griffen - nostratic and germano-european (1989)

8/22/2019 Griffen - Nostratic and Germano-European (1989)

1/11

NOSTRATIC AND GERMANO-EUROPEANToby D. Griffen1. INTRODUCTIONIn the past few decades, comparative linguists have been examining entire language families and the reconstructions of their protolanguagesto achieve insights into relationships among families, as in the work ofLevin (1971) on Indo-European and Semitic. This has resulted in agrowing number of theories that combine these families into larger families, such as the Lislakh suggested by Hodge ( 1978) to account for therelationships between Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic.

As noted by Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1988a), the comparison of language families in search of common sources has been particularly intense and has yielded particularly impressive results in the work originated in the USSR by such investigators as V.M. Illit-Svityt and A.B.Dolgopolsky. Indeed, the Soviet-American Conference on Languageand Prehistory held at the University of Michigan in 1988 was dominated by the subject of Nostratic.

2. NOSTRATICNostratic is a combination of several language families heretofore considered distinct. Strong evidence has been presented for including IndoEuropean, Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic), Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic, andDravidian (Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988a). Moreover, an increasing

body of data is being collected to support a close relationship (at leastthrough borrowing) between Nostratic and some other families, including Sino-Caucasian (Starostin 1988) and even Australian (Blazek1988).A concise summary of the Nostratic theory with supporting data canbe found in Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1988a). While some morphological evidence is provided, the most extensive evidence is found in thecomparison of the phonological systems of the participant languagefamilies. For example, the following correspondences are presented tosupport the reconstruction of the labial obstruents:

GENERAL LINGUISTICS, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1989. Published by The PennsylvaniaState University Press, University Park and London.


2/11

140 GENERAL LINGUISTICSWonls with **p'-[58] **p'i'Ywe or **p'[i]"we 'fire' > IE paXwor or *paxwor (Ht.pahhuwar 'fire', Grk. pur 'id', Anglo-Saxon fyr 'id'); AA *p"w 'fire';Kart. *pxw- 'warm'; Ural. *piwe 'warm, hot' (13, p. 353) **'Y is a stable Nostr. uvular fricative: **-'Yu- > IE *-xw- > Anatolian -[*hw]-;see the section on laryngeals, below. v[59] **p'unja 'to plait' > IE *pen-, *spen- 'to plait, weave'; AA *pn'to rotate, spin, wind'; Ural. *puna- 'to spin, twist/roll, rotate (tr.)';Drav. *put;t- or *pot;t- 'tie together' (13, p. 354). For IE *e,see the section on Vowels, below.Words with Nostratic **p-[60] **pelHi 'to shiver, shake, be afraid' > IE *pelH-/*pleH- 'toshake (tr., intr.), be afraid'; (Grk. pelemidzo 'I shake', OE eal-felo'baleful, dire' all incorrectly booked by Pokorny [23, p. 801] underIE *pel- 'to pour'); AA: *plH 'be afraid'(> 'to be in awe'); Alt. *peli'get scared' > Turkic *peli-g 'easily frightened', Tung.: Nep.Evenki hal- 'to not dare' (h < *f); Ural. *pele- 'be afraid'; Drav.*pirV- 'shiver, shake, be afraid' (15, p. 98ff).[61j **put'V 'hole'> AA *p1wt 'hole'; Kart. *put'- 'hole'; Alt. *piitV'hole; vulva'; Ural. *putV 'rectum'; Drav. *pott-'hole' (13, p. 340;using additional data Dolgopolsky reconstructs **pU[H]t'E).Wonls with Nostratic **b[62] **bari 'take' > IE *IY'er- 'take, bring, carry'; AA *br- 'to seize,catch'; Alt. *bari- 'take' > Turk. *bary- '(obtain) property', Mong.*bari 'grab, seize'; (?) Drav. *per 'pick up, gather' (*a > e beforerE) (14, p. 176ff). This entire entry has been translated in Ref. 18,i>- 36.[63] **berg/il 'tall' > IE *bherg"-/bhreg"- 'id'.; AA *brg 'tall'; Kart.*brg-e 'high, tall'; Ural. *pEr-kV 'tall';(?) Drav. *per- 'high, tall' (14.p. 177). (Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988a:321-22)-

