dolgopolsky - nostratic dictionary (2008)

3124

Click here to load reader

Upload: allan-bomhard

Post on 11-Nov-2014

192 views

Category:

Documents


7 download

TRANSCRIPT

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

Nostratic DictionaryBy Aharon Dolgopolsky

Published by: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research University of Cambridge Downing Street Cambridge, UK CB2 3ER (0)(1223) 339336 (0)(1223) 333538 (General Office) (0)(1223) 333536 (FAX) [email protected] www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk 2008 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. This is a preliminary publication of work by the author up to November 2006 without final correction of the proofs. It will continue to be updated as and when amendments become available. This publication and its updates are accessible on-line at http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/196512. Copies of the electronic publication will also be available on CD and in a hardback version priced at cost. All such requests should be directed to the McDonald Institute Production Office at the address above.

ContentsVolume 1Preface by Colin Renfrew Foreword by Aharon Dolgopolsky Introduction: the Nostratic Macrofamily1. The Nostratic macrofamily 2. Phonology 3. Grammar 4. Grammatical typology 5. Derivation 6. The place of Hamito-Semitic 7. Using etymological dictionaries 8. The Nostratic symposium. Remarks of my colleagues and methodology 9. Alphabetical order of entries 10. Nostratic etyma and cross-references 11. A note on reconstructions 12. Was Nostratic a root-isolating or a stem-isolating language? 13. On transcription 14. On references 15. On epochs and dialects of languages 16. On infinitives and pseudo-infinitives in our vocabulary entries 17. On indicating the meaning of words and forms I. Indo-European II. Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) III. Kartvelian IV. Uralic V. Altaic VI. Dravidian VII. Elamite VIII. Gilyak IX. Chukchee-Kamchadal X. Eskimo-Aleut General remarks *, * *, * *b , *C *c, *, *, *c , *c, *, * , *c *C * * * * *d *g *g *, * 7 8 24 26 27 28 34 34 43 43 43 44 44 47 48 48 49 49 57 71 72 75 81 83 83 83 83 85 86 189 236 350 376 412 436 456 473 490 562 691 706

v 3 7

Classification of the Nostratic languages

49

Nostratic etymologies

85

Volume 2Nostratic etymologies (cont.)*h *H, *, *, * * *k *, * *l, *l , *l, *L * *m *n, *, *, *, *, *N, * * * 723 762 787 797 920 1175 1260 1266 1440 1516 1547

723

Volume 3Nostratic etymologies (cont.)*p, *p, * *q *q *r , *S *s, *, * s, *s * * *t * *w *, * *y , *Z *z, *, *z, *z * * , * *, * , *, * * * 1563 1749 1783 1823 1862 1991 2019 2062 2129 2286 2386 2423 2457 2478 2481 2488 2530 2546

1563

Volume 4List of Nostratic entries and Indo-European roots Phonetic symbols and other signs used in the etymological entriesI. In pN constructions II. In pIE and NaIE reconstructions III. Transcription of living and extinct languages, transcription symbols of reconstruction (other than in pN, pIE and NaIE) IV. Transliteration of Coptic letters V. Armenian letters A. Names of languages, dialects, and families of languages B. Scripts C. Names of transcription systems Scholars and scholarly papers Symbols of ancient and medieval sources and authors

25582696 2699

2693

2701 2722 2722 2736 2772 2773 2774 2789

Abbreviations of names of languages, dialects, language families, subfamilies, and script systems

2736

Symbols of names of scholars, titles of collective papers, sources of information

2774

Abbreviations of grammatical, phonological, and orthographic terms, forms and classes of word, terms of their derivational and semantic history, and signs denoting reconstructions as hypotheses BibliographyPeriodicals and collected papers Abbreviations of city names in the bibliography Transliteration of non-Roman scripts in bibliographical references

27923079 3113 3114

2801

Preface

PrefaceColin Renfrew Aharon Dolgopolsky is today the leading authorityThat the widespread distributions over space of languages and of language families are likely to be amenable to historical explanation has been evident since the time of Sir William Jones (1786), and is widely accepted today (Nettle 1999; Dixon 1997). And the processes involved, which may include dispersals of population and other demographic effects, must in many cases go back before the time that written records are available, and therefore into prehistory. Such distributions demand some explanation in archaeological terms, and the archaeological record has much to offer about social and economic processes in early times. Indeed the developments of molecular genetics offer the possibility that archaeogenetics may have something to offer to the understanding of population histories. So the possibility arises of an emerging synthesis (Renfrew 1991; 2000b) between the fields of historical linguistics, prehistoric archaeology and molecular genetics. The possibility exists, at least in theory, of writing an integrated history that will bring into play data from all three intersecting fields. In this context the challenging claims implied by the Nostratic hypothesis are of considerable interest, carrying as they do, widespread implications if those claims be accepted. For the Nostratic hypothesis as first set out by Illich-Svitych (1989; 1990; see Bulatova 1989) and by Dolgopolsky (1973; 1998; 1999) proposes a relationship between several of the principal language families of Europe, Asia and Africa. The relationship implies a common origin for these families and their constituent languages, and presumably a Nostratic or Proto-Nostratic homeland, occupied by the speakers of the notional ancestral language at a date well prior to the formation of the daughter families and their languages. The language families in question (see Fig. 1) are the Altaic family, the Afroasiatic family, the Indo-European family, the Kartvelian family (i.e. the South Caucasian languages) and the Dravidian family. The matter has already been set out clearly by Dolgopolsky (e.g. Dolgopolsky 1999; see also Kaiser & Shevoroshkin 1988) and is, of course, further discussed in the pages which follow here. Broadly

