, ‘A Thumbnail Sketch of the Language’, The History of Basque (Routledge, 1997), pp. 82-123. 2. R. L. Trask, ‘Origins and Relatives of the Basque Language: Review of the Evidence’, in J. I. Hualde, J. A. Lakarra, and R. L. Trask (eds.), Towards a History of the Basque Language (John Benjamins, 1995), pp. 65-99. 3. Luis Michelena, ‘The Latin and Romance Element in Basque’, in J. I. Hualde, J. A. Lakarra, and R. L. Trask (eds.), Towards a History of the Basque Language (John Benjamins, 1995), pp. 137-69. 1.2 Etruscan 4. Helmut Rix, ‘Etruscan’, in R. D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 943-66. Part 2: Isolated Languages of the Ancient Near East 2.1 Sumerian 5. I. M. Diakonoff, ‘Ancient Writing and Ancient Written Language: Pitfalls and Peculiarities in the Study of Sumerian’, in St. J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday, June 7, 1974 (University of Chicago Press, 1975), pp. 99-121. 6. Piotr Michalowski, ‘The Lives of the Sumerian Language’, in Seth L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures (University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 163-88. 7. Miguel Civil, ‘The Sumerian Writing Systems: Some Problems’, Orientalia Nova Series, 1973, 42, 21-34. 8. Gonzalo Rubio, ‘Sumerian Morphology’, in A. S. Kaye (ed.), Morphologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 2 (Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 1327-79. 9. Piotr Michalowski, ‘Sumerian as an Ergative Language, I’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1980, 82, 86-103. 10. Gonzalo Rubio, ‘On the Alleged "Pre-Sumerian Substratum"’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1999, 51, 1-16. 2.2 Hattic 11. J. Klinger, ‘Hattisch’, in M. P. Streck (ed.), Sprachen des alten Orients (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), pp. 128-34. 12. Petra Goedegebuure, ‘The Alignment of Hattian: An Active Language with an Ergative Base’, Babel und Bibel, 2007-8, 4-5, 949- 81. 2.3 Elamite 13. Matthew W. Stolper, ‘Elamite’, in R. D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 60-94. VOLUME II 2.4 Hurrian and Urartean 14. Gernot Wilhelm, ‘Hurrian, in R. D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 95-118. 15. Gernot Wilhelm, ‘Urartian’, in R. D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 119-37. 16. Gernot Wilhelm, ‘Suffixaufnahme in Hurrian and Urartian’, in Frans Plank (ed.), Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme (Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 113-35. Part 3: Isolated Languages of South Asia 3.1 Burushaski 17. John Biddulph, ‘Boorishki (Nager Dialect)’, in J. Biddulph, Tribes of the Hindoo Koosh (Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1880), pp. ii-xxxix. 18. Philip Lemont Barbour, ‘Buruçaskī: A Language of Northern Kashmir’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1921, 41, 60-72. 19. Peter C. Backstrom, ‘Burushaski’, in P. C. Backstrom and C. F. Radloff (eds.), Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan, Vol. 2 (National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan/Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992), pp. 31-54. 20. Gregory D. S. Anderson, ‘Burushaski Morphology’, in A. S. Kaye (ed.), Morphologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 2 (Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 1233-75. 3.2 Kusunda 21. Johan Reinhard, ‘The Ban Rajas: A Vanishing Himalayan Tribe’, Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 1976, 4/1, 1-22. 22. David E. Watters, ‘Kusunda: A Typological Isolate in South Asia’, in Y. Yadava et al. (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Nepalese Linguistics (Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal, 2005), pp. 375-96. 23. Madhav P. Pokharel, ‘Strategies of Pronominalization in Kusunda’, in Y. Yadava et al. (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Nepalese Linguistics (Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal, 2005), pp. 189-92. 3.3 Nihali 24. Robert Shafer, ‘Nahālī. A Linguistic Study in Paleoethnography’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 1940, 5, 346-71. 25. Norman H. Zide, ‘On Nihali’, in Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda Languages (Routledge, 2007), pp. 764-76. 3.4 Andamanese 26. Anvita Abbi, ‘Is Great Andamanese Genealogically and Typologically Distinct from Onge and Jarawa?’, Language Sciences, 2009, 31, 791-812. 27. Yogendra Yadav, ‘Great Andamanese: A Preliminary Study’, in D. Bradley (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics (Pacific Linguistics, 1985), pp. 185-214. Part 4: Isolated Languages of North Asia 4.1 Palaeosiberian 28. Roman Jakobson, ‘The Paleosiberian Languages’, American Anthropologist, New Series, 1942, 44, 4, 1, 602-20. 4.2 Ket and Yeniseian 29. Stefan Georg, ‘The Gradual Disappearance of a Eurasian Language Family: The Case of Yeniseian’, in M. Janse and S. Tol (eds.), Language Death and Language Maintenance: Theoretical, Practical and Descriptive Approaches (John Benjamins, 2003), pp. 89-106. 30. Edward Vajda, ‘The Kets and their Language’, Mother Tongue, 1998, IV, 4-16. 