The obstruent system reconstructed for proto-Nostratic is presentedin table 1. 1 The symbols p', t', k' represent the glottalized consonants,and pc, tc, kc represent heavily aspirated consonants. Once again, 'Y isused for the uvular fricative.As we can see in table 1, the obstruent systems of the various languagefamilies correlate strongly. This correlation holds not simply in the kindsof systems (which could be a typological coincidence), but even in theprecise lexical items, as demonstrated in the extended quotation on thelabials, above.At first glance, the Indo-European obstruent system appears to becompatible with those of the other Nostratic languages, affording a regular set of correspondences. However, this similarity is misleading, forthere are problems in the traditional reconstruction from the work of

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


3/11

TOBY D. GRIFFEN 141

Table 1: The Obstruents of NostraticNostr. IE AA Kart. Alt. Ural. Drav.**p'- *p *p *p',*p *p' *p *p**-p'- *p *p *p *p/*b *pp/p *pp/v**p- *p/*b *p1 *p/*b *p *p *p1**-p- *pl*b *pi *p!(p/b) *b *p *pp/v**b- *bi' *b *b *b *p *p**-b- *bh *b *b *b *w *[pp]/v**t'- *t *t'(t) *t' *t' *t *t**-t'- *t *t ' *t ' *t *ttlt *t(t)**t- *d *t *t *t *t *t**-t- *d *t *t *d *t *t(t)**d- *dh *d *d *d *t *t**-d- *dh *d *d *d '!'8 *t(t)**k'- *k,l,kw *k' *k' *k' *k *k**-k'- *l,k,kw *k' *k' *kl*g *kklk *k(k)**k- *g,g,gw *k *k *k *k *k**-k- *g,g,gw *k *k *g *k *k(k)**g- * g l ' , ~ , g h w *g *g *g *k *k**-g- * ~ , g h , g h w *g *g *g *-y 0**q' *k,l,kw *k' *q' *k *k *k**-q'- *l,k,kw *k' *k' *k *kk *kklk**-q- *x *x *q *kl*g *k *k**--y- *-y *-y *-y *:0/*-y *-y 0

Grimm (1822-37), Verner (1876), and others (compare Brugmann1972).The traditional Indo-European reconstruction included in table 1 isbased upon some outmoded assumptions. First, since Sanskrit was theoldest written Indo-European language, the early comparatists assumed

that it maintained the most conservative system. Hence, the reconstruction is heavily weighted toward Sanskrit (and the other classical languages-Latin and Greek). Second, these researchers believed thatthe original Indo-European language was spoken by a 'race' that camefrom the East, further bolstering the position of Sanskrit. Finally, theybelieved that language degenerates from a pure to a corrupt form. I fthe earliest written (= pure) form was Sanskrit, then the others mustbe degenerate and hence more innovative in their systems.Linguists have recently determined that the traditional reconstructionis unlikely at best. No attested language precisely maintains the systemrepresented in the reconstruction (although Sanskrit may be closest toit). Thus, some linguists have devised typologically more plausible systems, relying upon a glottalic realization of what has traditionally been


4/11

142 GENERAL LINGUISTICSreconstructed as the tenues *p, *t, and *k (see Gamkrelidze 1976;Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1973; Hopper 1973; Bombard 1979, 1986).According to Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1987, 1988b), though, theglottalic reconstruction actually makes matters worse. Not only is theglottalic system not found in any reflex of Indo-European, but it createsan unworkable situation between Indo-European and Nostratic, although their correspondences appear otherwise to be regular. Theproblem is that the glottalic system for Indo-European with the opposition *t/th, *t', *d, for example, would have to correspond to the Nostraticsystem with **t', **t, **d. Such a reversal of the glottalic and the tenuisor aspirate (see Bombard 1986) would simply not occur.This leaves us with an apparent dilemma. On the one hand, the traditional Indo-European obstruent reconstruction is based upon faulty assumptions and maintains a system unattested in any language. On theother hand, the glottalic reconstruction is likewise questionable and effectively blocks Indo-European from consideration as a Nostratic language family, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Of course, this is nota true dilemma, since the two alternatives are by no means the onlyimaginable solutions. A more reliable alternative is found in GermanoEuropean.