on the Nostratic macrofamily, and it is a privilege to be invited to write some words by way of introduction to his monumental Nostratic Dictionary. For it is, of course, something very much more than a dictionary. It is the most thorough and extensive demonstration and documentation so far of what may be termed the Nostratic hypothesis: that several of the worlds best-known language families are related in their origin, their grammar and their lexicon, and that they belong together in a larger unit, of earlier origin, the Nostratic macrofamily. It should at once be noted that several elements of this enterprise are controversial. For while the Nostratic hypothesis has many supporters, it has been criticized on rather fundamental grounds by a number of distinguished linguists. The matter was reviewed some years ago in a symposium held at the McDonald Institute (Renfrew & Nettle 1999), and positions remain very much polarized. It was a result of that meeting that the decision was taken to invite Aharon Dolgopolsky to publish his Dictionary a much more substantial treatise than any work hitherto undertaken on the subject at the McDonald Institute. For it became clear that the diversities of view expressed at that symposium were not likely to be resolved by further polemical exchanges. Instead, a substantial body of data was required, whose examination and evaluation could subsequently lead to more mature judgments. Those data are presented here, and that more mature evaluation can now proceed. First, however, it may be worth clarifying why these issues are of such potential interest to archaeologists and to historians of culture as well as to historical linguists which is why this work finds publication under the aegis of an institute for archaeological research. In recent years there have been attempts towards some rapprochement between the fields of prehistoric archaeology and historical linguistics (Renfrew 1987; Blench & Spriggs 19979; McConvell & Evans 1997; Kirch 2001), and the once rather neglected relationships between archaeology and language have again been vigorously debated.

vi

Preface

Figure 1. The Nostratic macrofamily. The present-day distribution of the language groups within the Nostratic macrofamily. The consitutent language families are: (1) Altaic; (2) Afroasiatic; (3) Indo-European; (4) South Caucasian (Kartvelian); (5) Uralic; (6) Dravidian. (After Renfrew & Nettle 1999, 6, fig. 1.) similar conclusions have been set out by Bomhard (1984; 1996). The Nostratic macrofamily may be compared with the Eurasiatic family, formulated by the American linguist Joseph Greenberg (2000; see Ruhlen 1991, 383). Nostratic and Eurasiatic, as so defined, share the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic families and Gilyak, as well as Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut (belonging to Nostratic according to Dolgopolsky, although not discussed in his dictionary). But Greenberg includes Ainu in his Eurasiatic macrofamily, while excluding the Afroasiatic, Kartvelian and Dravidian families. The very validity of the concept of macrofamily has been challenged by many mainstream linguists (e.g. Campbell 1999; Dixon 1997; see also Renfrew 2000a), where it is Greenbergs concept of Amerind (Greenberg 1987) which has come in for the strongest criticism, although his earlier classification of the languages of Africa (Greenberg 1963) was more positively received. However it has been systematically applied in other areas, not least by Starostin (2000). These debates make the publication of Dolgopolskys Nostratic Dictionary all the more significant. For the matter can hardly be judged by the proposal of just one or two words in the reconstructed Nostratic language which find a number of descendents in the daughter languages. Individual cases may be open to discussion and doubt, and it is on the basis of a significant number of proposed roots and of their descendent counterparts that the matter must be judged. That sufficient sample is presented in the pages that follow. The matter might relate in a number of ways to other current work. In the first place the Nostratic hypothesis as presented here could harmonize with the homeland for Proto-Indo-European proposed by the present author (Renfrew 1987), which finds many points of agreement with the important work of Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995), as Dolgopolsky himself (1987; 1993) has discussed. Moreover the early dates which Dolgopolsky (1998) has proposed for Nostratic would harmonize with the earlier chronology now emerging, notably for Proto-Indo-European, from the application of phylogenetic methods (Gray & Atkinson 2003; Forster & Renfrew 2006). The question of time depth in historical linguistics is under review at present (Dixon 1997; Renfrew, McMahon & Trask 2000; Forster & Renfrew 2006) and the implied chronology for Nostratic no longer looks so problematic in itself. It is even possible to suggest a processual mechanism for the putative dispersal of at least some of the families which make up the Nostratic macrofamily. The farming/language dispersal hypothesis, first proposed for Indo-European (Renfrew 1987), has now been much more widely applied (Bellwood 1991; Bellwood & Renfrew 2002; Bellwood 2005). In particular it has been used to account for the dispersal of the Afroasiatic language family from a

