DOCSLIB.ORG

Contents Abbreviations of the Names of Languages in the Statistical Maps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 Ossete 74 http://d-nb.info/1073182746 vi 3.1.3 Armenian 76 3.1.4 Albanian 77 3.1.5 Greek 80 3.1.6 The Modern Romance languages 82 3.1.6.1 The Ibero-Romance languages 82 3.1.6.1.1 Spanish 82 3.1.6.1.2 Portuguese 84 3.1.6.1.3 Catalan 85 3.1.6.2 The Gallo-Romance languages 87 3.1.6.2.1 French 87 3.1.6.3 The Italo-Romance languages 89 3.1.6.3.1 Italian 89 3.1.6.4 The Balkano-Romance languages 91 3.1.6.4.1 Romanian 91 3.1.7 The Celtic languages 93 3.1.7.1 Irish 93 3.1.7.2 Welsh 95 3.1.7.3 Breton 97 3.1.8 The Germanic languages 99 3.1.8.1 The West Germanic languages 99 3.1.8.1.1 English 99 3.1.8.1.2 German 102 3.1.8.1.3 Dutch 104 3.1.8.1.4 Yiddish 106 3.1.8.2 The North Germanic languages 108 3.1.8.2.1 Swedish 108 3.1.8.2.2 Danish 109 3.1.9 The Baltic languages 111 3.1.9.1 Latvian 111 3.1.9.2 Lithuanian 113 3.1.10 The Slavonic languages 114 3.1.10.1 The South-Slavonic languages 115 3.1.10.1.1 Bulgarian 115 3.1.10.1.2 Macedonian 116 3.1.10.1.3 Serbo-Croat (Serbian, Croat and Bosnian) 118 3.1.10.1.4 Slovene 120 3.1.10.2 The West Slavonic languages 122 3.1.10.2.1 Czech 122 3.1.10.2.2 Slovak 123 3.1.10.2.3 Sorbian 125 3.1.10.2.4 Polish 126 3.1.10.2.5 Kashubian 128 3.1.10.3 The East Slavonic languages 129 3.1.10.3.1 Russian 129 3.1.10.3.2 Belorussian 131 3.1.10.3.3 Ukrainian 132 vii 3.2 Indigenous languages of the Caucasus 134 3.2.1 The South Caucasian languages (the Kartvelian phylum) 134 3.2.1.1 Georgian 134 3.2.1.2 Svan 137 3.2.2 The North-West Caucasian languages (the Abaza-Adyghe phylum) 138 3.2.2.1 Abkhaz 138 3.2.2.2 Kabardian (East Circassian) 140 3.2.3 The North-East Caucasian languages 143 3.2.3.1 The Avaro-Andi-Tsez group 143 3.2.3.1.1 The Avaro-Andi group 143 3.2.3.1.1.1 Ghodoberi 143 3.2.3.1.2 The Tsezic group 145 3.2.3.1.2.1 Hunzib 145 3.2.3.2 The Lezgian group 146 3.2.3.2.1 Tsakhur 146 3.2.3.2.2 Udi 149 3.2.3.2.3 Lezgi 151 3.3 The Uralic languages 152 3.3.1 The Finno-Ugric languages 153 3.3.1.1 The Saami languages 153 3.3.1.1.1 Skolt Saami 153 3.3.1.1.2 North Saami 155 3.3.1.2 The Baltic-Finnic languages 157 3.3.1.2.1 Finnish 157 3.3.1.2.2 Estonian 159 3.3.1.3 The Mordvin and Mari languages 161 3.3.1.3.1 Erzya 161 3.3.1.3.2 East Mari 163 3.3.1.4 The Permic languages 165 3.3.1.4.1 Komi Zyrian 165 3.3.1.4.2 Udmurt 167 3.3.1.5 The Ugric languages 169 3.3.1.5.1 The Ob-Ugric languages 169 3.3.1.5.1.1 Northern Khanty 169 3.3.1.5.1.2 Mansi 171 3.3.1.5.2 Hungarian 173 3.3.2 The Samoyedic languages 175 3.3.2.1 The North Samoyedic languages 175 3.3.2.1.1 Central Tundra Nenets 175 3.3.2.1.2 Nganasan 176 3.3.2.2 The South Samoyedic languages 178 3.3.2.2.1 Selkup 178 3.4 The Altaic languages 179 3.4.1 The Turkic languages 179 3.4.1.1 The South-West Turkic languages 179 3.4.1.1.1 Turkish 179 viii 3.4.1.1.2 Azerbaijani 181 3.4.1.1.3 Turkmen 183 3.4.1.2 The North-West Turkic languages 185 3.4.1.2.1 Karachay-Balkar 185 3.4.1.2.2 Tatar and Bashkir 187 3.4.1.2.3 Noghay 189 3.4.1.2.4 Kirghiz 190 3.4.1.2.5 Karakalpak and Kazakh 191 3.4.1.3 The South-East Turkic languages 192 3.4.1.3.1 Uzbek 192 3.4.1.3.2 Uyghur 194 3.4.1.4 The North-East Turkic languages 196 3.4.1.4.1 Sakha (Yakut) 196 3.4.1.4.2 South Siberian Turkic 197 3.4.1.4.2.1 Khakas 198 3.4.1.4.2.2 Tuvan 200 3.4.1.4.2.3 Northern Altay 202 3.4.1.5 Chuvash 203 3.4.2 The Mongolic languages 205 3.4.2.1 Kalmuck 206 3.4.2.2 Dagur (Daur) 207 3.4.2.3 Khalkha 210 3.4.2.4 Buryat 212 3.4.3 The Tungusic languages 213 3.4.3.1 Evenki 213 3.4.3.2 Even 216 3.4.3.3 Nanay 218 3.4.3.4 Manchu 219 3.5 Basque 222 3.6 Indigenous minority languages spoken in East Asia 