31. James Byrne, ‘Middle Yenisseian and Kottian’, General Principles of the Structure of Language, Vol. I (Trübner, 1885), pp. 466- 72. 32. Edward Vajda, ‘The Role of Position Class in Ket Verb Morphophonology’, Word, 2001, 52, 3, 369-436. 33. Stefan Georg, ‘Yeniseic Languages and the Siberian Linguistic Area’, in A. Lubotsky, J. Schaeken, and J. Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, Vol. 2 (Rodopi, 2008), pp. 151-68 VOLUME III 4.3 Yukaghir 34. Nikolai Vakhtin, ‘The Yukaghir Language in Sociolinguistic Perspective’, Linguistic and Oriental Studies from Poznań, 1992, 1, 47- 82. 35. Elena Maslova, ‘Yukagir Focus in A Typological Perspective’, Journal of Pragmatics, 1997, 27, 457-75. 36. Mark Schmalz, ‘Towards a Full Description of the Focus System in Tundra Yukaghir’, Linguistic Discovery, 2012, 10, 2, 53-108. 37. Irina Nikolaeva, ‘Chuvan and Omok Languages?’, in A. Lubotsky, J. Schaeken, and J. Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter- Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, Vol. 2 (Rodopi, 2008), pp. 313-36. 4.4 Nivkh 38. P. G. von Moellendorff, ‘The Ghilyak Language’, China Review, 1894, XXI, 141-6. 39. Robert Austerlitz, ‘Gilyak Internal Reconstruction, 1: Seven Etyma, Folia Slavica 5/1-3’, Papers from the Second Conference on the Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR, Columbus (Slavica, 1982), pp. 81-8. 40. Robert Austerlitz, ‘Gilyak Internal Reconstruction, 2: Iron and Questions Related to Metallurgy, Folia Slavica 7/1-2’, Papers from the Third Conference on the Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR, Columbus (Slavica, 1984), pp. 39-48. 41. Robert Austerlitz, ‘Gilyak Internal Reconstruction, 3: Ligneous Matter’, in H. I. Aronson (ed.), Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR: Papers from the Fourth Conference (Slavica, 1994), pp. 229-33. 4.5 Ainu 42. Anna Bugaeva, ‘Southern Hokkaido Ainu’, in N. Tranter (ed.), The Languages of Japan and Korea (Routledge, 2012), pp. 461- 508. Part 5: Isolated Languages of Africa 5.1 Jalaa 43. Ulrich Kleinewillinghöfer, ‘Jalaa—An Almost Forgotten Language of Northeastern Nigeria: A Language Isolate?’, in D. Nurse (ed.), Historical Language Contact in Africa (Rüdiger Köppe, 2001), pp. 239-71. 5.2 Shabo 44. Christopher Ehret, ‘Do Krongo and Shabo Belong in Nilo-Saharan?’, in Robert Nicolaï and Franz Rottland, Actes Cinquième Colloque de Linguistique Nilo-Saharienne/Fifth Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Nice, 24-29 août 1992, Actes/Proceedings (Köppe, 1993), pp. 169-93. 45. Anbessa Teferra, ‘A Sketch of Shabo Grammar’, in M. Lionel Bender (ed.), Proceedings of the Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium (4th, Bayreuth, West Germany, August 30-September 2, 1989) (Helmut Buske, 1991), pp. 371-87. 5.3 Ongota 46. Graziano Savà, ‘Ongota (Birale), A Moribund Language of Southwest Ethiopia’, in M. Janse and S. Tol, Language Death and Language Maintenance: Theoretical, Historical, and Descriptive Approaches (Benjamins, 2003), pp. 171-87. 5.4 Hadza 47. Bonny Sands, ‘The Linguistic Relationship Between Hadza and Khoisan’, in Mathias Schladt (ed.), Language, Identity, and Conceptualization Among the Khoisan (Köppe, 1998), pp. 265-83. Part 6: Isolated Language in the Americas 6.1 Kutenai 48. Matthew S. Dryer, ‘Grammatical Relations in Ktunaxa (Kutenai)’ (The Belcourt Lecture delivered before the University of Manitoba on 24 February 1995). 6.2 Esselen 49. David Leedom Shaul, ‘The Huelel (Esselen) Language’, IJAL, 1995, 61, 2, 191-239. VOLUME IV 6.3 Washo 50. A. L. Kroeber, ‘The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada’, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 1907, 4, 5, 249-317. 6.4 Yuchi 51. James M. Crawford, ‘Timucua and Yuchi: Two Language Isolates of the Southeast’, in L. Campbell and M. Mithun, The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment (University of Texas Press, 1979), pp. 327-54. 6.5 Zuni 52. Willard Walker, ‘What Zuni is Really Like’, in Frederick B. Agard and Gerald Kelley (eds.), Essays in Honor of Charles F. Hockett (E. J. Brill, 1983), pp. 551-62. 6.6 Tonkawa 53. Harry Hoijer, ‘Tonkawa’, in H. Hoijer et al. (eds.), Linguistic Structures of Native America (The Viking Fund, 1946), pp. 289-311. 54. Dell Hymes, ‘Interpretation of a Tonkawa Paradigm’, in D. Hymes (ed.), Studies in Southwestern Ethnolinguistics: Meaning and History in the Languages of the American Southwest (Mouton, 1967), pp. 264-78. 6.7 Chitimacha 55. Morris Swadesh, ‘Chitimacha’, in H. Hoijer et al. (eds.), Linguistic Structures of Native America (The Viking Fund, 1946), pp. 312-36. 6.8 Tunica 56. Mary Haas, ‘A Grammatical Sketch of Tunica’, in H. Hoijer et al. (eds.), Linguistic Structures of Native America (The Viking Fund, 1946), pp. 337-66. 6.9 Coahuilteco 57. Rudolph C. Troike, ‘Sketch of Coahuilteco: A Language Isolate of Texas’, in William C. Sturtevant (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians (Smithsonian Institution, 1996), Vol.
Recommended publications
  • THE LANGUAGE OFTHE SALINAN INDIANS Nominalizing Suffixes