Preface

vii

homeland in the southern Levant (Renfrew 1991, 13 fig. 5; see Diakonoff 1990), and could thus be employed to account for the dispersal from a Nostratic homeland in western Asia of at least two of the constituent language families. Its application to the Dravidian family, however, looks more doubtful in the light of recent work on the origins and domestication of food plants in central and southern India (Fuller 2002). In the last analysis, however, the matter is a linguistic one, and it is by historical linguists that it must be judged. The present work by Dolgopolsky represents a significant step in the further documentation of the case, which has now been set out with sufficient thoroughness to allow of systematic consideration and assessment by linguists. That process can now begin. We look forward to further discussion and debate on this important theme, of interest to prehistoric archaeology as well as to linguistics. AcknowledgementsThe symposium on the Nostratic hypothesis, held at the McDonald Institute in July 1988 (see Renfrew & Nettle 1999) was supported by a generous grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of New York. As a result of their support the Institute was able to initiate and continue its symposia, which have resulted in the series Papers in the Prehistory of Languages (including also Dolgopolsky 1998; Renfrew et al. 2000; Renfrew 2000a; Bellwood & Renfrew 2002; Forster & Renfrew 2006). We are grateful to them and also to the support which the McDonald Institute has given to the project.

ReferencesBellwood, P., 1991. The Austronesian dispersal and the origins of languages. Scientific American 265(1), 893. Bellwood, P., 2005. First Farmers, the Origins of Agricultural Societies. Oxford: Blackwell. Bellwood, P. & C. Renfrew (eds.), 2002. Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. (McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Blench, R. & M. Spriggs (eds.), 19979. Archaeology and Language. 4 vols. London: Routledge. Bomhard, A.R., 1984. Towards Proto-Nostratic: a New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 27.) Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Bomhard, A.R., 1996. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Charleston (SC): Signum Desktop Publishing. Bulatova, R., 1989. Illich-Svitych: a biographical sketch, in Reconstructing Languages and Cultures, ed. V. Shevoroshkin. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1428. Campbell, L., 1999. Nostratic and linguistic palaeontology in methodological perspective, in Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily, eds. C. Renfrew & D. Nettle. (Papers in the Prehistory of Languages.)

Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 179230. Diakonoff, I., 1990. The earliest Semitic society. Journal of Semitic Studies 43, 20917. Dixon, R.M.W., 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dolgopolsky, A.B., 1973. Boresich Ursprache Urasiens? Ideen des exacten Wissens, Wissenschaft und Technik in der Sovietunion 73(1), 1930. Dolgopolsky, A.B., 1987. The Indo-European homeland and lexical contact of Proto -Indo-European with other languages. Mediterranean Archaeological Review 3, 731. Dolgopolsky, A.B., 1993. More about the Indo-European homeland problem. Mediterranean Archaeological Review 67, 25172. Dolgopolsky, A., 1998. The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. (Papers in the Prehistory of Languages.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Dolgopolsky, A., 1999. The Nostratic macrofamily: a short introduction, in Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily, eds. C. Renfrew & D. Nettle. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 1946. Forster, P. & C. Renfrew (eds.), 2006. Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages. (McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Fuller, D., 2002. An agricultural perspective on Dravidian historical linguistics: archaeological crop packages, livestock and Dravidian crop vocabulary, in Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, eds. P. Bellwood & C. Renfrew. (McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 191214. Gray, R.D. & Q.D. Atkinson, 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of IndoEuropean origin. Nature 426, 4359. Gamkrelidze, T.V. & VV. Ivanov, 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: a Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Greenberg, J.H., 1963. The Languages of Africa. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. Greenberg, J.H., 1987. Languages in the Americas. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. Greenberg, J.H., 2000. Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: the Eurasiatic Language Family. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. Illich-Svitych, V., 1989. The relationship of the Nostratic family languages: a probabilistic evaluation of the similarities in question, in Explorations in Language Macrofamilies, ed. V. Shevoroshkin. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 11113. Illich-Svitych, V., 1990. Nostratic reconstructions (translated and arranged by M. Kaiser), in Proto-Languages and Proto-Cultures, ed. V. Shevoroshkin. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 13867. Jones, Sir W., 1786. Third anniversary discourse: On the Hindus. Reprinted in The Collected Works of Sir William Jones, vol. 3 (1807). London: Stockdale, 2346. Kaiser M. & V. Shevoroshkin, 1988. Nostratic. Annual Review of Anthropology 17, 30929.

viii

Prefacea prehistory of languages. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(1), 734. Renfrew, C. & D. Nettle (eds.), 1999. Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily. (Papers in the Prehistory of Languages.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Renfrew, C., A. McMahon & L. Trask (eds.), 2000. Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. (Papers in the Prehistory of Languages.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Ruhlen, M., 1991. A Guide to the Worlds Languages, vol. 1. Stanford (CA): University of California Press. Starostin, S., 2000. Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatistics, in Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, eds. C. Renfrew, A. McMahon & L. Trask. (Papers in the Prehistory of Languages.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 22366.

