bomhard - review of shevoroshkin & markey (eds.) "typology, relationship, and time"

7/28/2019 Bomhard - Review of Shevoroshkin & Markey (eds.) "Typology, Relationship, and Time"

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bomhard-review-of-shevoroshkin-markey-eds-typology-relationship-and 1/18

DACHRON CAVOL. III,N0.2 FALL 1986

OLMS



DIACHRONICAInternational Journal for Historical Linguistics

Revue internationale pour Ia linguistique historiquelnternationale Zeitschrift fur Historische Linguistik

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDCOMITE DE REDACTION CONSULTATIF

WISSENSCHAFTLICHER BEIRATFrancisco R. Adrados (Madrid)Anders Ahlqvist (Galway, Ireland)Henning Andersen (Copenhagen)Raimo Anttila (Los Angeles)Frant;:oise Bader (EPHE, Paris)James Bynon (SOAS, London)

Desmond T. Cole (Johannesburg)William Cowan (Carleton)

Jacek Fisiak (Poznan)Paul Friedrich (Chicago)Thomas V. Gamkrelidze (Tbilisi)Vladimir I. Georgiev (Sofia)Anna Giacalone Ramat (Pavia)Roberto Gusmani (Udine)

Kenneth L. Hale (M.I.T.)

Henry M. Hoenigswald (Philadelphia)Paul J. Hopper (Binghamton, N.Y.)

Tore Janson (Stockholm)Guy Jucquois (Louvain-la-Neuve)

Bh. Krishnamurti (Hyderabad)Roger Lass (Cape Town)

Winfred P. Lehmann (Austin, Tex.)Charles N. Li (Santa Barbara, Cal.)

David W. Lightfoot (Maryland)J. Peter Maher (NEIU, Chicago)

Yakov Malkiel (Berkeley, Cal.)Manfred Mayrhofer (Wien)

Roy Andrew Mil ler (Seattle, Wash.)Andrew Pawley (Auckland, N.Z.)

Rebecca Posner (Oxford)Martin B. Harris (Salford)Shiro Hattori (Tokyo) Calvert Watkins (Harvard)

Karl Horst Schmidt (Bonn)

JOrgen Untermann (Koln)

EDITORS I REDACTEURS I HERAUSGEBER

Philip H. Baldi(Pennsylvania State University)

Associate Editor

Allan R. Bomhard(Boston)

Review Editor

AIM&SCOPE

Konrad Koerner(University of Ottawa)

General Editor

Diachronica has been established as a forum for the exchange and synthesisof information concerning all aspects of Historical Linguistics and pertaining to alllanguage families. Both theory-oriented and data-oriented contributions are welcome.

In order to ensure competence in all areas of research the editors are assisted by a largeand distinguished international Editorial Advisory Board, whose members are consultedin the evaluation of manuscripts and in the approval of material for publication in the

journal.Diachronica appears twice a year (in Spring and Fall), each issue consisting of between

3-5 articles, a review article, 5-10 reviews, a miscellanea section carrying notes andqueries, discussions and reports, and a publications received rubric, which providescapsule information on recent works in the field.

The magazine and all articles and pictures involved are protected by copyright. Applicationoutside the strict limits of copyright law without consent having been obtained from thepublishing firm is inadmissable and punishable. These regulations are meant especially forcopies, translations and micropublishings as well as for storing and editing in electronic

systems.



~ Diachronica 111:2.269-82 (1986)

Typology, Re la t i on sh ip , and Time.

Shevoroshkin and Thomas L. Markey.Pub l i s he r s , 1986. Pp. x l i v , 120.

Reviewed by ALLAN R. BOMHARD,

Edi ted by V i t a l i j V.

Ann Arbor: Karoma

Boston , Massachuse t t s

This book came i n t o being through a proposa l by one ofthe ed i to r s (Markey) t h a t the o the r e d i t o r (Shevoroshkin)"make a se l ec t i on o f what he cons idered the b e s t of recent

pro and con Sovie t work on o r about N os t r a t i c and t h a t the

tw o then t r a n s l a t e , e d i t , and pre face the r e su l t i ng co l l ec

t ion fo r pub l i ca t i on . " What f ina l ly emerged in the co l l ec

t ion i s most ly a group o f a r t i c l e s pub l i shed in the Sov ie t

Union over the p a s t two decades d i scuss ing th e (most lyposthumously publ i shed) work of v. M. 1 l l i c -Sv i tyc onN os t r a t i c . To a fa r l e s se r e x t e n t , the work o f A. B. Dolgopo l ' sk i j i s a l so d i scussed .

The book begins with a Foreword, the f i r s t p a r t o f

which appears to have been wri t t en by Markey a lone , andth e second p a r t by Shevoroshkin a lone . In the second andl onges t p a r t , Shevoroshkin begins by giv ing a b r i e f h i s t o ry

of the development of I l l i c - S v i t y c ' s (and D olgopo l ' s k i j ' s )

ideas on N os t r a t i c and expres ses s t rong suppor t fo r the

N os t r a t i c Theory in genera l and fo r I l l i c - S v i t yc ' s workin p a r t i c u l a r . He then makes t h ree proposa l s o f h is own:

(1 ) the Proto-Indo-European system of s tops should be r e

i n t e rp re t ed as *Th, *T, *D (from N os t r a t i c *T ' , *T, *D

r e spec t i ve l y ) , (2) Proto-Indo-European had ' s t rong ' l a ryn

gea l s as w e l l as "weak" l a ryngea l s ( the so -ca l l ed "s t rong"

l a ryngeals survived in Hi t t i t e /Luwian , while the so -ca l l ed

'weak' l a ryngea l s were l o s t ) , and (3) the l a ryngea l s d id

n o t a f f e c t the qua l i t y ( t imbre) o f contiguous vowels . Let

us look more c lose ly a t each o f t hese p roposa l s .

