LING 322 MIDDLE ENGLSH: LANGUAGE AND CHANGE The road to PROTO INDO EUROPEAN (PIE) The origin of language Problematic Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost all, attested human languages may derive from a single earlier language. Hypotheses of origin Continuity theory: Complexity of language indicates gradual evolution from pre- linguistic systems among early primates Discontinuity theory: Human language is unique and cannot be compared to any non-human system, so language must have appeared fairly suddenly in human evolution Monogenesis: a single proto-language between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago Polygenesis: languages evolved in several lineages independent of one another Complicating factors in the search for origins Time languages develop and change in a variety of ways Diverge Diachronic change Converge Two or more unrelated languages in contact acquire and display similar linguistic features not inherited from their respective proto- languages Replacement Speakers gradually shift to a completely different language Complete loss A crucial part of the language jigsaw is lost : Hittite The First Language Genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that Homo Sapiens originated in and spread from East Africa, so maybe an ancestor of the Khoisan languages, spoken around 50,000 years ago Evidence? The nature of reconstructed proto-languages suggests older languages made more phonological and morphological distinctions than their descendants. Evidence cited includes Khoisan languages have ‘click’ sounds, no language has developed them. Phoneme inventories reduce the further they are from Khoisan languages. East ǃXoon dialect: Non-click consonants Labial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal Plosive voiced d dz ɡ ɢ ~ ɴɢ tenuis p* t ts k q ʔ voiceless pʰ* tʰ tsʰ kʰ qʰ aspirated voiced aspirated dtʰ dtsʰ ɡkʰ* ɢqʰ ~ (breathy voiced?) (dʱ) (dzʱ) ɴɢqʰ voiceless ejective tʼ* tsʼ kʼ*, kxʼ (?) (qʼ) voiced ejective dtsʼ ɡkxʼ Fricative voiceless f* s x h* Nasal voiced m n ɲ (ŋ) glottalized ˀm ˀn Other (β) (l) (dʲ ~ j) East ǃXoon dialect: Click consonants noisy clicks ‘sharp’ clicks bilabial dental lateral alveolar palatal kʘ kǀ kǁ kǃ kǂ kʘʰ* kǀʰ kǁʰ kǃʰ kǂʰ ɡʘ ɡǀ ɡǁ ɡǃ ɡǂ ɡʘh ɡǀh ɡǁh ɡǃh ɡǂh ŋʘ ŋǀ ŋǁ ŋǃ ŋǂ ŋ̊ ʘ ŋ̊ ǀ ŋ̊ ǁ ŋ̊ ǃ ŋ̊ ǂ ↓ŋ̊ ʘʰ ↓ŋ̊ ǀʰ ↓ŋ̊ ǁʰ ↓ŋ̊ ǃʰ ↓ŋ̊ ǂʰ kʘˀ kǀˀ kǁˀ kǃˀ kǂˀ (kʘʼ?)* ˀŋʘ ˀŋǀ ˀŋǁ ˀŋǃ ˀŋǂ qʘ qǀ qǁ qǃ qǂ (qʘʰ?)* ɢʘ ɢǀ ɢǁ ɢǃ ɢǂ ɢǀh ɢǃh ɢǂh kʘˣ kǀˣ kǁˣ kǃˣ kǂˣ ɡʘx ɡǀx ɡǁx ɡǃx ɡǂx qʘʼ qǀʼ qǁʼ qǃʼ qǂʼ kʘʼqʼ kǀʼqʼ kǁʼqʼ kǃʼqʼ kǂʼqʼ ɡʘqʼ ɡǀqʼ ɡǁqʼ ɡǃqʼ ɡǂqʼ Relatively recent work (i) The word order in the ancestral language was SOV (ii) Except for cases of diffusion, the direction of syntactic change, when it occurs, has been for the most part SOV > SVO and, beyond that, SVO > VSO / VOS with a subsequent reversion to SVO occurring occasionally. Reversion to SOV occurs only through diffusion. (iii) Diffusion, although important, is not the dominant process in the evolution of word order. (iv) The two extremely rare word orders (OVS and OSV) derive directly from SOV. Murray Gell-Mann and Merritt Ruhlen, The origin and evolution of word order PNAS 2011 October, 108 (42) 17290-17295. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108 Nostracists and the Nostratic hypothesis In 1903 Holger Pedersen proposed ‘Nostratic’ (< Latin nostrās our countryman’) a common ancestor for Indo-European Finno-Ugric Samoyed Turkish Mongolian Manchu Yukaghir Eskimo Semitic Hamitic Spoken between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago Study picked up by the Russians in the 1960s, and has continued Holger Pedersen elsewhere until now Controversial! Language families included in Nostratic not always agreed on Language families proposed for inclusion in Nostratic vary Nostratic Reconstructions are themselves based on proto-language reconstructions Nostratic English (IPA) /KʼelHæ wetʼei ʕaKʼun kæhla/ Language is a ford through the river of time, /kʼat͡ ɬai palhVkʼV na wetæ/ it leads us to the dwelling of those gone before; /ɕa da ʔakʼV ʔeja ʔælæ/ but he cannot arrive there, /jakʼo pele tʼuba wete/ who fears deep water. Uncertain values: Kʼ could be /kʼ/ or /qʼ/ H could be /h/ or /ħ/ V / ʌ = uncertain vowel. IF you are interested Relatively recent work Allan Bomhard: Toward Proto-Nostratic a new approach to the comparison Ebook of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. Allan R Bomhard John C Kerns: The Nostratic macrofamily : a study in Call No. 410 B69 distant linguistic relationship Nostratic Dictionary Aharon Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary seems to be widely and freely available on the interweb as a PDF. 45000 years later . Proto-Indo-European (PIE) PIE is not the ‘original’ language, it is not even the earliest form of itself. It is the earliest ‘point’ that the parent language can be identified It has been reconstructed using the comparative method Putative date: 4000 BC (Late Neolithic) At least 1500–2000 years between Proto-Indo-European language and the earliest attested IE language (Hittite) PIE is the most widespread language family, although no direct evidence of it remains. IE SUBGROUPS Subgroup Earliest documents CELTIC 500 AD GERMANIC 500 AD (Gothic) ITALIC 700 BC (Old Latin) GREEK 1500 BC (Mycenean), 800 BC (Homer) ALBANIAN 1500 AD ARMENIAN 500 AD BALTIC 1500 AD SLAVIC 900 AD IRANIAN 600 BC (Avestan) INDIC 1500 BC (Vedic) 800 BC (Classical) TOKHARIAN 700 AD ANATOLIAN 1500 BC (Hittite) Proto-Indo-European Urheimat Broadly agreed stages of development A homeland on the East Ukrainian / South Russian steppes. Spread into Europe, the Middle East, and central Asia Formation of daughter languages PIE ‘Urheimat’ hypotheses Archaeology suggests a group of related populations scattered over a vast homeland. Linguistically, this does not hold up. ‘bee’ and ‘birch’ 4 principle locations suggested: 1. The Pontic Steppes (present day Ukraine) c4100 BC. Supported by archaeology. (Gimbutas, Mallory) 2. Pontic-Caspian c4500-3000 BC. Archaeology agrees with reconstructed Indo-European customs. 3. Central Europe / Balkans c5000 BC. Some archaeological evidence. 4. Anatolia c7000-6000 BC. Archaeology and PIE language reconstruction say too early. PIE Semantics Reconstructed forms reveal a culture with: A patrilineal kinship system Domesticated cattle, sheep, horses and dogs Agriculture and cereal cultivation A climate with winter snow, cold climate vegetation Water transportation Technology; tools, weapons, the plough and solid wheel Polytheistic religion, including a *dyeus ph2tēr Heroic poetry and song lyrics What does this confirm about PIE language? Reconstruction of the consonant system of PIE. Cognate sets Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit FOOT fo:t ped- pod- pa:d- FATHER fæder pater pate:r pitar- SLEEP swefan sopor hypnos svapati OVER, ABOVE ofer super huper upari Correspondence f p p p PIE *p Exercise 1: Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit YOU (Singular) θu:/θe: tu:/te: tu /toi tvam/te THREE θri: tre:s treis trayas TURN weorθan werto: - varta:mi BROTHER bro:θor fra:ter phra:te:r bhra:tar Correspondence θ t t t PIE *t Exercise 2. Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit WHAT? hwæt kwid ti cid FOLLOW saihwan (Gothic) sekwor hepomai sacate LEAVE li:hwan (Gothic) linkwo: leipo: rikta CIRCLE, hwe:ogol kolo: kuklos, cakram WHEEL (‘dwell’) Correspondences hw k(w) p / t / k c / k PIE *kw Lenition placeless stop → affricate → fricative → → no sound approximant spirantization affrication → → debuccalization → elision (deaffrication) → [pɸ] → [ɸ] → [p] or [pʰ] → [pf] → [f] → → [tθ] → [θ] → [h] → (zero) [t] or [tʰ] → [ts] → [s] → [k] or [kʰ] → [kx] → [x] → Note: the change voiceless stop > fricative is more common than voiceless stop > affricate > fricative. PIE Phonology: traditional reconstruction Proto-Indo-European consonants Velar Labial dental labio- Laryngeal palatal plain velar Oral *p (*b) *t *d *ḱ *ǵ *k *g *kʷ *gʷ stops asp. *bʰ *dʰ *ǵʰ *gʰ *gʷʰ Nasal stops *m *n *h₁, *h₂, Fricative *s *h₃ Lateral *l Trill *r Semivowels *y *w Proto Indo-European (PIE) Some vowel Correspondences Gothic Latin Greek Sanskrit PIE IS ist est esti asti *e I ic ego: ego: aham *e EIGHT ahtau okto: okto: astau *o NIGHT nahts nokt- - nakt- *o FROM,AWAY af ab apo apa *a FIELD akrs agr- agros ajras *a MOTHER mo:dor ma:te:r me:te:r ma:tar *a: WIDOW widuwo: widua e:itʰeos vidhava *i YOKE juk jugum zugon yugam *u Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals Most Indo-Europeanists accept some version of laryngeal theory because it simplifies some hard-to-explain sound changes and patterns of alternation that appear in various Indo-European languages. Ferdinand de Saussure first posited influential, but now missing, sounds to explain irregular vowel correspondences. He called them coéfficents sonantiques and wrote them *ə₁ *ə₂ *ə₃ The revelation of Hittite Anatolian languages the only Indo-European languages where laryngeals are attested directly and consistently as consonantal sounds. Otherwise, their presence is inferred by the effects they had on neighbouring sounds. PIE vowels The only proper vowels are /e o a/ These segments are always syllabic. e o a The sonants (j w r l m n) are peculiar in that they are both syllabic (vowels) and consonants, depending on what sounds are adjacent *i and *u phonetically vowels, phonologically they were non-syllabic sonorants. These are sometimes called ‘vocoids’ (a sound made with an open oral cavity such that there is little audible friction in the mouth) Indo-European had eight cases: Nominative (nom.) subject of a finite verb Accusative (acc.) direct object of a verb Genitive (gen.) possessive (N’s and of) Dative (dat.) indirect object Ablative (abl.) movement from something, or the cause of something Vocative (voc.) marks an addressee Locative (loc.) indicates a location Instrumental (inst.) marks a noun used in performing an action Problems Disagreement over reconstructed inflections, because some endings (e.g. the genitive plural) are difficult to reconstruct Dual endings of cases are controversial.