3. GERMANO-EUROPEANIn the book Germano-European: Breaking the sound law (Griffen1988), a new hypothesis is presented for the relationship between Germanic and the other Indo-European languages, and this leads to a newreconstruction for the protolanguage: Germano-European.The traditional shift from Indo-European to Germanic operatedalong the fortis-lenis scale, as it would be effected through the feature

of aspiration (realized physiologically in the width of the orifice of thelarynx and acoustically in a ratio of high to low frequency energyemission-see Griffen 1985: Chapter 5). But from the standpoint ofphonetic plausibility, the traditional concept of the shift along this scaleis backward, for in phonetic environments conducive to lenition (a decrease in the aspirate fortis-lenis scale), it requires provection (the increase). Such a regular pattern of change would not have occurred.To reconcile the correspondences between Germanic and IndoEuropean while maintaining phonetic plausibility, a hierarchy of phonetic expectations for change in an aspirate fortis-lenis system is developed in the Germano-European hypothesis. These expectations, ortendencies are as follows:


5/11

TOBY D. GRIFFEN 1431. Where accent is not a factor, intervocalic consonants may changeto the lenis.2. Where accent creates a position of fortis strength, intervocalicconsonants either do not change, or change to the fortis.3. A consonant in a position of strength (as in word-initial position)may change to the fortis. (Griffen 1988:174)

When we apply these tendencies to the correlation of Germanic andIndo-European, we reconstruct a system with, for example, an aspirate*t\ a tenuis *t, and a lenis *d. From this reconstruction based upon thesetendencies (and normal generalizations to other environments), we canconclude that the Germanic obstruents have developed along expectedparameters from the protosystem, while the other Indo-European languages have experienced a shift also along the expected phonetic parameters. Thus, the relationship between Germanic and Indo-Europeancould more accurately be described through an Indo-European shiftfrom Germano-European (including a nonshifted Germano-Armeniangroup).

These developments are represented in table 2, in which the numbersin parentheses correspond to the tendencies noted above, and (G) refersto the generalization of a tendency beyond its initial environment.2

This reconstruction is a product of current dynamic phonetidphonological research. The primary determining factor is whether ornot a particular change in a particular system could be supported by tendencies observable in the phonetic substance (and not simply from typology). The Germano-European reconstruction not only satisfies the primary requisite of phonetic plausibility, but it is also better supported bythe norms of areal linguistics, the findings of language typology, and thephysical evidence of anthropology (see Griffen 1988: Chapter 5).

This reconstruction has been developed completely independently ofthe Nostratic theory. Nonetheless, as demonstrated below, the obstruentsystem of Germano-European correlates more precisely with that ofNostratic than do either the traditional system or the glottalic system.

4. CORRELATING GERMANO-EUROPEAN AND NOSTRATICWith the new reconstruction of Germano-European replacing thetraditional and glottalic reconstructions of Indo-European, the protosystem of this family enters into Nostratic in a manner that is far moreprecise and, for the phonetic plausibility underlying the obstruent relationships, far more credible. In table 3, we see how precisely Ger-


6/11

144 GENERAL LINGUISTICS

'Iable 2: Germanic and Indo-European correspondencesReconstruction Germanic Indo-European