(1) Shevoroshkin 's ideas concern ing Proto- Indo-Euro

pean consonantism a re no t a l l t h a t d i f f e r e n t from the

proposa l s made by Joseph Emonds. Where he runs in to

t roub le i s in t ry ing to der ive h is rev ised system fromPra to -N os t r a t i c . One would l ike to know how the g l o t

t a l i zed se r i e s became voice less asp i ra t e s in Proto-



270 . ALLAN R. BOMHARD: REVIEW OF SHEVOROSHKIN AND MARKEY (1986)

Indo-European withou t merging with the p l a i n voice less

s tops somewhere along the way. When one t r i e s to workthrough var ious scenar ios to a r r i ve a t Shevoroshkin ' s

rev i sed Proto-Indo-European system from i t s a l legedProto-Nos t ra t ic antecedent , one runs in to roadblocks a tevery t u rn . In o t h e r words , you cannot g e t t he re from

here . 1

(2 ) On the s u r f a c e , Shevoroshkin ' s t he o r i e s concern ing' s t rong ' l a ryngea l s and 'weak' l a ryngea l s in Proto

Indo-European appear i n t r i g u i n g . The problem i s t h a tthe da ta do no t fit the . theory.

(3 ) In order to be able to judge Shevoroshkin ' st he o r i e s concern ing whether o r no t l a ryngea l s changed

the qua l i t y of cont iguous vowels , one would have toknow what phone t ic prope r t i e s he would ass ign to the

l a ryngea l s he p o s i t s . As long as he opera tes withcover symbols and employs ambiguous terminology, it

i s n o t pos s ib l e to form an opinion one way or th e

othe r about the va l id i ty o f h is proposa l s .

Fi na l l y , Shevoroshkin b i t t e r l y a t t acks the work of

Bomhard (1984) in highly emo t ional , in temperate languaget h a t can only be desc r ibed as embarrass ing . The d i scuss ion

o f Bomhard's work i s charac te r ized by o u t r i g h t misrepresen

t a t i o n . One ge t s th e impress ion t h a t Shevoroshkin d id n o t

read Bomhard's book through ca re fu l l y o r t h a t , if he d id ,

he d id no t unders tand what he read . Rather than engage in

a lengthy r e b u t t a l , the reader i s i nv i t ed to look a t Born-hard ' s book fo r him/he rse l f . As fo r the emot ional nature

o f Shevoroshkin 's a t t ack on Bomhard, we may quote fromBert rand Russe l l (1976:116) and l e t it go a t t ha t :

I f an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is asign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason

for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and twoare f ive, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pi ty ratherthan anger, unless you know so l i t t l e about arithmetic or geo

graphy that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction.

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to

which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is

used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there

is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever

you find yourself gett ing angry about a difference of opinion,

be on your guard; you wil l probably f ind, on examination, thatyour belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.



REVIEWS I COMPTES RENDUS I BESPRECHUNGEN 271

We can now consider, in turn, each paper in the col lec

t ion:

V. V. Ivanov:Descrip t ion."

"Proto-Languages as Objects of Scient i f ic(1980).

This paper i s divided in to three sect ions. In the f i r s tsect ion ("The Difference between a Proto-Language and a MereSystem of Correspondences") , Ivanov begins by out l ining themethodology by which a system of correspondences i s used to

reconstruct a proto-language. He notes t ha t correspondencesmay be the resu l t of borrowings. Such cases cannot be usedto es tabl ish genet ic re la t ionship but , ra ther , resu i t fromprolonged contact between two or more languages, which mayor may not be otherwise re la ted . Ivanov then considers two

examples of correspondences between grammatical systemswhich cannot be explained by language contact : (1) thes imi lar i ty between the ea r l i e s t secondary verbal endingsreconstructed for Proto-Indo-European and those assumed forProto-Kartvelian and (2) the s imi lar i ty of heteroc l is is inneuter (inanimate) nouns in Indo-European and Dravidian.·According to Ivanov, both of these examples can be explainedwithin the framework of the Nostrat ic Hypothesis. Ivanovconcludes th i s section by expressing strong support fo r theNostrat ic Hypothesis, part icular ly the version of th i s theoryadvocated by I l l i c - sv i tyc . Ivanov claims tha t the s imi lar i t i e s between the various branches of Nostrat ic are not due

to borrowing but are , on the contrary , indicat ive of geneticre la t ionship. My one comment here i s t ha t .I would have l ikedto have seen more examples and more discussion: what Ivanovhas to say i s extremely exci t ing, but he teases us by whett ing our appet i tes and then sending us home hungry.

In the second section ("The Dist inct ion between ProtoLanguages and Intermediate Stages of Dialectal Evolution:The P r o ~ l e m of Minimizing the Number of Proto-Languages"),Ivanov· seeks to answer the question of how many protolanguages can and/or should be posi ted for the prehistory ofevery single language in the world. He presents severalarguments against the Indo-Hit t i te Hypothesis to supporth is view tha t nothing i s gained by posi t ing more protolanguages than i s warranted by the evidence. While I agree inthe main with the point he i s t rying to make, I think it

necessary to mention tha t Ivanov's posi t ion regarding theplacing of the Anatolian languages 2 within Indo-European i sby no means universal ly accepted. On the contrary , whilerecognizing t ha t the Anatol ian languages have innovated ina number of areas , there are some scholars who f ind in themany archaic features preserved by the Anatolian languagessuff ic ient evidence to suggest t ha t these languages became



272 ALLAN R. BOMHARD: REVIEW OF SHEVOROSHKIN AND MARKEY (1986)

separa ted from the mainstream o f Indo-European a t a veryea r l y da t e . Next, Ivanov discusses the d i f f i c u l t i e s in

volved i n t ry ing to determine the exac t in te rna l boundaries

t h a t del inea te a language as d i s t i n c t from a d ia l e c t . Heformula tes a genera l pr inc ip l e t h a t one should always a t tempt to minimize the number o f languages and should no t

cons ide r as independent languages those d i a l e c t s t h a t havebecome severed from the main speech community o r o the r cases

in which spec i f i c soc i a l and cu l t u r a l - h i s t o r i c a l cond i t ions

d id n o t conspi re to designate a d ia l e c t as an independentl anguage. According to Ivanov, no t only should we minimizethe number of languages, b u t we should a lso minimize thenumber o f in termediary pro to- languages .