Kirch, K.V., 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia: an Essay in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McConvell, P. & N. Evans (eds.), 1997. Archaeology and Linguistics, Aboriginal Australia in Global Perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Nettle, D., 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Renfrew, C., 1987. Archaeology and Language, the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. Renfrew, C., 1991. Before Babel: speculations on the origins of linguistic diversity. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(1), 323. Renfrew, C. (ed.), 2000a. America Past, America Present: Genes and Languages in the Americas and Beyond. (Papers in the Prehistory of Languages.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Renfrew, C., 2000b. At the edge of knowability: towards

Foreword

Nostratic Dictionaryby Aharon Dolgopolsky

Foreword

To the blessed memory of the great scholars and my dear friends Vladislav Illich-Svitych (19341966)

and Sergey Starostin (19532005)

Foreword

ForewordAharon Dolgopolskydictionary is a preliminary one. Critical remarks of scholars and further research will bring about modifications and more exact etymologies. Therefore I appeal to my colleagues and experts in different fields of comparative linguistics to submit their critical remarks (both in their papers and in personal messages) that will be helpful in checking and improving the etymologies. Today the pace of development in our field of science is rapid; therefore at the very moment of its publication this dictionary (like any other study of this kind) is already out of date. Thus is due to several reasons: 1. Some extremely important studies in etymology are still in preparation or in print. The recently published Altaic etymological dictionary by S. Starostin, A. Dybo and O. Mudrak was not available to me (I could only use its preliminary versions). This drawback has brought about another one: I could not pay due attention to the very complicated and controversial proto-Altaic vocalism of roots, so that my reconstruction of Nostratic vowels still needs checking and revision. Nor have I been able to use the Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian (vols. IIIff.) by G. Takcs. 2. Some important papers were published shortly before the submission of this dictionary (e.g. the second Georgian edition of the Kartvelian etymological dictionary by H. Fhnrich and Z. Sarjveladze; the Laz-Turkish dictionary by .A. Bucaklii and H. Uzunhasanolu; the latest fascicles of the Dictionnaire des racines smitiques by D. Cohen; the new Tuareg-French dictionary by K.-G. Prasse, Ghoubed Alojaly and Ghabdouane Mohamed; the French-Berber dictionary by M. Dray; the Rendille Dictionary by S. Pillinger and L. Galboran; The Dhaasanac Language by M. Tosco; the Iraqw-English Dictionary by M. Mous a. o. (MQK); the Grammar of Miya by R. Schuh; The Maale Language by Azeb Ahma Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbre by M. Kossmann; Comparative Dravidian Linguistics by Bh. Krishnamurti; the second volume of the above-mentioned Takcss Dictionary), so that I have not been able to use them to the full

This

extent. The same applies to the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, edited by J.P. Mallory & D.Q. Adams (L./Chic. 1997), which is extremely valuable for its lexical and grammatical entries (which are not connected with Mallorys incorrect conception about the homeland and early migrations of the Indo-Europeans [Gimbutass theory of Ponto-Caspian steppes as the homeland that is at variance with obvious linguistic facts: cf. AD IEH, AD CCIE and AD MAIEH; on the archaeological aspects of the problem see Rnf. AL]). The second volume of Indo-European and its Closest Relatives by J. Greenberg reached me in July 2002, when the text of my dictionary was ready. Nevertheless, in the reference notes of my entries (after the signs and ) I have mentioned those comparisons of Gr. that are (at least partially) acceptable. I have paid no attention to those (too numerous!) among Gr.s comparisons that are untenable or unjustified. 3. Some important dictionaries remained inaccessible to me. Among them the manuscripts of the two unedited Goemay dictionaries by E. Sirlinger (Jos, Nigeria, 1937 and 1946); the Russian-Trkmen dictionary by Alijev and Borijev (Ashkhabad, 1929); the Chinese dictionaries of the Mongolian languages Baoan, Dongxiang and Dagur (Beijing, 19812); the etymological dictionaries of Erzya, Moksha and Cheremis that were published in Saransk and Yoshkar-Ola (see Sr. and Srl EG, AB, BuL, LiuZh, Zhong, CygM, KMC and Gord. in the bibliography). I regret not being able to use the Gothic etymological dictionary by W. Lehmann and the Dictionary of the Irish Language (Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, 1983). 4. Some earlier papers on Nostratic (among them those by A. Bomhard) have not been analysed although they are likely to contain useful comparisons (in spite of methodological drawbacks [cf. AD rTPN] and partially untenable hypotheses of sound correspondences). Analysing them is a lengthy and inefficient procedure that I could not undertake owing to time constraints.