224 3.6.1 The Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages 224 3.6.1.1 Chuckhi 224 3.6.1.2 Koryak 227 3.6.1.3 Itelmen 228 3.6.2 The Yukaghir languages 230 3.6.2.1 Kolyma Yukaghir 230 3.6.3 The Yenisei languages 232 3.6.3.1 Ket 232 3.6.4 The Eskimo-Aleut languages 234 3.6.4.1 Aleut 234 3.6.5 Nivkh 236 3.6.6 Ainu 238 3.7 Korean 239 3.8 Japanese 242 3.9 Sino-Tibetan languages 244 3.9.1 Mandarin Chinese 244 ix 3.10 Languages spoken in the border areas of Europe and North and Cen- 247 tral Asia, and migrant languages 3.10.1 Semitic languages 247 3.10.1.1 Central Semitic languages 247 3.10.1.1.1 Arabic 247 3.10.2 Mon-Khmer languages 249 3.10.2.1 Vietnamese 249 4. On typological diversity of languages spoken in Europe and North 252 and Central Asia 4.1 On typological distances between languages in the database 2S2 4.2 On relative typological distances of languages in various language 273 groups 4.2.1 The Indo-European languages 273 4.2.2 The Uralic languages 276 4.2.3 The Altaic languages 278 4.2.4 Caucasian languages 281 4.2.5 Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages, Yukaghir, Ket, Ainu, Basque, 283 Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Arabic 4.3 Geographical areas as the frameworks of organizing languages spo- 284 ken in Europe and North and Central Asia 4.3.1 The Baltic Sea Region and Northern Scandinavia 285 4.3.2 The North Sea Region and north-western Scotland and Ireland 287 4.3.3 The Danube and Dnestr Catchment Areas 289 4.3.4 South Europe: the Mediterranean Zone 291 4.3.5 The East European Plain 293 4.3.6 The Ob and Irtysh Catchment Area 295 4.3.7 The Yenisei, Selenga and Khatanga catchment areas 297 4.3.8 North-East Asia 299 4.3.9 South-Eastern Central Asia 301 4.3.10 The Central Asian Mountains and Upland 303 4.3.11 Western Central Asia 305 4.3.12 The Caucasus 307 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Mongolic Languages Routledge Language Family Series
    THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES ROUTLEDGE LANGUAGE FAMILY SERIES Each volume provides a detailed, reliable account of every member language, or representative language of a particular family. Each account is a reliable source of data, arranged according to the natural system of classification: phonology, mor- phology, syntax, lexicon, semantics, dialectology and socio-linguistics. Each volume is designed to be the essential source of reference for a particular linguistic commu- nity, as well as for linguists working on typology and syntax. The Austronesian Languages of Asia The Manchu-Tungusic Languages and Madagascar Edited by Alexander Vovin Edited by Nikolaus Himmelmann & The Mongolic Languages Sander Adelaar Edited by Juha Janhunen The Bantu Languages The Oceanic Languages Edited by Derek Nurse & Edited by John Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Gérard Philippson Terry Crowley The Celtic Languages The Romance Languages Edited by Martin Ball & James Fife Edited by Martin Harris & Nigel The Dravidian Languages Vincent Edited by Sanford B. Steever The Semitic Languages The Germanic Languages Edited by Robert Hetzron Edited by Johan van der Anwera & The Sino-Tibetan Languages Ekkehard König Edited by Graham Thurgood & Randy The Indo-Aryan Languages LaPolla Edited by George Cardona & Dhanesh The Slavonic Languages Jain Edited by Bernard Comrie & Greville The Indo-European Languages B. Corbett Edited by Paolo Ramat & Anna The Turkic Languages Giacalone Edited by Lars Johanson & Eva Csato The Iranian Languages The Uralic Languages Edited by Gernot Windfuhr Edited by Daniel Abondolo The Khoesan Languages Edited by Raïner Vossen THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES Edited by Juha Janhunen First published 2003 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal Vol. LX. No. 2. 2018