In the f i n a l sec t ion ("The Descr ip t ive Strength of a

Proto-Language") , Ivanov d i scusses the need to inc lude thepr inc ipa l protolanguages in any survey deal ing with "TheLanguages of the World." He notes spec i f i ca l ly tha t theinc lus ion of e n t r i e s cover ing a l l of the pr inc ipa l pro t o

languages w i l l permi t one to subs t an t i a l ly c l a r i f y thedescr ip t ion of ind iv idua l languages.

It i s qu i t e c l e a r from the t h ru s t of h is argumentat iont h a t Ivanov belongs to the school o f Lingui s t i cs t h a t viewsrecons t ruc ted languages as r e a l languages t h a t ex i s t ed a t a

p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t in t ime and no t as a mere s e t of correspon

dences . This i s a pos i t i on t h a t I would wholehear ted ly en

dorse . 3

This paper , though i n t e r e s t ing in its own r i g h t , i srea l ly no t on or about Nost ra t i c . Rather , it deals s p e c i f i ca l ly with the recons t ruc t ion of protolanguages , with the

ques t ion of how many pro to - languages should be pos i t ed , andwith how protolanguages can be u t i l i z e d . No doubt , Ivanov ' s

paper was inc luded in t h i s co l l ec t ion so. lely because he usedNost ra t i c examples to i l l u s t r a t e the po in t s under discuss ion .

Aaron B. Dolgopolsky. "A Probab i l i s t i c Hypothesis concerningthe Oldest Re la t ionsh ip among the Language Fami l ies of Northe rn Euras ia . " (1964).

In an In t roduc to ry Note wri t t en e spec i a l l y fo r the Engl i s h language vers ion o f t h i s paper inc luded in the presen t

co l l ec t ion , Dolgopolsky (Dolgopol ' sk i j ) expla ins tha t th i s

paper was wri t t en over two decades ago and t h a t s e ve ra l o f

the examples should now be discarded in view o f subsequentre sea rch . Consequent ly , he asks t h a t readers regard t h i spaper no t as an e tymolog ica l one b u t as a methodologica l onei n s t ead .

Dolgopolsky s t a r t s o u t by proposing a procedure fo r proving puta t ive gene t ic r e l a t i onsh i p between languages. In par -

---- --------------




t i c u l a r , he recommends two approaches : (1) comparison o f

s e ve ra l l anguages and (2) s t a t i s t i c a l se l ec t i on o f semant ic

va lues rep resen ted by morphemes which a re re la t ive ly impervious to change. He e labora te s on each of these approaches ,espec i a l l y the l a t t e r . Dolgopolsky ' s second approach i sr emin iscen t o f the technique known as l ex i cos t a t i s t i c a lglot tochronology championed by Morr i s Swadesh and i s thus

s ub je c t t o the same r e s e rva t ions which many l i n g u i s t s haveexpressed about glot tochronology in genera l .

Dolgopolsky se l ec t s a list o f f i f t een semant ic va lues

ranked accord ing to t h e i r degree o f morphemic s t a b i l i t y andthen compares examples from Indo-European, Hamito-Semit ic(A f roa s i a t i c ) , U ra l i c , Al t a i c , Chukchee-Kamchatkan, andKar tve l ian in l i g h t o f these f i f t een c a t e gor i e s . As i s to

be expected from a pioneer ing e f f o r t such as t h i s , some o fthe examples are qu i t e good, whi le othe rs a re b e s t forgot ten .

A f t e r analyzing these da ta , Dolgopolsky concludes t h a t the

correspondences cannot be exp la ined by e i t h e r chance o r

borrowing bu t , on the cont ra ry , po i n t to gene t i c r e l a t i o n sh ip .

This i s the only paper in the co l l ec t i on t h a t presen t s

o r i g i n a l research on the Nost ra t ic Hypothes i s . A ll of the

othe r papers (except t h a t o f Gamkrel idze and Ivanov, whichrea l ly does n o t belong in t h i s co l l ec t ion ) , i n one way or

ano ther , merely comment on the resea rch done by o t he r s .

V. v. Ivanov. Review o f I l l i c -S v i ty c , Opyt s ravnen i ja

nos t r a t i c e s k i x j a zykov ( s e m i to x a m i t s k i j , k a r t v e l ' s k i j , i ndo-

e v r o p e j s k i j , u r a l ' s k i j , d r a v i d i j s k i j , a l t a j s k i j ) . Vol. I .(1972) .

V. v. Ivanov. Review o f I l l i c -S v i ty c , opy t s ravnen i ja

nos t r a t i c e s k i x j a zykov ( s e m i to x a m i t s k i j , k a r t v e l ' s k i j , i n d o -

e v r o p e j s k i j , u r a l ' s k i j , d r a v i d i j s k i j , a l t a j s k i j ) . Vol. I I .(1977) .•

These tw o papers are b e s t cons idered t oge the r s ince bothdea l with v . M. I l l i c - S v i t y c ' s posthumously pub l i shed com

pa ra t ive N os t r a t i c d i c t i ona ry (which i s still in the process

o f pub l i ca t i on ) .

Ivanov 's reviews o f I l l i c - S v i t y c ' s work are ext remelypos i t i ve . He po in t s ou t t h a t I l l i c - s v i t y c ' s work d i f f e r sfrom e a r l i e r a t tempts 4 by the excep t iona l pre c i s ion o f h i s

methodology, which can be seen from h is scrupulous se l ec t i on

of ma te r ia l and the exhaus t iveness o f h is pre l iminary inves

t i ga t ions o f da ta from wi th in the language fami l i e s t h a t are

compared. Ivanov notes , moreover , t h a t I l l i c - S v i t y c ' s workdemonst ra tes the explanatory power o f the Nost ra t ic Hypo-



274 ALLAN R, BOMHARD: REVIEW OF SHEVOROSHKIN AND MARKEY (1986)

t he s i s by showing t h a t a l a rge number o f fac t s which r e mained inexpl icable wi th in the framework o f a given l an

guage family can be expla ined from the l a rge r Nost ra t ic

pe r s pe c t ive . Ivanov then backs up t h i s asse r t i on withseve ra l convincing examples. I endorse Ivanov ' s enthusiasm,though I do n o t necessar i ly agree with a l l o f I l l i c - S v i t yc ' sproposa l s .

