Boreo-Oriental Fascicle One
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EPOR TRESUMES F1 010 356 40 LANGUAGES OF THE WORLDBOREOORIENTAL FASCICLE ONE. BV VOEGELIN, C. F. AND OTHERS INDIANA UNIV., BLOOMINGTON REPORT NUMBER NDEA- VI -63 -9 PUB DATE JAN 65 CONTRACT OEC- SAL -9486 EDRS PRICEMF50.27 HC -$5.96 I49P. ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS, 7(1)/1443, JAN. 1963 DESCRIPTORS- *LANGUAGES, *BORED ORIENTAL LANGUAGES, ARCHIVES OF LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA THIS REPORT LISTS AND DESCRIBES THE BORED- ORIENTAL LANGUAGES WHICH INCLUDE ALL NON- CAUCASIAN, NON- INDO-EUROPEAN, AND NONSINOTIBETAM LANGUAGES SPOKEN BETWEEN THE LINE THAT SEPARATCO EUROPE FROM ASIA AND THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN. (THE REPORT IS PART OF A SERIES, ED 010 M) TO ED 020 367.) OK) U. S. DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATION AM) WELFARE 0Mos of Education "rnit dosoment S been reproducedexactly as received sownof OryienisPilos from the orleinsting it Pointsof view or opinions flO nornecessarityrepresent official oodlion orpolicy. Office 4 Education Anthropological Linguistics Volume 7 Number 1. January 19 65 LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD: BOREO-ORIENTAL FASCICLE ONE A Psiblication of the ARCHIVES OF LANGUAGES OV THE WORLD Anthropology Departroont Indiatita ,Univeis ity ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS is designed primarily, but not exclusively, for the immediate publication of data-oriented papers for which attestation is available in the form of tape re,,-ordings on deposit in the Archives of Languages of the World. This does not imply that contributors will be re- stricted to scholars working Li the Archives at Indiana University; in fact, one motivation for the publication of ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS is to increase the usefulness of the Archives to scholars elsewhere by making publishable days andconclusions,and their tape recorded attestation more widely available.(Recorded attestation of papers from Molars elsewhere will be copied by the Archives and the vwiginal recordings returned to the collector; others may then work with the tape copy either in the Archives or elsewhekt by having a copy sent to them.)In addition to heavily exemplified paper!, in the form of preliminary or final statements on restricted problems in phonemics, ruorphophonemics, morphemics, syntax and comparative grammar, ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUIS. TICS will include laical lists and enalred texts (especially in the otherwise hard-to-publish range of 20 to 100 pages) and theoretical and methodological papers(especially in the form of papers from symPolia) Each volume of ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS consists of nine numbers to be issued during the montlu of January, Pebruaty, March, April, May, June, October, November and December. Subscriptions ($330 a year) and papers for publication should be sent to the editor, Dr. I lOrence M. Voegelin, Authropolog'y Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. LANGUAGES or THE WORLD: BOREO-ORIENTAL FASCICLE ONE Alo Raun, David Francis C.F. and P.M. VoegeLin Indiana University 1. Relationship of Uralic to Altaic and the scope of Boreo-Oriental Uralic 3. Altaic 4. Korean 5. Japanese and Okinawan 6. Ainu 7.0. Paleosiberian (Siberian Americanoid) languages 7.1. Family including Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal 7.2. Family including Yukaghir and Chuvantzy 7.3. Gilyak 7.4. Yeniseian I The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract with the United States Office of Edwasttion, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1 2 Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 1 1.0.Boreal is the adjectival form of bora,a northeasterly wind of the Adriatic Sea, which is reminiscent of theBoreas in Greek mythology-- north wind or wind from the mountains. Thisgives the etymology of the first member of the Boreo-Orientalcompound. The referent for the secone member of thiscompound is easier to identify than the first.'Oriental' refers to that part of theEurasian east whose coasts and off-shore islands face thePacific, while 'Boren' refers to the hard to determine line (broadeningto a lorridor sometimes) that separates Europe from Asia--a line which extendson a north-south axis from Finland to the Black Sea. The Boreo-Oriental languages include allnon-Caucasian, non-Indo- European and non-Sino-Tibetan languages thatare spoken between this line and the North Pacific Ocean. Someof the languages whose relativesare otherwise in the Boreo-Orientalarea have stepped over the line into Europe: Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, and Lappic, The Boreo-Oriental linguisticarea is more solidly based on continuous land mass than is the Indo-Pacificarea, but is comparable to it in magnitude of geographic scope (Languages of theWorld: Indo-Pacific Fascicles