    THE LANGUAGE OFTHE SALINAN INDIANS Nominalizing Suffixes

    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-154 January 10, 1918 THE LANGUAGE OF THE SALINAN INDIANS BY J. ALDEN MASON CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION..--.--.......------------........-----...--..--.......------........------4 PART I. P'HONOLOGY ---------7 Phonetic system ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vowels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Quality ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Nasalization ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Voiceless vowels.------------------......-------------.........-----------------......---8 Accent --------------------------------------------------9 Consonants ................---------.............--------------------...----------9 Semi-vowels ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Nasals ---------- 10 Laterals -------------------------------------------------------------10 Spirants ---------------------------------------....-------------------------------------------10 Stops .--------......... --------------------------- 11 Affricatives .......................-.................-........-......... 12 Tableof phonetic system ---------------------------.-----------------13 Phonetic processes ---------------------------.-----.--............13 Vocalic assimilation ------------------..-.........------------------13
  • Some Morphological Parallels Between Hokan Languages1

    Some Morphological Parallels Between Hokan Languages1

    Mikhail Zhivlov Russian State University for the Humanities; School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, RANEPA (Moscow); [email protected] Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages1 In this paper I present a detailed analysis of a number of morphological comparisons be- tween the branches of the hypothetical Hokan family. The following areas are considered: 1) subject person/number markers on verbs, as well as possessor person/number markers on nouns, 2) so-called ‘lexical prefixes’ denoting instrument and manner of action on verbs, 3) plural infixes, used with both nouns and verbs, and 4) verbal directional suffixes ‘hither’ and ‘thither’. It is shown that the respective morphological parallels can be better accounted for as resulting from genetic inheritance rather than from areal diffusion. Keywords: Hokan languages, Amerindian languages, historical morphology, genetic vs. areal relationship 0. The Hokan hypothesis, relating several small language families and isolates of California, was initially proposed by Dixon and Kroeber (1913) more than a hundred years ago. There is still no consensus regarding the validity of Hokan: some scholars accept the hypothesis (Kaufman 1989, 2015; Gursky 1995), while others view it with great skepticism (Campbell 1997: 290–296, Marlett 2007; cf. a more positive assessment in Golla 2011: 82–84, as well as a neutral overview in Jany 2016). My own position is that the genetic relationship between most languages usually subsumed under Hokan is highly likely, and that the existence of the Ho- kan family can be taken as a working hypothesis, subject to further proof or refutation. The goal of the present paper is to draw attention to several morphological parallels be- tween Hokan languages.
  • THE VOWEL SYSTEMS of CALIFORNIA HOKAN1 Jeff Good University of California, Berkeley