B. A. Serebrennikov. "On the So-ca l l ed 'Nos t r a t i c ' Lan-guages ." ( 1 9 8 3 ) .

Serebrennikov i s highly c r i t i c a l of I l l i c - S v i t yc ' s work.

In sp i t e o f the f a c t t h a t Serebrennikov 's paper con ta ins

seve ra l f ac t ua l e r ro r s (pointed o u t by the ed i to r s of t h i sc o l l e c t i o n ) , h is c r i t i c i sms m e r i t ca re fu l cons ide ra t ion .

Serebrennikov remarks t h a t cur ren t l i n g u i s t i c i nves t i ga t ion i s at tempt ing to es t ab l i sh macrophyla t h a t inc lude anex t r ao rd ina r i ly l a rge number o f languages. This endeavori s based on th ree pr inc ip l e s :

(1) The un i f i ca t ion of a v a s t number o f languages in to

one macrofamily broadens the framework of h i s t o r i ca l

and developmental perspec t ives enormously.

(2 ) The g r e a t e r the number of gene t i ca l l y r e l a t ed l an

guages in a given fami ly , the more probable the p r e s e r

va t ion of some exceedingly anc ien t archaisms.

(3 ) The discovery of l a rge macrofamil ies cou ld con-t r ibu te to a more re f ined de f in i t i on of the geograph ica l

disp lacement of r e l a t ed languages in the d i s t a n t pas t .

Serebrennikov then asks whether gene t ic r e l a t i onsh i p i s ever

rea l ly proven and, if so , how one can ver i fy it.

Serebrennikov fee l s t h a t the r e l a t i onsh i p of grammaticalformants i s more r e l evan t fo r determin ing gene t ic re la t ion ship than i s a comparison o f l ex ica l roo t s . He notes t h a tI l l i c -S v i ty c compared no t only l ex ica l i tems but a l so gram-mat ica l formants. Serebrennikov then de t a i l s the s im i l a r i

t i e s and di f fe rences between se lec ted grammatical formantsin various N os t r a t i c languages. A f t e r complet ing t h i sreview, he concludes t h a t the grammatical data fo r Nos t ra t i c ,

e spec i a l l y as it r e l a t e s to Finn i sh , had, in the main, beenknown previous ly , a re sporad ic , and a re f requen t ly no t verypersuas ive . In a couple of footnotes , the e d i t o r s takei s sue with Serebrennikov 's conc lus ions a t t h i s po i n t , and

I would tend to agree with them. For my p a r t , I f a i l to

see how one cannot be impressed with the high qua l i ty o f




the grammatical correspondences uncovered by I l l i c -S v i ty c .

Of course , one can quibble here and the re and o f f e r a l t e r

na t ive in te rp re ta t ions , b u t who can deny t h a t I l l i c -S v i ty chas gathered toge the r an impressive amount o f data from av a s t and highly dive rse number of languages and has pre sented h is f ind ings in a sys temat i c , wel l -organized manner,whi le , a t the same t ime, of fe r i ng new perspec t ives on e x t r a

o rd ina r i ly complex i s sues?

Next , Serebrennikov d i scusses Nost ra t ic phonology. He

f inds it d i f f i c u l t to be l ieve t h a t the N os t r a t i c vowels werere ta ined without e s s e n t i a l modif ica t ion from ea r ly N os t r a t i c

through Proto-Ura l ic and r i g h t down in to Finnish . This i s

a good po i n t . Serebrennikov doubts whether N os t r a t i c hadl a ryngea ls . Here again the ed i to r s take i s sue with Sere

brennikov, and I would agree with them here too .

Serebrennikov ' s f i n a l conclus ions are t h a t Nost ra t ic

theory does not provide anything new fo r the h i s t o ry of

Finnish , t h a t unfor tunate r e s u l t s emerge from its a pp l i c a

t ion to both T u ~ k i c and Mongolian l anguages , t h a t the wholesystem o f I l l i c -S v i tyc ' s arguments in favor of a genet ic

r e l a t i onsh i p among N os t r a t i c languages has se r ious drawbacks , t h a t the N os t r a t i c c ha ra c t e r o f Hamito-Semitic (Afroas ia t i c ) i s doubt fu l (as i s a gene t ic r e l a t i onsh i p betweenFinnish and Kar tve l ian) , and t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f these

shor tcomings , the gene t ic r e l a t i onsh i p of the so -ca l l ed

"Nos t ra t i c" languages i s in su f f i c ien t ly proven.

T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov. "On the Recons truct iono f the Proto-Indo-European Stops: Glot ta l i zed Stops in IndoEuropean." (1980).

It i s a mystery to me why t h i s paper was inc luded in thepre s e n t co l l ec t i on : the sub j ec t mat te r has little to do

with Nost ra t ic proper (though the re are impl ica t ions for

the comparison of Indo-European with the othe r Nos t ra t ic

languages) , and the views o f Gamkrelidze and Ivanov a re

well-known and r ead i l y ava i lab le elsewhere . Therefore , t h i s

pape r w i l l be discussed in only the br i e f e s t o f terms.

