1

H Hellas Vuosaly

THE UNTAUGHT

Latest Horizon in LONG-RANGE

HISTORICAL COMPARATIVE

LINGUISTICS

2

Hellas Vuosaly Professor of Historical Comparative Linguistics

Latest Horizon

in Long-range

Historical-Comparative Linguistics

A Short Historical Survey

Workshop-Seminar

ICKPT 2016

New York

3

Internal Bulletin, ICKPT, No. 34 All rights reserved for the International Committee of Koinoetymology and Post-Metaphysical Thinking. Any kind of cultural use of this book with clear reference to the work is free. First Edition 2016 New York Back Cover Photo - One Million Documents Burning, Moscow, January 29, 2015.

4

Contents

Note 5

Foreword 7 Classification of Long-Range Historical Comparative Linguistics 9 I. Briefing on Human Language and Genetic Evidence 11 Briefing on the Science of Language in the Long-range Perspective 15 Italian School 18 Monogenesis of Language 21 II. Post-Trombetti Long-range Historical Comparative Linguistics 28 1. USSR SCHOOL Illich-Svitych 29 After Illich-Svitych G. B. Dzhaukian 35 A. B. Dolgopolsky 40 S. A. Starostin 43 K. E. Koskinen 49 H. P. A. Hakola 52 2. USA SCHOOL J. H. Greenberg 55 M. Ruhlen 65 J. D. Bengtson 70 A. R. Bomhard 73 Monogenesis of Language on the Horizon of the Post-Metaphyics Hodos 78 3. Iran SCHOOL H. Assadian 80

5

6

Note about the Workshop-Seminar: At the request of students and others interested in Long-range Historical Comparative Linguistics, a

seminar was organised by the ICKPT. The lecture “Latest Horizon in Long-range Historical-

Comparative Linguistics, A Short Historical Survey” was delivered at the ICKPT Workshop-Seminar,

New York, during July-August of 2015. The lecture notes are presented in extended form to be at hand

for students and researchers.

Addressing the difficulty of access to the works of Prof. Gevork Dzhjaukian (Jaukian), from

Armenia, Prof. Kalevi E. Koskinen and Prof. Panu Hakola, from Finland, and Prof. Hodjjat Assadian,

from Iran, a brief introduction to the work of the former two is offered along with a more expanded

introduction to that of latter. Here due is expression of appreciation for the agreement to publication

of the list of phonogenes and part of the summary of the book “Ge-mein-wesentliche Archeo-Genetic

Grammar” (i.e., Universal Grammar of the World).

HELLAS VUOSALY

New York 2016

7

8

FOREWORD

The foundation of Linguistics as a science in history, especially after the Junggrammatikers, began with narrow study of the Indo-European super-family and eventually reached long-range matriarchal communal human clan language research. The cultural findings of this research have been directly corroborated by the latest findings of human migration molecular biology in genetics, and the path of human migration out of Africa to the rest of the world’s continents has been demonstrated through analysis of the distribution of genes in human DNA across the world, and the distribution of phonogenes (cells of meaning in language) across all world languages.

Previous to the appearance of genetics, avant-garde scientific linguists explored the fields of palæoarcheology, anthropology, geology, drawing on mythology, rock paintings, runes and markings, mathematics, musicology, …., to strengthen analysis of linguistics findings. The addition to the above of genetic data is clearing the way for the research on the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens language based on all the existing extinct and living languages of the world. In this way, the avant-garde research of scientific linguistics on Homo sapiens sapiens language which began from the Primogenio at the beginning of the 20th century today has reached the Phonogene.

9

11

Classification of Long-Range Historical Comparative Linguistics H. Vuosaly, Prof. of Historical Comparative Linguistics, USA, 2013

TROMBETTI 1- Based on the comparative method and mass comparison

2- With emphasis on reconstruction of the Primogenio and classification 3- Demonstration and proof of Monogenesis of language

ILLICH-SVITYCH J. GREENBERG H. ASSADIAN 1- Based on the dialectical comparative hodos mass multilateral comparison dialectical hermeneutic historical comparative hodos 2- With emphasis on Proto-Nostratic reconstruction classification reconstruction based on AMH molecular biology and proto-phonogenes 3- Orientation demonstration, proof and quantative probabilistic demonstration and proof of foundation of Nostratic linguistics Homo sapiens sapiens phonogenes

11

12

I. Briefing on Human Language and Genetic Evidence

Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) evolved in Africa roughly 200,000 - 140,000 years ago. The spread of AMH along a route following the Continental Shelf of South India eventually extended throughout the world: Approximately it can be said Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) populated South India 70,000 years ago,

Australia 50,000 years ago, Europe 45,000 years ago, Siberia and Japan 30,000 years ago, Americas 30,000-10,000 years ago, Micronesia and Polynesia 4,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens sapiens mtDNA Phyla Tree

The scientific tracing of human migrations has been accomplished in the field of genetics and corresponds with findings of historical-comparative linguists. In order to determine the genetic relationships of all groups of human populations in the world, genetics has studied the