*ph- p ~ t - 'foot' Got fotus 'foot' (3) Lat pedis 'foot (gen.)'*-ph- nephod- Ole nefe 'nephew' (3) OP napat- 'grandchild''grandchild,nephew'*p- paita- 'goat skin' Got paida 'garment' Grk baite '(goat)skin

garment (lG)*-p- deu-p- 'deep' Got diups 'deep' Ill byth6s 'deep' (1)*-pV- uper 'over' OHG ubir 'over' (1) Av upara 'the upper' (2/1)*b- ber- 'to carry' Got bairan 'to carry' Skt bharati 'carries' (1G)*-b- terb- 'to wind' OHG zerben 'to turn' Skt drbhati 'winds' (1)*th- threi- 'three' Got tlreis 'three' (3) Olr tri 'three'*-th- yeth 'year' Got witlrus 'yearling' (3) Hit witt- 'year'*t- tyo(u) 'two' Got twai 'two' Alb dii 'two' (1G)*-t- set- 'to sit' Got sitan 'to sit' OCS sMc!!ti 'to sit' (1)*-tV- khry.t6m 'hundred' Got hund 'hundred' (1) Lat centum 'hundred' (2/1)*d- de(i)- 'to nurse' Got daddjan 'to nurse' Skt dhaya-b 'nourishing' (1G)*-d- beud- 'to observe' OS biodan 'to present' Skt bodhar 'knower' (1)*kb- khyon- 'dog' Got hunds 'dog' (3) Toe ku 'dog'*-kb- thakh- 'to hush' Got llahan 'to hush (3) Umb t a ~ e z 'silent'*k- kir- 'to call, Got kara 'care' Grk g ~ r y s 'voice' (1G)

to cry out'*-k- sak- 'to track' Got sakjan 'to seek' Olr saigim 'to seek' (1)*-kV- sek- 'to cut' OHG.sega 'saw' (1) OCS sekyra 'ax' (2/1)*g- ger- 'to jut forth' Ole grQn 'mustache' Grk c h a r ~ n 'upper lancepoint' (1G)*-g- steig- 'to climb' Got steigan 'to climb' Skt steighnoti 'climbs' (1)

mano-European adheres to the obstruent classifications of Nostratic.As seen in table 3, the Germano-European obstruent system is identical to that of Nostratic with the one exception that the fortis obstruents of Germano-European are aspirated while those of Nostratic areglottalized. A closer examination of the data, however, shows that thisdifference is minor, and indeed it may be reconciled by parallels inGermano-European and other Nostratic language families.As noted above, the Altaic fortis obstruents are realized as stronglyaspirated (especially in Turkic). According to Kaiser and Shevoroshkin,lllic-Svityc had already shown that 'it was possible to reconstruct a Tungus *x- derived from an earlier *kh- (=[k'], i.e. a "strong", aspiratedstop). Many Tungus words beginning with h- and x- (


7/11

TOBY D. GRIFFEN 145A further convergence between Germano-European and Nostratic is

found among the labials of Mongolian. The strongly aspirated Altaic *p'changed in Mongolian to *f > *h > 0 , and this process apparently generalized to affect Altaic *p as well. The spirantization of *p' to *f mimicsthe development in Germanic and Armenian. Moreover, the loss of occlusion that ultimately affected the Mongolian reflexes and also the Turkic reflex of *p' parallels the loss of labial occlusion in Armenian andin Celtic.

The correlation of Germano-European and Nostratic, however, ismost clear from the nature of the glottalic feature compared to aspiration. The physiological activity associated with the glottalic feature involves an emphatic ejection through the vocal cords. From the standpoint of the dynamic phonetic processes involved, this ejection throughthe glottis may be seen as a type of aspiration. Indeed, Starostin findsexternal evidence to support the reconstruction of the fortis obstruentsas aspirates rather than as glottalics:

Thus the external evidence seems to indicate that consonants traditionally reconstructed in Nostratic as glottalized (emphatic) had,in fact, been voiceless aspirates-and this also may better explainsome of their reflexes in Nostratic daughter languages. (Starostin1988:13)With this adjustment to the Nostratic theory, the proto-Germano