In t e rna l incons i s t enc ies in the t r a d i t i o n a l recons t ruc

t ion of the Proto-Indo-European s top system make t h a t systemhighly improbable from a typologica l po i n t o f view. Reinte r

pre t a t ion of the t r a d i t i o n a l p la in voiced s tops (*b, *d, *g,*gW) as g lo t t a l i z ed s tops ( t ha t i s , e jec t ives : *p' , * t ' ,

*k' , *k'W re spec t ive ly) accounts be t t e r fo r the d i s t r i b u

t i o n a l pat t e rn ing o f t h i s se r i e s than does the t r a d i t i o n a lrecons t ruc t ion . Fur thermore , the t r a d i t i o n a l p la in vo ice

l e s s s tops (*p, * t , *k, *kW) should be r e in t e rp re t ed asvoice less asp i r a t e s (*ph, *th, *kh, *kWh r e spec t ive ly ) ,




while the t r ad i t i ona l . vo iced asp i r a t e s (*bh, *dh, *gh,

*gWb) a re to remain unchanged. In th i s revised in te rp re ta

t ion , asp i ra t ion i s viewed asa

redundant fea ture , and thephonemes in ques t ion could a lso be i n t e rp re t ed as a l l o phonic var i an t s withou t asp i r a t ion .

Trad i t i ona l PIE Gamkrel idze-Ivanov

I I I I I I I I I I I I

(b) bh p (p') bh/b ph/p

d db t t ' dh/d th / t

9 gh k k' gh/g kh/k

gW gWh kw k'W gWh/gW kWh/kW

The rev i s ions proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov providenew ins igh ts in to the under ly ing pr inc ip l e s governing Grassmann's Law, Bartholomae's Law, and the Indo-European r o o t

s t ruc tu re cons t r a in t s .

I have expressed s t rong support fo r the rev i s ions pro

posed by Gamkrel idze and Ivanov (as wel l as Paul Hopper)

e lsewhere .

* * *Though the e d i t o r s o f t h i s co l l ec t ion are to be commend

ed fo r making avai l ab le papers on r e c e n t Sovie t schola r sh ip

on Nos t ra t i c , the book i s a lso a disappoin tment . Three o f

the papers are by Ivanov, two of which are reviews by himo f I l l i c - S v i t y c ' s comparat ive Nost ra t ic dic t ionary . These

reviews a re in te re s t ing in themselves , and Ivanov i s a g r e a t

l i n g u i s t in h is own r i g h t , b u t I be l ieve t h a t the majori ty

of schola r s would pre fe r to have the o r i g i n a l source m a te r i a l

in f ron t o f them so t h a t they can make t h e i r own eva lua t ion .

When one cons ide rs a l l t h a t could have been included in t h i sco l l ec t ion (such as the many exci t ing papers on Nost ra t i c

publ i shed by I l l i c -S v i ty c and Dolgopo l ' sk i j in Et imolog i ja 5 ) ,

one can only f ee l chea ted by what the ed i to r s have chosenfo r us to see . Moreover, the book does n o t do ju s t i c e to

the impor tant ro le played by Dolgopo l ' sk i j (who, by the way,

i s still making impor tan t c on t r ibu t ions to Nos t ra t ic s tud ie s ) .

Fi na l l y , it must be noted t h a t the book i s ext remely poor ly

edi t ed : I counted near ly t h i r t y typographica l e r ro r s in

the Foreword a lone , some o f which are t r i v i a l b u t othe rs o f

which a re qu i t e egreg ious .




ADDENDUM

In t h i s Addendum, I would l ike to make s e ve ra l commentsof my own on r e c e n t Sovie t research on Nost ra t i c . Spec i f

i c a l l y , I w i l l deal wi th t h i s resea rch as it has been c od i

f i ed in I l l i c - S v i t y c ' s comparat ive N os t r a t i c dic t ionary . 6

L et me begin by s ta t ing unequivocal ly t h a t I have the h igh

e s t admirat ion fo r what Sovie t scho la rs have achieved .Thei r research has opened up new and exc i t i ng pos s i b i l i t i e sand given Nost ra t i c s tud ies new r e s p e ~ t a b i l i t y . However,

t h i s does n o t mean t h a t I agree with everyth ing they say.I regard t h e i r work as a pioneer ing e f f o r t and, as such,sub j ec t to modif ica t ion in l i g h t o f advances in l i n g u i s t i ctheory , in l i g h t o f new data from the N os t r a t i c daughter

languages , and in l i g h t o f f indings from typologica l s tud iest h a t give us a be t t e r unders tanding of the kind of p a t t e r n

ing t h a t i s found in na t u ra l languages as w ~ l l as a b e t t e runders tanding o f what i s c h a ra c t e r i s t i c o f language in

genera l , inc luding language change.

Let us f i r s t look a t phonology. In 1972 and 1973, theSovie t schola r s T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov proposeda r ad ica l r e in t e rp re t a t ion of the Proto-Indo-European s top

system. According to t h e i r r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the Proto

Indo-European s top system was charac te r ized by the three-waycon t r a s t g lo t t a l i z ed ~ voice less (asp i ra ted) ~ voiced (asp i r

ated) (see the preceding pages fo r a summary of t he i r views) •

A s i mi l a r proposa l was made by Paul J . Hopper a t about thesame t ime.

This new in te rp re ta t ion opens new p o s s i b i l i t i e s fo r com

paring Indo-European with the othe r Nos t ra t ic daughter l a n

guages, espec i a l l y Kartvel ian and Afroas i a t i c , each of whichhad a s i mi l a r th ree-way con t r a s t . Th e most na t u ra l assump

t ion would be t h a t the g lo t t a l i z ed s tops pos i t ed by Gam-

kre l iqze and Ivanov fo r Proto-Indo-European would cor re s

pond to g lo t t a l i z e d s tops in Proto-Kartve l ian and Proto

Afroas i a t i c , while the voice less s tops would a lso cor re s

pond to voice le ss s tops and voiced s tops to voiced s tops .

This , however, i s qu i t e d i f f e r e n t from the correspondencesproposed by I l l i c -S v i ty c . He sees the g lo t t a l i z ed s tops of

Pro to -Kar tve l i an and Pro to -A f roa s i a t i c as corresponding to

the t r a d i t i o n a l p la in voice less s tops o f Proto-Indo-European,while the vo ic e l e s s s tops in the former two branches a re

seen as corresponding to the t r a d i t i o n a l pla in voiced s tops

o f Proto-Indo-European, and, f i n a l l y , the voiced s tops to

the t r a d i t i o n a l voiced asp i r a t e s of Proto-Indo-European.I l l i c -Sv i tyc then recons t ruc t s Pra to-Nos t ra t ic on the modelo f Kartvel ian and Afroas i a t i c with the th ree-way con t r a s t

g lo t t a l i z ed ~ voice less voiced .