Foreword

5. I have not included in my comparison EskimoAleut, Chukchee-Kamchadal, Etruscan and (almost entirely) Gilyak and Elamite, although these languages do belong (in my opinion) to the Nostratic macrofamily. The reason is that the comparative study of these languages is in its initial stage. At the time of writing there was no comparative dictionary of Eskimo-Aleut (but now see Fortescue, M., S. Jacobsen & L. Kaplan, 1994, Comparative Eskimo Dictionary, Fairbanks (AL): Alaska Native Language Center; and Fortescue, M., 2005, Comparative ChukotoKamchatkan Dictionary, Berlin & New York (NY): Mouton de Gruyter). The only comparative dictionary of Chukchee-Kamchadal (by O. Mudrak) was only published shortly before the present dictionary was submitted, and hence could not be used. Therefore for the time being I cannot evaluate Greenbergs interesting comparisons concerning EA, CK, Gil and Ai. For all these and other reasons this dictionary does not claim to be an exhaustive list of all Nostratic words. I am already aware of some possibly reconstructible words that need further investigation. Other Nostratic words may be found in recently published and forthcoming papers on descendant languages. I hope to mention them in future papers. The greatest practical drawback of the present dictionary is lack of indexes. Their preliminary version does exist, but could not be included in this dictionary because it would have increased its volume immensely. I am planning to publish them separately as soon as possible. One of the weakest points in the dictionary is the supposed Chadic cognates. Unfortunately, they had to be adduced without previous detailed analysis of the phonological prehistory and history of the Chadic languages (beyond the precious results achieved by O. Stolbova in her recent papers). Actually Chadic historical phonology, morphology and etymology are in their infancy. I have adduced Chadic cognates hesitantly and tentatively. They may serve as raw material for establishing sound laws in the prehistory and history of the Chadic languages. Probably an additional inconvenience for some readers will be my approach to semantic definitions of the lexical items. In many cases I prefer to preserve the German, French, Italian, Spanish and Latin definitions from the sources in order to avoid inaccuracy in semantic interpretation of the data (due to polysemy of words in the sources and the inevitable arbitrariness in my English translation of these). In some cases I had to achieve accuracy by quoting the sources in Russian, Swedish or other exotic languages (accompanied by an English translation). If the name of an endemic plant or animal, of an object or phenomenon of some ethnic

culture has no exact English equivalent, I have had to present an approximate interpretation (sometimes with the symbols d a kind of or approximately). If the English word is polysemic, I have sometimes preferred to use a more convenient Latin, French or German equivalent (Latin dorsum or French dos instead of English back). I hope very much to make use of critical remarks of scholars in order to improve the etymologies of this dictionary. New comparative material and modifications of Nostratic etymologies will later be published as Addenda and Corrigenda to the Nostratic Dictionary. Therefore critical remarks by experts in different fields of comparative linguistics and related fields are most welcome. Acknowledgements No words can express my gratitude to Professor Colin Renfrew who encouraged my research, to the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation who made possible the publication of this opus vitae meae. I am greatly indebted to my dear friend, the founder of modern Nostratic linguistics Vladislav Illich-Svitych (193264), from whom I learned the basic methodology of long-range comparative linguistic research. He discovered the main sound correspondences between Nostratic languages and the phonetic laws that underlie these correspondences. In his Essay of Comparison of the Nostratic Languages (IS I, II, III) and his earlier paper Material for comparison of the Nostratic languages (IS MS), he proposed more than 600 Nostratic etymologies. Almost all of them (in a revised form) have been incorporated in the present dictionary (with reference notes IS and IS MS). Among other linguists who contributed much to the crystallization of mature Nostratic studies, I must gratefully mention Vladimir Dybo, Igor Diakonoff and my predecessors and friends Bjrn Collinder and Karl-Heinrich Menges. I am grateful to those colleagues who helped me to interpret material of the Altaic and Samoyedic languages, Greek, Egyptian, etc.: Sergey Starostin, Anna Dybo, Eugen Helimski, Juho Janhunen, Yulia Krivoruchko, Gbor Takcs. My deep gratitude and homage to those many scholars who dedicated their life, talent and energy to record and register the lexical stock of ancient, living and dying-out languages, to preserve their precious Wortschatz, to establish etymologies and to discover laws of their historical phonology and morphology. This dictionary is built on their shoulders. No research in comparative linguistics is possible without access to professional literature. Therefore the present study would have not been feasible

Foreword

without support of my colleagues and friends who provided me with their own papers and books and with those of other authors, as well as with copies of unpublished manuscript dictionaries and research papers. I want to express my profound gratitude to all of them, especially to Aleksandra Ajkhenvald, Johannes Angere, Raimo Anttila, David L. Appleyard, Yol Arbeitman, Francesco Aspesi, Alessandra Avanzini, Giorgio Banti, Anna Belova, Vclav Blaek, Claude Boisson, Allan R. Bomhard, Alexander Borg, Vermondo Brugnatelli, JeanPierre Caprile, Enrico Cerulli, Yosef Chetrit, David Cohen, Bjrn Collinder, Igor Diakonoff, my son Hayim Dolgopolsky, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Keren Dubnov, Anna Dybo, Vladimir Dybo, Zippora Fleischer, Lazar Fleischman, Harold C. Fleming, Joshua Tzvi Fox, Zygmund Frajzyngier, Thomas Gamkrelidze, Leonid Gindin, my daughter Ilana Glozman, Joseph Greenberg, Robert Hayward, Irn Gy. Hegeds, Eugene Helimski, Robert Hetzron, John Huehnergard, Felice Israel, Vjacheslav Vs. Ivanov, Gevork Jahukyan, Juho Janhunen, Aulis Joki, Hermann Jungraithmayr, Mark Kaiser, Songmoo Kho, Aleksander Kibrik, Zurab Kiknadze, Georgij Klimov, Leonid Kogan, Frantiek Kopen, Antonina Koval, Nikita Krougly-Encke, Marcello Lamberti, Rudolf Leger, Konstantin Lerner, Antoine Lonnet, Aleksander Lubotsky, Margaret Landsberg, Winfred P. Lehmann, Lekso Lekiashvili, Wolf Leslau, Givi Machavariani, Enver Makajev, Alexis Manaster Ramer, Manfred Mayrhofer, Igor Meluk, Gennadij Melnikov, Karl-Heinrich Menges, Peter A. Michalove, Alexander Militarv, Tatjana Moll, Oleg Mudrak, Hans Mukarovsky, Vladimir Napolskikh, Gregorio del Olmo Lete,