Oneto Eight). Just as Oceania in the Indo-Pacificar...comes into orderly linguistic focus when viewed asan area in whikh hundreds and hundreds of languages either are or are not members of theMalao-Potynesian faintly, so the dozens and dozens of languages in ,theBoreo*Oriental area can be viewed in Boreo-Oriental FascicleOne 3 terms of their relationshipor lack of relationship to Uralic and Altaiclan- guages.It is all very well tosay that the Malayo-Polynesian languagesare pivotal to the linguisticdiscussion of Oceania, becausetheir family relation- 81142 is demonstrated by thereconstruction of acommon ancestor (Proto- Austronesian).Uralic and Altaic languagesmay be similarly pivotal to the linguistic discussion of theBoreo-Oriental area, butmore complexly so and this for three mainreasons (1:1to 1.3, following). 1.1. Uralic is a demonstratedlanguage family,as much so as is Indo-European.It was in fact demonstratedto be a language family (th-in called Finno-Ugric) beforeIndo-European was. But Altaicis not a language family; it isa phylum consisting a at least threelanguage families thatare discussed separatelybelowTungus latizuagesincluding Manchu (3.), Mongol languages (3.2) andTurkic languages (3. 3)aftera discussion of the Uralic language family (2).It is then quite simpleto state the relationship between Uralic and Altaiclanguages; since latter already constitutesa phylum madeup of three language families, that phylumis merely expanded by the inclusion ofa fourth language family (Uralic). 1.2.It is easy enough tosay that the relationship between Uralic and Altaic languageslies in the province ofphylum linguistics (rather than in the province of comparativemethod work), but this doesnot say enough. There remains another provinceof iniestigation, knownas areal linguistics (and concerned withdiffusion between languagesin contact), that obtrudes in every discussion on the relationship of.Uralic and Altaic languages.Some 4 Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 1 of these languages have been incontact with others in thesame or neighboring families since time immemorial; andthe speakers of most of them have shown a more than usual tendencyinhistory as well as in prehistoryto migrate from one region of Eurasiato another, sometimes into regions occupied by peoples aboriginalto the region. Thus,some Tungus languages have been influenced by Paleosiberianlanguagesthose that are located in the vicinity of the aborigines, andonly those, as is indicated below (7.0). Some Tungus languagesare more markedly influenced by the Uralic Samoyed (2A).One languageManchuin theTungus family of the Altaic phylum has been so strongly influenced bylanguages from another family (Mongol) in the Altaic phylum that it istempting to speak of the quasi-Mongol appearance of Manchu structure (3.1), but thisappearance is deceptive, insofar as it reflects the fact thatManchu texts were written by scribes whose native languagewas Mongol, instead of reflecting structural similarity between the two spoken languages. 1.3.It is easy enough tosay that some similarities among Uralic and Altaic languages thatare not accounted for in terms of acomrron ancestor can be accounted for as a consequence of borrowingamong related languages subsequent to the dispersal of the ancestraldialects, but this really begs the question. The question in its most generalform asks which among the several dozen languages still spokenin the BorewoOrientalar ea are related and which are not. Justas the three-family Altaic phylum has been expanded, despite remaining skeptics, by theinclusion of a fourth family (Uralic),other Boreo-Oriental Fascicle One 5 language families have beenproposed from time to timein the present century for inclusion in thissame phylumsometimeseven other families located outside the Boreo-Orientalarea (e.g. the Eskimo-Aleut family,on the one hand, and the Indo-European' familyon the other hand). The suggestion that Korean belongs in thesame phylum with Uralic and Altaic hasbeen most persistently discussed in thiscentury. But Japanese also, and the Paleosiberian languagesas well, have been examined ina preliminary way for traces ofa common ancestry with Uralic and Altaiclanguages.If the traces were only less shadowy, it wouldbe possible to setup a Boreo- Oriental macro-phylum to includeall non-Caucasian,non-Indo-European and non-Sino-Tibetanlanguages that are spoken betweenEar rope and the North Pacific. The function of phylum linguisticsis like that ofa map made before all parts of a geographicarea have been surveyed in detail (e.g.northeast California was not surveyed beforea generation ago, but before that the unsurveyed part of Californiawas included on the state map, thoughnot in the detailed topographicalsurvey maps which are published in sections). The difficulty with includingPa leo-Siberian languagesas a genetic ,part on the Boreo Orientalmap is that some evidence points to possibleAmerican Indian relationships of Paleo-Siberianlanguages