278 ALLAN R, BOMHARD: REVIEW OF SHEVOROSHKIN AND MARKEY (1986)

The mistake t h a t I l l i c -S v i ty c made was in t ry ing to

equate the g lo t t a l i z e d s tops o f Pro to -Kar tve l i an and Pro to

Afroas i a t i c with the t r a d i t i o n a l pla in voice less s tops o f

Proto-Indo-European. His recons t ruc t ion would make theg lo t t a l i z ed s tops the l e a s t marked members o f t he P ro to

Nost ra t i c s top system. I l l i c - S v i t y c ' s recons t ruc t ion i sthus in cont rad ic t ion to typologica l evidence , accord ingto which g lo t t a l i z e d s tops are uniformly the most highly

marked members o f a hie ra rchy . 7 To bring the recons t ruc

t ion of Pro to-Nos t ra t ic in to agreement with the typologica l

evidence, the correspondences between the various brancheso f Nost ra t i c should be modif ied as fol lows:

Proto- Proto-

Nostr. Kartv.

- - - -p

-p-

b

-b-

t ' - t ' -

t - t -

d-d -

k '-k'-

k

-k-

g-g-

p-p-

b-b-

t ' - t ' -

t - t-

d-d-

k '-k'-

k

-k-

g-g-

ProtoAfroas.

p-p-

b-b-

t ' - t ' -

t - t -

d-d-

k'...:

-k'-

k

-k-

g-g-

Proto- Proto- Proto-rotoIE Uralic Altaic Dravidian

~ : . ; : ; __________________p-p-

b-b-

t ' - t ' -

t - t -

d-d -

k'-k'-

k

-k-

g-g-

p

-p-

p-w-

t -- t -

t - t ( t ) -

t --o-

k-k-

k--k ( k )-

k-y -

b

-b-

t -d-

th- t -

d-d-

k-g -

p-

-pp- "' -v -

p-

-? - "' -v -

t - t ( t ) -

t - t ( t ) -

t --t <t>-

k-k(k)-

kh- k-

-k- 'V -g- -k(k)-

g-g-

k

-0-

NOTE: Since aspirat ion is phonologically irrelevant in Proto-IndoEuropean, i t is not shown in the above chart .

One of the consequences o f I l l i c - S v i t yc ' s mistakenequat ion o f the g lo t t a l i z e d s tops o f Pro to -Kar tve l i an andProto-Afroas ia t ic with the t r a d i t i o n a l p la in voice less

s tops o f Proto-Indo-European i s t h a t he i s led to p o s i t

forms for Pro to-Nos t ra t ic on the bas i s o f t heo re t i ca l cons i de ra t i ons b u t fo r which the re i s no f i rm evidence in the



REVIEWS I COMPTES RENDUS I BESPRECHUNGEN

Nost ra t i c daughter l anguages . Let us look a t one o r two

such examples:

1. Jsjo/ (enclit ic) particle: Afroasiatic k(w) , Kartvelian

kwe, Indo-European k ~ e , Uralic -ka/-lcii. , Altaic -ka(I l l ic-Svityc 197l.I:325-26, no. 201).

279

Note t h a t in t h i s example the re i s no evidence in anyo f the Nost ra t i c daughter languages fo r an i n i t i a l g lo t

t a l i z ed s top . There a re many more such examples.

2. kaba/kap'a "to snatch, seize": Afroasiatic qb-;, Kart;,elian· kb-; Indo-European ghabh-/kap- ; Uralic kapp11-;Dravidi;n kavv-/kapp-, kava-; Altaic k'aba- /k 'apa

(I l l ic-Svityc 197l.I:313-15, no. 190).

Here I l l i c -S v i ty c does no t even follow h is own soundlaws. A b e t t e r etymology would be:

kap- "to snatch, seize": Afroasiatic kap- "to take, seize;

palm of the hand": Akkadian kappu "hand"; Arabic kaff "palm of

the hand, hand"; Egyptian kp "to seize; hollow of the hand or

foot"; Ma'a -kupuruya "to snatch". Indo-European kap- "to take,

seize": Latin capio "to take, seize"; Old High German haft "cap

t ivi ty". Uralic kapp 11-: Finnish. kaappaus "capture"; Mordvin(Erza) kapode- "to grab quickly". Altaic khapa- "to seize,snatch": Turkish kapan "one who seizes or grabs", kap'Z-C't "one

who seizes", kapmak "to snatch, seize, carry off, acquire", kap'tij"manner of seizing, looting", kapma "act of seizing".

What about those examples adduced by I l l i c -S v i ty c whichappear to support h is pos i t ion? Some of these examples adm it to a l t e rna t ive explana t ions , while othe rs are ques t ion

able from a semantic po in t o f view and should be abandoned.Once these examples a re removed, there i s an ext remely smal lnumber (no more than a handful) l e f t over . However, compared to the massive counter -evidence in which g lo t t a l i z eds tops in Kartvel ian and Afroas i a t i c correspond t o s i mi l a r

sounds ( the t r a d i t i o n a l pla in voiced s tops) in Indo-Euro

pean, these r e s i dua l examples seem in s ign i f i can t .

Now we can take a look a t a few counter-examples ( th i s

i s b u t a smal l sampling) :

1. t'Yar- "to cut, spli t": Kartvelian c 'er- /c 'ar- /c 'r -11to cut": Georgian c'er-/c'r- "to cut". Afroasiatic

t 'Yar-/t'Yar- "to cut, spli t": Arabic ;;arra "to cut,spl i t" , zirr "sharp-edged stone, f l int" . Indo-European

t ' er - / t ;or - / t ' { - "to cut, spl i t" : Sanskrit d ~ t i "to




rend, sp l i t open"; Old English teran "to tear". Dravidian

c a r - " to break, tear": Par j i oar- "to break, tear"; Malta

oar- "to tear up".