Vladimir Orl, Letas (Mykolas) Palmaitis, Ilya Peiros, Karel Petrek, Barukh Podolsky, Viktor Porxomovski, Valentina Postovalova, Chaim Rabin, Jens E. Rasmussen, Colin Renfrew, Hayim Rosn, Otto Rssler, Mstislav Rostropovich, Merritt Ruhlen, Helmut Satzinger, Russell G. Schuh, Vitaliy Shevoroshkin, Kiyoshi Shimizu, Viktor Shnirelman, Neil Skinner, George Starostin, Sergey Starostin, Richard Steiner, Wolfgang Steinitz, Olga Stolbova, Neda Strazhas, John Street, Gabriel Superfin, Morris Swadesh, Aleksander Syrkin, Gbor Takcs, Vladimir Terentjev, Jakov Testelec, Vladimir Toporov, Henri Tourneux, Genrikh Turover, Boris Uspenski, Rina Viers, Rainer Maria Voigt, Werner Vycichl, Kay Williamson, Viktor Yampolsky, Vladimir Yampolsky, and Andrzej Zaborski, as well as to the staff of the library of the University of Haifa who provided me with literature (including rare books that were published in exotic countries) that was necessary for my research. Thanks are further due to Eden Orion (Computer Services, University of Haifa) and to Dora Kemp (Publications Office, the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK) for their invaluable professional help that enabled the publication of this dictionary. I should like to express my gratitude to Dora Kemp and to Gila Abrahamson (Haifa) for their help in checking my imperfect (alas!) English style. Finally I wish to acknowledge the patience and support of my wife Zippora and the help of my children: my daughter Ilana, my sons Hayim, Ilya and Jacob who supported me each in his own way during the long years of research which have resulted in the present dictionary.

Zippora and the help of my children: my daughter Ilana, my s o n s Hayim, Ilya and Jacob who supported me each in his own way d u r i n g the long years of research which resulted in the p r e s e n t 7 Introduction have dictionary.INTRODUCTION: THE NOSTRATIC MACROFAMILY 1. The Nostratic macrofamily. This is a hypothetic macrofamily o f languages, including Indo-European ( IE ), Hamito-Semitic ( HS ) ( = Afroasiatic) (comprising Semitic [S], Egyptian [Eg], Berber [B], Cushitic [C], Omotic [Om] and Chadic [Ch]), Kartvelian ( K ), Uralic ( U ) (= FinnoUgric [FU], Samoyed [Sm] and Yukaghir [Y]), Altaic ( A ) (= Turkic [T], 8 Mongolic [M], Tungusic [Tg], Korean [Ko], and Japanese [J]), a n d Dravidian ( D ). The hypothesis is based on a large amount of c o m m o n roots (more than 2,800) and many common grammatical m o r p h e m e s , in which regular sound correspondences have been established (cf. IS MS, IS SS, IS I-III, AD LRC, AD SShS, AD LZL, AD PP, AD NGIE, AD NVIE, AD NM). Among the most important resemblances is that of p e r s o n a l pronouns and inflectional person-markers of the 1st and 2nd p e r s o n s ( for 'I' in IE, U, A and K, (> (> for ' t h o u ' in IE, HS, U and M, etc.), that of interrogative pronouns (originally for 'who?' and for 'what?', surviving entirely or partially in IE, HS, K, U and A), basic lexical words (roots in descenfant languages) such a s 'stay' ( > 'be') preserved in IE ( ), HS, U and K, 'to 'to hold, take' (all branches except U ) , eat' (IE, HS, M), 'water' (all branches except K), 'name, word' (IE, HS, U, A), as well as words connected with culture of the final paleolythic age (cf. AD NM), such as 'woman of another moiety' > words f o r Greek 'daughter-in-law', 'sister-in-law' and 'bride' in IE (Latin , Slavic / ), S, U, A and D. The original Nostratic phonology (as reconstructed by V. Illich-Svitych and A. Dolgopolsky) had a rich consonant system (see below) and 7 vowels. T h e grammatical structure was, most probably, analytic with a rigid w o r d order (a sentence-final verb, attributive precedes its head, p r o n o m i n a l subject follows its verb) and with grammatical meanings expressed b y word order, postpositions ( for genitive, for m a r k e d accusative, and others) and grammatical pronouns. It is very plausible that there are other members of the Nostratic macrofamily: Chukchee-Kamchadal, Eskimo-Aleut, Gilyak, Elamic (possibly connected with Dravidian) and possibly also Etruscan. But t h e comparativistic and etymological investigation of these languages is still at its very beginning, therefore at the present stage of Nostratic research they have not yet been included in the framework o f comparison. 2. Phonology.

proto-Nostratic had a rich consonant system and 7 vowels.