    JOURNAL OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY VOLUME LX No. 4 2018 THE ASIATIC SOCIETY 1 PARK STREET KOLKATA © The Asiatic Society ISSN 0368-3308 Edited and published by Dr. Satyabrata Chakrabarti General Secretary The Asiatic Society 1 Park Street Kolkata 700 016 Published in February 2019 Printed at Desktop Printers 3A, Garstin Place, 4th Floor Kolkata 700 001 Price : 400 (Complete vol. of four nos.) CONTENTS ARTICLES The East Asian Linguistic Phylum : A Reconstruction Based on Language and Genes George v an Driem ... ... 1 Situating Buddhism in Mithila Region : Presence or Absence ? Nisha Thakur ... ... 39 Another Inscribed Image Dated in the Reign of Vigrahapäla III Rajat Sanyal ... ... 63 A Scottish Watchmaker — Educationist and Bengal Renaissance Saptarshi Mallick ... ... 79 GLEANINGS FROM THE PAST Notes on Charaka Sanhitá Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar ... ... 97 Review on Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar’s studies on Äyurveda Anjalika Mukhopadhyay ... ... 101 BOOK REVIEW Coin Hoards of the Bengal Sultans 1205-1576 AD from West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and Bangladesh by Sutapa Sinha Danish Moin ... ... 107 THE EAST ASIAN LINGUISTIC PHYLUM : A RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON LANGUAGE AND GENES GEORGE VAN DRIEM 1. Trans-Himalayan Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Xiâng, Hokkien, Teochew, Pínghuà, Gàn, Jìn, Wú and a number of other languages and dialects together comprise the Sinitic branch of the Trans-Himalayan language family. These languages all collectively descend from a prehistorical Sinitic language, the earliest reconstructible form of which was called Archaic Chinese by Bernard Karlgren and is currently referred to in the anglophone literature as Old Chinese. Today, Sinitic linguistic diversity is under threat by the advance of Mandarin as a standard language throughout China because Mandarin is gradually taking over domains of language use that were originally conducted primarily in the local Sinitic languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Tungusic from the Perspective of Areal Linguistics : Focusing on the Bikin Dialect of Udihe
    Title Tungusic from the Perspective of Areal Linguistics : Focusing on the Bikin Dialect of Udihe Author(s) 白, 尚燁 Citation 北海道大学. 博士(文学) 甲第12069号 Issue Date 2016-03-24 DOI 10.14943/doctoral.k12069 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/61556 Type theses (doctoral) File Information Baek_Sangyub.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP Tungusic from the Perspective of Areal Linguistics: Focusing on the Bikin Dialect of Udihe （地域言語学的観点から見たツングース諸語―ウデヘ語のビキン方言を中心に） By Sangyub BAEK A Thesis Submitted to Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University In Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor in the field of History and Area Studies Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iii List of Maps ..................................................................................................................................... vi Preface ........................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................ ix List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Das Jukagirische Im Kreise Der Nostratischen Sprachen
    Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 130 (2013): 171–190 DOI 10.4467/20834624SL.13.011.1142 MICHAEL KNÜPPEL Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen [email protected] DAS JUKAGIRISCHE IM KREISE DER NOSTRATISCHEN SPRACHEN Keywords: Yukaghir languages, Nostratic linguistics, Uralo-Yukaghir question, treat- ment of Yukaghir by Nostraticists, history of linguistics Abstract The Yukaghir language as a member of the Nostratic family of languages The article deals with the treatment of Yukaghir languages (Tundra-Y., Kolyma-Y., Chuvan, Omok) by several prominent Nostraticists (H. Pedersen, V. M. Illič-Svityč, J. H. Greenberg, A. R. Bomhard, K. H. Menges, V. Blažek, A. B. Dolgopol’skij). The author gives an overview on their attempts of different quality to relate the Yukaghir languages with the Nostratic family and sketches some omnicomparativists’ hypothesises on macro-families such as “Uralo-Yukaghir” or “Eurasiatic”. 1. Einleitung Daß der Titel des vorliegenden Beitrages den Leser zunächst etwas befremden dürfte, ist vom Vf. durchaus beabsichtigt, erweckt er doch den Anschein, als entspräche es der Intention des Autors, die Zugehörigkeit der jukagirischen Sprachen (Tundra- Jukagirisch, Kolyma-Jukagirisch, Omokisch u. Čuvanisch) zu den nostratischen Sprachen zu postulieren. Würde ein solcher Versuch auf Anhieb einigermaßen grotesk erscheinen, so ist doch anzumerken, daß eine Reihe von Nostratikern, dies ernsthaft in Erwägung ziehen, und entsprechende Überlegungen durchaus immer wieder Befürworter finden. Auch sind entsprechende Versuche keineswegs neu und, bezieht man die Spekulationen hinsichtlich der sogenannten „Uralo-Jukagirischen“ 172 MICHAEL KNÜPPEL Hypothese1 in die Betrachtungen ein, sogar folgerichtig (wird das Proto-Uralische von den Nostratikern doch als eine „Tochtersprache“ des [Proto-]Nostratischen angesehen). Inzwischen ist eine ganze Reihe von Arbeiten, in denen auch die jukagi- rischen Befunde für diverse [Re-]Konstruktionen berücksichtigt wurden, erschienen.
    [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]
  • Indigenous Languages Indigenous Languages Are Disappearing WHY DO LANGUAGES DIE?
    Issue 9 Under Sail Newspaper March 2019 other languages that are spoken? Do they have future or are they condemned to die? Indigenous languages Languages play a crucial role in the daily lives of people, not only as a tool for communication, education, social integration and development, but also as a repository for each person's unique identity, cultural history, traditions and memory. However, despite their immense value, languages around the world continue to disappear at an alarming rate. In an article recently published in The New With this in mind, the United Nations Yorker, the issue of endangered languages is declared 2019 The Year of Indigenous explored in depth. They report a concern that Languages (IY2019) in order to raise up to half of today’s living languages are in awareness of them, not only to benefit the danger and will be extinct by the end of the people who speak these languages, but also 21st century. This means a language dies on for others to appreciate the important average every four months. contribution they make to our world's rich cultural diversity. Indigenous languages are disappearing In today’s globalized world, language usage is changing rapidly. English is the dominant language of the internet. More people now have a working knowledge of English as a WHY DO LANGUAGES DIE? second (or third) language than the number of people who consider English their mother Languages die for many reasons. Some are tongue. At the same time, more than three cultural. For example, many cultures have billion people – nearly half of the world’s been colonized or otherwise dominated by current population – speak one of only 20 another culture.