2. q 'W al - " to s t r ike , hur t , wound, slay, ki l l " : Afroasiat ic

q ' W a l - / q ' W a l - "to s t r ike , ki l l" : Proto-East Cushit ic

k'al- "to slaughter": Somali qaZ-; Oromo k'aZ-. Kartvelian

q ' w a l - "to slay, ki l l " : Chan (Laz) q'viZ- " to ki l l " ; Geor

gian k'aZ-/k'Z- (+ *k'waz..;. + *q'wa.Z-) " to ki l l " . Indo-Euro

pean k 'Wel - /k 'Wol - /k 'Wl - " to s t r ike, ki l l " : Old English

=Zan "t9. die" , c:n.JeZZan " to ki l l " , ~ i e Z d "destruct ion,death"; Welsh baZZu "to die";· Armenian kelem "to torture".Uralic k o l o - "to die": Finnish kuoZe- "to die"; Mordvin

kuZo- " to die"; Cheremis koZe- "to die"; Votyak, Ziryene kuZ" to die" . Dravid iankol - " to ki l l" : Tamil koZ " to ki l l " .

3. k ' a r - " to gather, col lec t" : Kartvelian k ' r - e b - , k ' e r - b " to gather , col lec t" : Georgian (1st sg.) v-k'reb, v-k'erb" I gather". I n d o - E u r o p ~ a n k 'er-/k'o r - / k '{ - " to gather

together": Sanskri t grama-'f} "heap, crowd, community"; Latin

grex "f lock, herd"; R u s s i ~ n gorst' "cupped hand, handful";

and perhaps Greek &ye:Cpw " to get together, gather , col lec t" .

4. t'ah- "to break, shat te r , smash": Afroasiat ic t ' . a h - / t ' a h

" to break, smash":. Arabic ~ ' f J ' t a ' f J a " to break, shat te r , smash

something". Kartvelian t'ex- " to break": Georgian t 'ex-" to break". Indo-European t ' eA - " to cleave, divide":

Sanskri t d.t:ti "to cut, divide"; Greek o c d ~ w "to cleave asun

der, cleave, :tend, tear , divide, slay, smite".

Final ly, a few remarks need to be made about I l l i c -Sv i tyc ' s proposed cognate se ts in general . In some of his proposed etymologies, the correspondences between two or threeof the branches are sound from a semantic point of view,while those adduced for the other branches are questionable.In several cases, the etymologies should be abandoned a l together . The large number of examples, however, tha t appear sound from both phonological and semantic points ofview i s t ru ly impressive.

Reviewer ' s Address:

Allan R. Bomhard86 Waltham St ree t

BOS'OCN, Mass. 02118-2115u.s.A.




NOTES

1) We would expect th e developments to have been more as followsthan as proposed by Shevoroshkin:

Prato-Nostratic

T'

TD

+

+

Proto-Indo-European

TTh

D

A typological paral le l exis ts within Semitic, where Proto-Semitic

*T ' , *T (h) , *D have developed into T , Th, D respectively in the

Neo-Aramaic dialect of Tur-'Abdin.2) Specif ically, Hitt i te , Palaic, Luwian, and Hieroglyphic Luwianas the oldest representatives of this branch. Lycian, Lydian, andCarian are la ter representatives.

3) I would l ike to emphasize that reconstructed languages should

be thought of as real languages in every sense of the term. This meansthat we should be very careful not to reconstruct anything that is not

characterist ic of language in general: our goal should be to s t r ivefor real i ty in our reconstructions,

4) Ivanov (p. 2 and p. 57) faults preliminary work by Barnhard for

being merely a binary comparison of Indo-European and Afroasiatic

(Hamito-Semitic). I t should be mentioned, however, that in his recentbook,

Bomhard(1984:291)

unreservedlyacknowledges the

need to bringin the remaining Nostratic daughter languages. In his book, Barnhardis quite expl ici t in noting that his goal is l imited in scope and i s

not to reconstruct Prato-Nostratic but, rather, to apply a new approach

to the comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic to determine whether or not there is suff ic ient evidence to consider the possibil i ty that these two language families are in fact genetically related.He concludes, by the way, that the evidence points strongly to genetic

relationship, albei t dis tant . Bomhard is currently gathering data onthe other Nostratic daughter languages. Preliminary analysis of these

data has led Barnhard to conclude that .the correspondences established

by Il l ic-Svityc between Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, and Dravidian

are generally valid, while those between Kartvelian, Afroasiatic, andthe other Nostratic daughter languages are in need of revision.

5) An indispensable reference, citing nearly everything that has

ever been published on distant l inguist ic relationship, has jus t been

published by Marge E. Landsberg (1986). Here, one wil l find l is ted

the ar t ic les by I l l ic-Svi tyc, Dolgopol 'skij , and other Soviet scholars

(as well as non-Soviet scholars) on Nostratic.6) I would l ike to thank A. B. Dolgopol'skij for his great kind

ness and generosity in giving me copies of his and I l l ic-Svi tyc 's

Etimologija ( 3 m U M O ~ O c U R ) ar t ic les on Nostratic as well as copies ofvolumes I and I I of I l l ic-Svi tyc 's comparative Nostratic dictionary.




I would also l ike to thank my friend Yoel L. Arbeitman for sending mea copy of the f i r s t fascicle of volume I I I of I l l ic-Svityc 's dictionary.

7) For detai lson

phonological markedness in generaland on

th e

frequency distr ibution of glottalized stops in particular , see Gam-krelidze 1978.

REFERENCES

Bomhard, Allan R. 1984. Toward Prato-Nostratic: A New Approach tothe Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic (=

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol. 27). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1986. "Common Indo-European/Afroasiatic Roots: Supplement 1". General Linguistics 26.