2.1. Consonants. According to the extant comparative

evidence,

(possibly connected with Dravidian) and possibly also Etruscan. But t h e comparativistic and etymological investigation of these languages is still at its very beginning, therefore at the present stage of Nostratic 8 Introduction research they have not yet been included in the framework o f comparison. 2. Phonology.9

proto-Nostratic had a rich consonant system and 7 vowels.Voiced Voiceless Emph.Central approximants

2.1. Consonants. According to the extant comparative Voiced VoiceNostratic consonant less chart Nostratic consonant chartFricatives Fricatives

evidence,

Stops and affricates

Nasals

Stops and affricates

Central aproximants

Nasals

Voiced

Voiceless

Emph.

Voiced

Voiceless

=

Lateral 9 sonants

Vibrants

Lateral sonants

Vi br ants

(= )

=

; , - lateralized ; palatalized lateralobstruents: = palatalized ; and ( = consonants: Symbols in the chart: affricates: = = = = ; ) = cacuminal or retroflex and ; uvular stops: (voiced) , - lateralized ; palatalized lateralobstruents: = palatalized ; and = Arabic consonants: (voiceless) ("emphatic"); uvular fricatives: = Spanish , (=)

Symbols in the chart: affricates:

= (=

=

=

=

; epiglottal (pharyngeal) consonant: voiceless (= (voiceless) ("emphatic"); uvular fricatives: = Spanish , voicedepiglottal ). (pharyngeal) (= ;Arabic voiced (= Arabic ). consonant: voiceless (=

) = cacuminal

or retroflex

and

; uvular

stops:

(voiced) = Arabic = Arabic ),

),

= Arabic

In proto-Nostratic, as it is reconstructed on the basis of exstant d a t a , In proto-Nostratic, as it is reconstructed on the basis of exstant d a t a , there are there three are series of stops and voiced ( , , e t,c . ) , , e t c . ) , three series of stops andaffricates: affricates: voiced ( , , etc.), "emphatic" ( ( , ,, etc.). The e x The act and and "emphatic" , etc.). exact voiceless (voiceless , ( , etc.), phonetic realization of the "emphatic" consonants is not yet clear. phonetic Illich-Svitych realization and of myself the (up "emphatic" is not to the recentconsonants years) interpreted them yet a s clear. Illich-Svitych and myself the I recent them a s glottalized ejectives. (up But to to-day do not years) insist on interpreted this p a r t i c u l a r fact,to-day the emphatic represented in K p aa srticular glottalized interpretation. ejectives. In But I do stops not are insist on this glottalized, in HS as glottalized or plain voiceless (the distribution being interpretation. the emphatic are represented in K a s probablyIn duefact, to prosodic factors), in U stops (in the intervocalic position) a s glottalized,geminated in HS as glottalized plain voiceless (theitsdistribution voiceless stops, or in A as fortes, in IE (in traditional being interpretation) as voiceless. The common denominator of their K, HS, U probably due to prosodic factors), in U (in the intervocalic position) as and A reflexes is an additional effort (if compared to the reflexes of N geminated plain voiceless stops, in A as fortes, in IE (in its traditional voiceless stops). One cannot determine the original p h o n e t i c interpretation) as voiceless. The common denominator of their K, HS, U realization of this additional effort (glottalization, aspiration, fortis articulation?). I prefer to denote them as "emphatic" and to use t h e and A reflexes is an additional effort (if compared to the reflexes of N traditional Orientlistic underdot as their symbol. plain voiceless stops). One cannot determine the original p h o n e t i c Recently Starostin proposed to interpret the emphatic stops a s realization voiceless of this additional (glottalization, aspiration, fortis = his effort ), see S NSR 306. fortes (out articulation?). I prefer to denote them as "emphatic" and to use t h e traditional Orientlistic underdot as their symbol. Recently Starostin proposed to interpret the emphatic stops a s = his ), see S NSR 306. voiceless fortes (out

10 Introduction 10 9

Indo-European

Kartvelian

N

S

Eg

B

K

IE

, U _/ , _/

T?

M

Tg

D

?