European obstruents are identical to the proto-Nostratic. Nor does theadjustment necessarily have to come in Nostratic for the correlation between these two protosystems to be exact. On the type of system thatmay have preceded the *th - *t - *d triad of Germano-European, theaspirate could have developed from the fortis articulation of the tenuisThble 3: Nostratic and Germano-European obstruents

Nostratic**p'**p**b**t'**t**d**k'**k**g

Germano-European*ph*p*b*th*t*d*kh*k*g


8/11

146 GENERAL LINGUISTICS(Griffen 1988:163-64). Not only would this fortis articulation fit moreclosely with the glottalic, but it would match the following suggestion ofKaiser and Shevoroshkin:

Thus, Nostratic triads of the type T' T D remained unchangedin AA and Kart., but became Th T D in Alt. Apparently the situationwas quite similar in IE: a triad I T D can be reconstructed (insteadof the traditional T D Dh), where I represents a tense row of consonants, T a weak row, and D -a "breathy-voiced" row. This interpretation fits Nostratic and IE data well, and it is supported by borrowings from Semitic into IE and from IE into Kartvelian. (Kaiser andShevoroshkin 1988a:323)

While the Germano-European hypothesis does not maintain *D as a'breathy-voiced' row as such, this realization nonetheless did developinto voiced fricatives and murmurs that one could classify as 'susurratae'(Griffen 1988:24).

It is not necessary, however, to adjust the reconstructions so thatGermano-European fits exactly into the Nostratic system, feature forfeature. The extremely high degree of correlation between the two isdemonstrable from the fact that the correspondences in lexical items areregular and predictable. Moreover, the phonetic similarity between aspiration and glottality makes any conceivable development leading to thevarious reflex obstruent systems of the Nostratic languages-includingGermano-European-phonetically plausible. This is the necessary criterion: the regularly predictable correspondence among sounds in lexicalcontext relatable through phonetic plausibility.

5. CONCLUSIONThe Germano-European reconstruction thus provides an obstruentsystem matching that of Nostratic so closely that the former languagefamily can be interpreted as a relatively conservative branch of the latter.Because of this strong correlation, both hypotheses-the Germano

European and the Nostratic-are significantly strengthened. Nor is thiscorrelation a result of circular reasoning, for Nostratic was developedcompletely independently of the Germano-European hypothesis, andthe Germano-European hypothesis was developed completely independently of Nostratic.For Germano-European, the closeness of the fit provides externalevidence that bolsters the findings from phonetic internal reconstruction. After all, one could argue against the Germano-Europeanobstruent reconstruction for relying upon phonetic substance never


9/11

TOBY D. GRIFFEN 147heard by a phonetician. The external evidence provided by Nostratic,however, shows that if indeed the Germano-European languages aredescendent from the common source of Nostratic, then it is this reconstruction and only this reconstruction that will provide the necessaryconnection between the common source and the Germano-Europeanlanguages.For Nostratic, the closeness of the fit provides internal evidence thatbolsters the comparative reconstruction of the proto-Nostratic obstruentsystem. Since, from the viewpoint of Nostratic studies, the GermanoEuropean languages are definitely a part of Common Nostratic, thisnew reconstruction reconciles the Germano-European system withinNostratic and delimits the position of the daughter group.

Just how closely the phonetic reconstruction of Germano-Europeansatisfies the requirements for unambiguous inclusion in Nostratic can befound in the hypotheses of Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1988b). Rejectingthe glottalic theory of Indo-European, they suggest an alternative basednot primarily upon the internal reconstruction of that family, but uponthe reconstruction needed to account for its relationships within Nostratic. They note the following:

If the traditional T - D - Dh system is to be discarded on typological grounds, whatever replaces it must be able to explain further developments in IE and account for borrowings from ProtoSemitic.A close examination of the Semitic data shows that IE interpretedSemitic voiced stops either as a voiced aspirated or as a plain voiced.Clearly we need to reconstruct a system where these sounds wereclose. One possibility is to assume a I (fortis) - T (lax) - D (afterRasmussen), where T and D share the features + lenes. (Kaiser andShevoroshkin 1988b: 19)

They then make the same observations noted in the previous section bythis researcher (on the basis of Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988a), particularly regarding aspiration in Germano-Armenian and in Altaic and theloss of the labial occlusion in Armenian and Celtic and in Turkic andMongolian.There is thus a convergence of the internal reconstruction from phonetic plausibility in Griffen ( 1988) and the external reconstruction from

comparative evidence of Nostratic in Kaiser and Shevoroshkin ( 1988a,1988b). The result of this convergence is strong evidence for theGermano-European obstruent system as well as for the inclusion of thislanguage family in Nostratic.