    THE VOWEL SYSTEMS of CALIFORNIA HOKAN1 Jeff Good University of California, Berkeley

    THE VOWEL SYSTEMS OF CALIFORNIA HOKAN1 Jeff Good University of California, Berkeley Unlike the consonants, the vowels of Hokan are remarkably conservative. —Haas (1963:44) The evidence as I view it points to a 3-vowel proto-system consisting of the apex vowels *i, *a, *u. —Silver (1976:197) I am not willing, however, to concede that this suggests [Proto-Hokan] had just three vowels. The issue is open, though, and I could change my mind. —Kaufman (1988:105) 1. INTRODUCTION. The central question that this paper attempts to address is the motivation for the statements given above. Specifically, assuming there was a Proto-Hokan, what evidence is there for the shape of its vowel system? With the exception of Kaufman’s somewhat equivocal statement above, the general (but basically unsupported) verdict has been that Proto-Hokan had three vowels, *i, *a, and *u. This conclusion dates back to at least Sapir (1917, 1920, 1925) who implies a three-vowel system in his reconstructions of Proto-Hokan forms. However, as far as I am aware, no one has carefully articulated why they think the Proto-Hokan system should have been of one form instead of another (though Kaufman (1988) does discuss some of his reasons).2 Furthermore, while reconstructions of Proto-Hokan forms exist, it has not yet been possible to provide a detailed analysis of the sound changes required to relate reconstructed forms to attested forms. As a result, even though the reconstructions themselves are valuable, they cannot serve as a strong argument for the particular proto vowel system they implicitly or explicitly assume.
  • Sumerian Lexicon, Version 3.0 1 A

    Sumerian Lexicon, Version 3.0 1 A

    Sumerian Lexicon Version 3.0 by John A. Halloran The following lexicon contains 1,255 Sumerian logogram words and 2,511 Sumerian compound words. A logogram is a reading of a cuneiform sign which represents a word in the spoken language. Sumerian scribes invented the practice of writing in cuneiform on clay tablets sometime around 3400 B.C. in the Uruk/Warka region of southern Iraq. The language that they spoke, Sumerian, is known to us through a large body of texts and through bilingual cuneiform dictionaries of Sumerian and Akkadian, the language of their Semitic successors, to which Sumerian is not related. These bilingual dictionaries date from the Old Babylonian period (1800-1600 B.C.), by which time Sumerian had ceased to be spoken, except by the scribes. The earliest and most important words in Sumerian had their own cuneiform signs, whose origins were pictographic, making an initial repertoire of about a thousand signs or logograms. Beyond these words, two-thirds of this lexicon now consists of words that are transparent compounds of separate logogram words. I have greatly expanded the section containing compounds in this version, but I know that many more compound words could be added. Many cuneiform signs can be pronounced in more than one way and often two or more signs share the same pronunciation, in which case it is necessary to indicate in the transliteration which cuneiform sign is meant; Assyriologists have developed a system whereby the second homophone is marked by an acute accent (´), the third homophone by a grave accent (`), and the remainder by subscript numerals.
  • Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: a 21St Century Perspective

    Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: a 21St Century Perspective

    MULTILINGUAL MATTERS 116 Series Editor: John Edwards Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective Edited by Joshua A. Fishman MULTILINGUAL MATTERS LTD Clevedon • Buffalo • Toronto • Sydney Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective/Edited by Joshua A. Fishman. Multilingual Matters: 116 Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Language attrition. I. Fishman, Joshua A. II. Multilingual Matters (Series): 116 P40.5.L28 C36 2000 306.4’4–dc21 00-024283 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1-85359-493-8 (hbk) ISBN 1-85359-492-X (pbk) Multilingual Matters Ltd UK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon BS21 7HH. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Australia: P.O. Box 586, Artarmon, NSW, Australia. Copyright © 2001 Joshua A. Fishman and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. Index compiled by Meg Davies (Society of Indexers). Typeset by Archetype-IT Ltd (http://www.archetype-it.com). Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd. In memory of Charles A. Ferguson 1921–1998 thanks to whom sociolinguistics became both an intellectual and a moral quest Contents Contributors . vii Preface . xii 1 Why is it so Hard to Save a Threatened Language? J.A.
  • Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the Colony Period : a Luwian-Hattian Symbiosis and the Independent Hittites*

    Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the Colony Period : a Luwian-Hattian Symbiosis and the Independent Hittites*

    1333-08_Dercksen_07crc 05-06-2008 14:52 Pagina 137 CENTRAL ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES IN THE COLONY PERIOD : A LUWIAN-HATTIAN SYMBIOSIS AND THE INDEPENDENT HITTITES* Petra M. Goedegebuure (Chicago) 1. Introduction and preliminary remarks This paper is the result of the seemingly innocent question “Would you like to say something on the languages and peoples of Anatolia during the Old Assyrian Period”. Seemingly innocent, because to gain some insight on the early second millennium Central Anatolian population groups and their languages, we ideally would need to discuss the relationship of language with the complex notion of ethnicity.1 Ethnicity is a subjective construction which can only be detected with certainty if the ethnic group has left information behind on their sense of group identity, or if there is some kind of ascription by others. With only the Assyrian merchant documents at hand with their near complete lack of references to the indigenous peoples or ethnic groups and languages of Anatolia, the question of whom the Assyrians encountered is difficult to answer. The correlation between language and ethnicity, though important, is not necessarily a strong one: different ethnic groups may share the same language, or a single ethnic group may be multilingual. Even if we have information on the languages spoken in a certain area, we clearly run into serious difficulties if we try to reconstruct ethnicity solely based on language, the more so in proto-historical times such as the early second millennium BCE in Anatolia. To avoid these difficulties I will only refer to population groups as language communities, without any initial claims about the ethnicity of these communities.
  • Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of the Sumerian Language

    Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of the Sumerian Language

    Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of the Sumerian Language Emilie´ Page-Perron´ †, Maria Sukhareva‡, Ilya Khait¶, Christian Chiarcos‡, † University of Toronto [email protected] ‡ University of Frankfurt [email protected] [email protected] ¶ University of Leipzig [email protected] Abstract cuses on the application of NLP methods to Sume- rian, a Mesopotamian language spoken in the This paper presents a newly funded in- 3rd millennium B.C. Assyriology, the study of ternational project for machine transla- ancient Mesopotamia, has benefited from early tion and automated analysis of ancient developments in NLP in the form of projects cuneiform1 languages where NLP special- which digitally compile large amounts of tran- ists and Assyriologists collaborate to cre- scriptions and metadata, using basic rule- and ate an information retrieval system for dictionary-based methodologies.4 However, the Sumerian.2 orthographic, morphological and syntactic com- This research is conceived in response to plexities of the Mesopotamian cuneiform lan- the need to translate large numbers of ad- guages have hindered further development of au- ministrative texts that are only available in tomated treatment of the texts. Additionally, dig- transcription, in order to make them acces- ital projects do not necessarily use the same stan- sible to a wider audience. The method- dards and encoding schemes across the board, and ology includes creation of a specialized this, coupled with closed or partial access to some NLP pipeline and also the use of linguis- projects’ data, limits larger scale investigation of tic linked open data to increase access to machine-assisted text processing.
  • Jicaque As a Hokan Language Author(S): Joseph H

    Jicaque As a Hokan Language Author(S): Joseph H

    Jicaque as a Hokan Language Author(s): Joseph H. Greenberg and Morris Swadesh Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), pp. 216- 222 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263010 Accessed: 11-07-2017 15:04 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263010?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics This content downloaded from 12.14.13.130 on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:04:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms JICAQUE AS A HOKAN LANGUAGE JOSEPH H. GREENBERG AND MORRIS SWADESH COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 1. The problem 2. The phonological equivalences in Hokan 2. Phonological note have been largely established by Edward 3. Cognate list Sapir's work.3 The Jicaque agreements are 4. Use of lexical statistics generally obvious. A special point is that 5.
  • The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars Number 2