Dravidian

Mongolic

Nostratic

Egyptian

Tungusic

Semitic

Berber

Turkic

Uralic

In the following table of sound correspondences the symbol " " denotes zero. The sign " " symbolizes the lengthening of the p r e c e d i n g vowel, " " denoted lengthening of the consonant. The sign " " d e n o t e s In the following table of sound correspondences the symbol " " glottalization (emphaization) of an adjacent consonant, " " is i t s denotes zero. The sign " " symbolizes the lengthening of the p r e c e d i n g uvularization, " " is its tensification (transformation of a lax c o n s o n a n t vowel, " " denoted lengthening of the consonant. The sign " " d e n o t e s into a tense one [fortis]), " " is its devoicing, is its retroflexivization, glottalization (emphaization) of an adjacent consonant, " " is i t s is its palatalization. The symbol denotes here labialization of t h e uvularization, " " is its tensification (transformation of a lax c o n s o n a n t adjacent vowel, the sign denotes its palatalization. Within conditioning into a tense one [fortis]), " " is its devoicing, is its retroflexivization, formulas, "_ " means "before a labialized vowel", "_ " means "before a is its palatalization. The symbol denotes here labialization of t h e denotes the addition of the initial IE mobile palatal vowel". IE + adjacent vowel, the sign denotes its palatalization. Within conditioning (as a reflex of N word-middle palatal elements). The symbol " " is u s e d formulas, "_ " means "before a labialized vowel", "_ " means "before a for working hypotheses: in cases when we have sufficient factual the additiononly of the initial IE for mo e palatal vowel".for IE + confirmation a classdenotes of N phonemes rather than eb aicl h " is u s e d (as a reflex N word-middle palatal " distinction individual N of phoneme, e.g. in the case elements). of and The , symbol where a for possible working only hypotheses: in cases we have sufficient factual is if the phoneme is when represented in Ostyak, so that in confirmation for awhere class there of N are phonemes only rather than for each daughter languages no -words common with Ostyak individual phoneme, e.g. froof in theof case of and ,of where and N we cannotN find formal representation N a distinction is possible only if the phoneme is represented in Ostyak, so that i n separately, but only representation of unspecified . In such cases w e daughter languages where there are no -words common with Ostyak suppose (as a working hypotheses) that both phonemes (in the c a s e and N we cannot find froof of inrepresentation of N is symbolized described and formal ) are reflected the same way, which separately, but only of unspecified such cases we letter representation " " symbolizes an unspecified . In non-labial nasal by " ". The suppose (as a working hypotheses) that both phonemes (in the c a s e = ;M G= , = ; _/ consonant. IE G = described and ) are reflected in the same way, which is symbolized means "after a cns.", _ / is to be read "before a cns.". The query ? by " ". The letter " " symbolizes an unspecified non-labial nasal denotes our doubts (because the reflex in question is represented i n G = The cover symbol = ; M IEGmeans = , = , or ; _ / consonant. very few IE roots). for be The read cover "before a cns.". (in The query means "afterona the cns.", _ / is (depending adjacent N to vw.). symbol IE) m e a n? s denotes our doubts (because the reflex in question is represented i n , or (here also the choice depends on the adjacent N vw.). IE very few roots). The cover symbol for IE means , or is a cover symbol for all laryngeals (except for ). (depending on the adjacent N vw.). The cover symbol (in IE) m e a n s , or (here also the choice depends on the adjacent N vw.). IE is a cover symbol for all laryngeals (except for ). N S Eg B K IE U T M Tg D

10

Nostratic Semitic

Egyptian

?Berber

? ?Kartvelian

,

Introduction

[?

Indo-European

?]Uralic Turkic

,

> ,

/

_ /

_ /

Mongolic

/?

>

>

?

Tungusic

,

,

11

Dravidian

Introduction

11

Indo-European

Kartvelian

,? ?

Uralic

12

,

?

,

, ( ) [? ? ?]

?

?

,

( ) ,? ?

?

=? ? ? ?_ ? ?? ? ? ? ?

(=

)? ??? ?

=

/

?

? ?? ?

= , = ,? ?? ?

= = ? =?

?

=

? ? ?

? =

?

?

, ,

?

?

_ /

Dravidian

Mongolic

Nostratic

Egyptian

Tungusic

Semitic

Berber

Turkic

12

Introduction

Indo-European

Kartvelian

13

?

? ? ?

,??

,

?

?

?

?

,?, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

,? ?

, ?? ? ?

,??

,??

?? ? ?

,?

,?

?? ?

, _V /

?

? ?

? ? ? ???

??

Dravidian

Mongolic

Nostratic

Egyptian

Tungusic

Semitic

Berber

Turkic

Uralic

,

,

Introduction

13

Indo-European

Kartvelian

14

?

?

? ? = and?? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ?

?

_ / ? ? ? _/ ? ? ? ? ? ?

,

? , , ,

, ( ) ,? ( )

(<

?

( )

( )?

,

, ( ),

?

, , ,

= ,

= ,

Dravidian

Mongolic

Nostratic

Egyptian

Tungusic

Semitic

Berber

Turkic

Uralic

, ,

,

14

Nostratic Semitic

,

? ?

?

Egyptian

?

? ?

Berber

Kartvelian

Indo-European

,

, ,

Introduction

G ? ?

Uralic

,

?

_ /

Turkic

;? , G, ? ??

(< >

?

?

, _#/

?

Mongolic

, _#/

??

?

Tungusic

_t

_t _#/

? ?

(