10/11

148 GENERAL LINGUISTICS

NOTESI. This table is derived from the individual order tables for initial position and the combined table for intermediate position in Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (I988a). To provide a

more consistent description, the individual Altaic languages are replaced by the reconstruction for Altaic, which Kaiser and Shevoroshkin supply in footnotes to their tables.

2. This table is reorganized from the one in Griffen (I988:I83-84), so that it mightbe more easily compared with table I in the previous section. The forms cited (except forthe obstruents) are in accordance with Pokorny (I959).3. Kaiser and Shevoroshkin reconstruct proto-Altaic *k' for the fortis, although theynote that Illic-Svityc reconstructed *k.

REFERENCESBlafek, Vaclav. I988. 'Australian elements in Dravidian lexicon.' Paper presented at theSoviet-American Conference on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor (Michigan),October I988. Available through the University of Michigan, Department of SlavicLanguages and Literatures.Bomhard, A.R. I979. 'The Indo-European phonological system: New thoughts about itsreconstruction.' Orbis 28, 66-IIO.Bomhard, A.R. I986. 'The aspirated stops of proto-Indo-European.' Diachronica 3:I,

67-79.Brugmann, Karl. I972. Elements of the comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages. Trans. by J. Wright, 2nd ed. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.Gamkrelidze, T.V. I976. 'Linguistic typology and Indo-European reconstruction.' In: Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, vol. 2, ed. by A. Juilland. Saratoga:Anima Libri.Gamkrelidze, T.V., and V.V. Ivanov. I973. 'Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion dergemeinindogermanischen Verschliisse.' Phonetica 27, I50-56.Griffen, Toby D. 1985. Aspects of dynamic phonology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Griffen, Toby D. 1988. Germano-European: Breaking the sound law. Carbondale: South

ern Illinois University Press.Grimm, Jacob. 1822-37. Deutsche Grammatik. 2nd ed. GOttingen: Dieterich.Hodge, Carleton T. I978. 'Lislakh.' In: The fourth LACUS forum, ed. by M. Paradis,4I4-22. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam.Hopper, PauiJ. 1973. 'Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European.' Glossa 7:2,14I--66.Kaiser, Mark, and Vitalij Shevoroshkin. I987. 'On recent comparisons between languagefamilies: The case of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic.' General Linguistics 27: I,34-46.Kaiser, Mark, and Vitalij Shevoroshkin. I988a. 'Nostratic.' Annual Review of Anthropology I7, 309-29.Kaiser, Mark, and Vitalij Shevoroshkin. 1988b. 'Nostratic and proto-Indo-European"Glottalics".' Paper presented at the Soviet-American Conference on Language andPrehistory, Ann Arbor (Michigan), October 1988. Available through the Universityof Michigan, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.Levin, Saul. 1971. The Indo-European and Semitic languages. Albany: State Universityof New York Press.Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Bern: Francke.Starostin, S.A. I988. 'Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian.' Paper presented at the Soviet-


11/11

TOBY D. GRIFFEN 149American Conference on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor (Michigan), October1988. Available through the University of Michigan, Department of Slavic Languagesand Literatures.Verner, Karl. 1876. 'Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung.' Zeitschrift fOrvergleichende Sprachforschung 23:2, 97-130.

Foreign Languages and LiteratureSouthern Illinois University at EdwardsvilleEdwardsville, Illinois 6 2 0 2 ~ 1 4 3 2

griffen - nostratic and germano-european (1989)

Documents