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. 1978. "On th e Correlation of Stops and Fricatives in a Phonological System". Universals of Human Language,ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, vol. 2, Phonology, .9-46. Stanford,

Cal.: Stanford Univ. Press.Il l ic-Svityc, v. M. 1971. Ormm cp:J.elteHUR ~ t o c m p : J . m u ' < e c = R 3 ~ 1 K p e

( ce.Mumo=v.umcx:UU., Kar:mee.al:!cx:uU, wtC!oeeponeucx:uU, YJ.XUll:!cxuU., C!p:J.-

euouU.cx:uU., a.tlmlUcxuU). Vol. I . Moscow: Nauka.Landsberg, Marge E. 1986. Materials for a Bibliography of Translinguistic Studies. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Linguistics

Club.

Russell, Bertrand. 1976. "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish". Un-

popular Essays. [Orig. publ. 1950.] London: Unwin Paperbacks.



MANUSCRIPTSManuscripts submitted for publication in Diachronica should be in English, French orGerman; occasionally, contributions in other languages using Latin script may also beconsidered. Manuscripts of articles should be in three fine copies; authors are advisedto retain the original typescript. It is suggested that authors get in touch with one of theeditors before submitting a manuscript.

Before sending a manuscript, contributors should familiarize themselves with the styleadopted in Diachronica, which to a large extent fol lows the Style Sheet of the LinguisticSociety of America (cf. LSA Bulletin No. 102, December 1983, pp. 47-49). Particularattention should be paid to the conventions employed in the citation of sources and thepresentation of bibliographical references, for which a recent issue of Diachronica shouldbe consulted. Sigla of periodicals are those used by the Linguistic Bibliography IBibliographie Linguistique (The Hague: Nijhoff). Authors are requested to check theirmanuscripts carefully before submission as corrections at proof-stage are costly.

All correspondence concerning editorial matters (inquiries regarding suitable topics,length of manuscripts, deadlines for submission, etc.) should be directed to one of theeditors:

Allan R. BomhardReview Editor

Konrad KoernerGeneral Editor

Philip H. BaldiAssociate Editor,Diachronica

Linguistics ProgramPennsylvania State University

UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802,U.S.A.

Tel.: (814) 865-6873or 1670Home: (814) 234-0815

Diachronica86 Waltham Street

BOSTON, MA02118U.S.A.

Tel.: (617) 542-9454.

DiachronicaDepartment of Linguistics

University of OttawaOTIAWA, OntarioCanada K1 N 6N

Tel.: (613) 231-5778 or4207Home: (819) 778-7935

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATIONThe annual subscription rates for Diachronica (2 issues of ca. 150 pages each) are:

0 US$ 39.80/DM 80,- plus handling and postage, for Libraries and Institutions;0 US$ 25.00/DM 50,- handling and postage included, for individual subscribers

provided that their prepaid order is placed directly with the Publisher.

North American and Overseas Subscribers, please send your subscription order to thefollowing address:

Georg Olms Verlag111 West 57th Street

NEW YORK, NY 10019, U.S.A.(Telephone: 212-757-5327)

For European subscribers I Pour les abonnes europeans I Fur europaische Besteller,please send your orders to the following addressls.v.p. envoyez votre commande

a l'adresse suivante I bitte schicken Sie lhre Bestellung an die folgende Anschrift:

Georg Olms VerlagHagentorwall 7

D-3200 HILDESHEIMFederal Republic of Germany

Republique Federale d'AIIemagneBundesrepublik Deutschland

Telephone: 05121-37007Telex: 927 454 Olms.

Telegramm: Bookolms Hildesheim



TABLE OF CONTENTS -0/ACHRON/CA Ill: 2 (Fall 1986)

ARTICLES I AUFSATZE

Carleton T. Hodge (Bloomington, Ind.): Indo-European Consonant Ablaut .... 143Alice Faber (Gainesville, Fla.): On the Actuat ion of a Sound Change:

A Semitic case study .. .... .... .... .. .... .... ...... .... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. 163

Julian Mendez Dosuna & Carmen Pensado (Salamanca): Can Phonological

Changes Really Have a Morphological Origin?

The case of Old Spanish ie > i and ue > e ........................................................... 185

REVIEW ARTICLE I RAPPORT CRITIQUE I FORSCHUNGSBERICHT

Sheila Embleton (North York, Ont.): Principles of Historical Linguistics .................... 203

REVIEWS I COMPTES RENDUS I BESPRECHUNGEN

Peeter Arumaa, Urslavische Grammatik: Einfi.ihrung in das vergleichende Studiumder slavischen Sprachen (Heidelberg, 1985), reviewed by

David Huntley (Toronto) .................................................. .. ....................... 233

Bela Brogyanyi & Thomas Krommelbein, eds., Germanic Dialectics: Linguistic

and philological investigations (Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 1986), reviewed by

Joseph B. Voyles (Seattle, Wash.) ......................... .. 237

Jacek Fisiak, ed., Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical

Linguistics (Amsterdam & Poznan, 1986), reviewed by Kenneth Shields

(Millersville, Pa.) ................. ... 243

Guido Gomez de Silva, camp., Elsevier's Concise Spanish Etymological Dictionary

(Amsterdam-London-New York-Tokyo, 1985), reviewed by Ralph de Gorog(Athens, Ga.) .......................................................................................................... 255

Jean-Yves Le Guillou, Grammaire du Vieux Bulgare (Vieux Slave) (Paris, 1984),

reviewed by Herbert Galton (Lawrence, Ks.) .......................................................... 261

Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin & Thomas L. Markey, eds . Typology, Relationship, and

Time (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1986), reviewed by Allan R. Bomhard (Boston, Mass.) .... 269

MISCELLANEA: NOTES I NOTIZEN - DISCUSSIONS I DISKUSSIONEN

Yael L. Arbeitman (Bronx, N.Y.): "Trojan", Luwian, and the Mass Media, 1985 (C.E.) . 283

PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED I OUVRAGES RECL,JS I EINGEGANGENE SCHRIFTEN . 293

bomhard - review of shevoroshkin & markey (eds.) "typology, relationship, and time"

Documents