    The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars Number 2

    oi.uchicago.edu i THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS NUMBER 2 Series Editors Leslie Schramer and Thomas G. Urban oi.uchicago.edu ii oi.uchicago.edu iii MARGINS OF WRITING, ORIGINS OF CULTURES edited by SETH L. SANDERS with contributions by Seth L. Sanders, John Kelly, Gonzalo Rubio, Jacco Dieleman, Jerrold Cooper, Christopher Woods, Annick Payne, William Schniedewind, Michael Silverstein, Piotr Michalowski, Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Theo van den Hout, Paul Zimansky, Sheldon Pollock, and Peter Machinist THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS • NUMBER 2 CHICAGO • ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu iv Library of Congress Control Number: 2005938897 ISBN: 1-885923-39-2 ©2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published 2006. Printed in the United States of America. The Oriental Institute, Chicago Co-managing Editors Thomas A. Holland and Thomas G. Urban Series Editors’ Acknowledgments The assistance of Katie L. Johnson is acknowledged in the production of this volume. Front Cover Illustration A teacher holding class in a village on the Island of Argo, Sudan. January 1907. Photograph by James Henry Breasted. Oriental Institute photograph P B924 Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, Michigan The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Infor- mation Services — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. oi.uchicago.edu v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................
  • "Evolution of Human Languages": Current State of Affairs

    "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).
  • Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific

    Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific

    Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific Anna Bugaeva1,2, Johanna Nichols3,4,5, and Balthasar Bickel6 1 Tokyo University of Science, 2 National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo, 3 University of California, Berkeley, 4 University of Helsinki, 5 Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 6 University of Zü rich Abstract: Some languages around the Pacific have multiple possessive classes of alienable constructions using appositive nouns or classifiers. This pattern differs from the most common kind of alienable/inalienable distinction, which involves marking, usually affixal, on the possessum and has only one class of alienables. The language isolate Ainu has possessive marking that is reminiscent of the Circum-Pacific pattern. It is distinctive, however, in that the possessor is coded not as a dependent in an NP but as an argument in a finite clause, and the appositive word is a verb. This paper gives a first comprehensive, typologically grounded description of Ainu possession and reconstructs the pattern that must have been standard when Ainu was still the daily language of a large speech community; Ainu then had multiple alienable class constructions. We report a cross-linguistic survey expanding previous coverage of the appositive type and show how Ainu fits in. We split alienable/inalienable into two different phenomena: argument structure (with types based on possessibility: optionally possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible) and valence (alienable, inalienable classes). Valence-changing operations are derived alienability and derived inalienability. Our survey classifies the possessive systems of languages in these terms. Keywords: Pacific Rim, Circum-Pacific, Ainu, possessive, appositive, classifier Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 1.
  • Partitioning the Timeline a Cross-Linguistic Survey of Tense

    Partitioning the Timeline a Cross-Linguistic Survey of Tense

    Partitioning the timeline A cross-linguistic survey of tense Viveka Velupillai Justus Liebig University Giessen The database The following gives the languages and their values in my database. The lan- guage names are primarily based on the source(s) and WALS Online (Dryer & Haspelmath 2013); where these differ from theEthnologue (Lewis et al. 2013) lan- guage names the Ethnologue name has been given in parenthesis. The ISO-639–3 codes are given in square brackets after the language name. I have relied onWALS Online where possible for the family and genus affiliation; where this was not pos- sible I relied on the source(s) and Ethnologue. The values for fusion type were tak- en from Bickel and Nichols (2013a) where possible; those languages are marked with an asterisk (*). For those languages that were not in Bickel & Nichol’s (2013a) database, I coded the fusion type according to the principles set out in Bickel & Nichols (2013b) using the reference indicated in the ‘Source’ column. Studies in Language 40:1 (2016), 1–42. doi 10.1075/sl.40.1.04ve2 issn 0378–4177 / e-issn 1569–9978 © John Benjamins Publishing Company 2 Viveka Velupillai Viveka No tense Language Genus Family Fusion Source Abui [abz] Greater Alor Timor-Alor-Pantar Isolating/Concatenative (Kratochvíl 2007: 209ff, 350) Achumawi [acv] Palaihnihan Hokan Concatenative (Angulo & Freeland 1930: 89ff, 111) Ainu [ain] Ainu Ainu Concatenative (Shibatani 1990: 80) Apinajé (Apinayé) [apn] Ge-Kaingang Macro-Ge Isolating (Cunha de Oliveira 2005: 170f) Arandai [jbj] South Bird’s Head Marind