    [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]
  • In Search of Language Contact Between Jarawa and Aka-Bea: the Languages of South Andaman1
    Acta Orientalia 2011: 72, 1–40. Copyright © 2011 Printed in India – all rights reserved ACTA ORIENTALIA ISSN 0001-6483 In search of language contact between Jarawa and Aka-Bea: The languages of South Andaman1 Anvita Abbi and Pramod Kumar Cairns Institute, Cairns, Australia & Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Abstract The paper brings forth a preliminary report on the comparative data available on the extinct language Aka-Bea (Man 1923) and the endangered language Jarawa spoken in the south and the central parts of the Andaman Islands. Speakers of Aka-Bea, a South Andaman language of the Great Andamanese family and the speakers of Jarawa, the language of a distinct language family (Abbi 2006, 2009, Blevins 2008) lived adjacent to each other, i.e. in the southern region of the Great Andaman Islands in the past. Both had been hunter-gatherers and never had any contact with each other (Portman 1899, 1990). The Jarawas have been known for living in isolation for thousands of years, coming in contact with the outside world only recently in 1998. It is, then surprising to discover traces of some language-contact in the past between the two communities. Not a large database, but a few examples of lexical similarities between Aka-Bea and Jarawa are 1 The initial version of this paper was presented in The First Conference on ASJP and Language Prehistory (ALP-I), on 18 September 2010, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. We thank Alexandra Aikhnevald for helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper. 2 Anvita Abbi & Pramod Kumar investigated here.
    [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]
  • Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity
    Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity Volume I: General issues and specific studies Edited by Francesca Di Garbo Bruno Olsson Bernhard Wälchli language Studies in Diversity Linguistics 26 science press Studies in Diversity Linguistics Editor: Martin Haspelmath In this series: 1. Handschuh, Corinna. A typology of marked-S languages. 2. Rießler, Michael. Adjective attribution. 3. Klamer, Marian (ed.). The Alor-Pantar languages: History and typology. 4. Berghäll, Liisa. A grammar of Mauwake (Papua New Guinea). 5. Wilbur, Joshua. A grammar of Pite Saami. 6. Dahl, Östen. Grammaticalization in the North: Noun phrase morphosyntax in Scandinavian vernaculars. 7. Schackow, Diana. A grammar of Yakkha. 8. Liljegren, Henrik. A grammar of Palula. 9. Shimelman, Aviva. A grammar of Yauyos Quechua. 10. Rudin, Catherine & Bryan James Gordon (eds.). Advances in the study of Siouan languages and linguistics. 11. Kluge, Angela. A grammar of Papuan Malay. 12. Kieviet, Paulus. A grammar of Rapa Nui. 13. Michaud, Alexis. Tone in Yongning Na: Lexical tones and morphotonology. 14. Enfield, N. J. (ed.). Dependencies in language: On the causal ontology of linguistic systems. 15. Gutman, Ariel. Attributive constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. 16. Bisang, Walter & Andrej Malchukov (eds.). Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios. 17. Stenzel, Kristine & Bruna Franchetto (eds.). On this and other worlds: Voices from Amazonia. 18. Paggio, Patrizia and Albert Gatt (eds.). The languages of Malta. 19. Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.). Diachrony of differential argument marking. 20. Hölzl, Andreas. A typology of questions in Northeast Asia and beyond: An ecological perspective. 21. Riesberg, Sonja, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko Utsumi (eds.). Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages.
    [Show full text]