13

- Non-Recombining portion of the Y chromosome (= NRY) in men - patrilineage. - Mitochondrial DNA (=mtDNA) in both men and women, but which descends only through the female - matrilineage. Both kinds of studies settled the question of the origin of AMH and demonstrated that all humans on the face of the earth today are descendants of humans once living in Africa. Based on studies of the Non-Recombining portion of the Y chromosome (=NRY) we can say the following: Early humans lived as one clan in Africa. Around 45,000 years ago, there was a split of the clan into other clans (clades in genetics) called C, D, E, and F. Clan E stayed in Africa while the others moved out. The first migration was to the Arabian Peninsula and the Near East. Clan C then migrated via India to Australia, New Guinea and Islands of Indonesia. Clan D managed to move to East Asia and especially to South-East Asia. Based on studies of the mitochondrial DNA (=mtDNA) we can say the following: About 150,000 (perhaps 200,000) years ago a woman was born in southern or eastern Africa to whom we can trace all existing mtDNA. In Africa six macroclans developed, called L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5. About 60,000 years ago the clan L3 migrated outside Africa so that the mtDNA of all people living outside Africa can be traced back to this macroclan. L3 then first split into macroclans M and N which both in turn split about 50,000 years ago into: M < clans Z, C, D, M, M1, E, G and Q N < clans A, I, W, X, Y, N, & R < split later into clans B, F, H, pre-HV, V, R, P, T, J, U & K Today in brief we can say that clans L0, L1, L2 and L3 are common in Africa, clan M in India, clan H in Europe, North-Africa and the Near East, clan U in Northern Scandinavia, East Europe and the Near East. All clans in Europe stem from macroclans N and R, clans of Asia, Australia and America originate from macroclan M, but indigenous Americans include offsprings from clans N and R also. The aboriginal peoples of Australia and New Guinea belong to macroclans M, N and R meaning they bear the same mutations as people of Europe, Asia and America.

[Quoted from Appendix C: Lexical Affinities between Tamil and Finnish, H. P. Hakola, 2009. The consensus can be found in palaeoanthropological, genetic and other studies such as: Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994), Christianson (2003), Dixon (1997), Dolgopolsky (1998), Flemming (2004), Gamble (1995), Greenberg (2000), Hegedeus (1997), Levin (2005), Levitt (2007), Masica (2001), Mallory (1996), Noble (1996), Oppenheimer (2003), Sahoo (2006), Steve-Jones (1992), Sykes (1999), Vacek (2006), Zvelebil (1990 and 1991), Wiik (2002, 2004, 2007, 2008)…]

14

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1922- )

According to the lifework of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (focusing on genes, culture and human evolution), there are no significant genetic differences between humans, so the word “race” has no useful biological significance. Cavalli-Sforza has determined that the ancestry of Europeans is about two thirds Asian and one third African.

PROTO-SAPIENS

NON-AFRICAN

AFRICAN SOUTH-EAST ASIA / EURASIA/ AMERICAS PACIFIC

KHOISAN CONGO-SAHARAN PACIFIC AUSTRIC EURASIA / AMERICAS NORTH AFRICA/ INDO-PACIFIC EURASIA NORTH ASIA NIGER- NILO-SAHARAN AUSTRALIAN AMERICAS KORDOFANIAN AFRO-ASIATIC DRAVIDIAN ESKIMO- INDO-EUROPEAN ALEUT AMERIND URALIC CHUKCHI- NA-DENE KAMCHATKAN ALTAIC

The genetic structure of the human population after Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1988).

15

Y-chromosomal clans are named with different letters as seen below:

Comparison of genetic tree and linguistic phyla. Tree constructed by average linkage

analysis of Nei’s genetic distances calculated based on 120 allele frequencies

(Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, et al., 1988 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 85, p. 6003.)

16

Briefing on the Science of Language in the Long-range Perspective I Foundations

When in 1902 Alfredo Trombetti (1866-1929) presented the proofs derived from all the languages of the world founding the doctrine of common origin of all world languages (monogenesis of language), he did this on the basis of Jung-Grammatiker scientific linguistics with the works of Schleicher, Rask, Bopp, Brugmann and others. Already many comparative studies had been conducted in the 1711’s such as those of Commenius, Tröster, Stiernhielm, and then Leibniz. One of the first surveys of languages leading away from the prejudices of Europe’s Middle Ages was Leibniz’s “Collecteana Etymologica”, which presented the work of von Eckhart and appeared in 1717, wherein the presentation of Khoisan (Hottentot) words from South Africa with many other samples from previously unknown languages were examined for the first time in Europe. This series contained the Von Eckhart studies who for the first time demonstrated the existence of the group of Uralic languages. That Semitic languages formed a group had already been accepted during the Islamic Middle Ages by linguists such as Siuti, etc…. Towards the end of the 12th century, Giraldus Cambrensis had made clear that the Welsh language and those of Cornwall and Breton all came from a more ancient language which he called Brittanic, and that these are also related with Greek and Latin. Other early works mentionable include: 1717 Rudbeck, Specimen usus linguae Gothicae… adita analogia linguae Gothicae cum Sinica, nec non Finnicae cum Hungarica. 1730 von Strahlenberg, Gentium boreo-orientalium harmonia linguarum (demonstrating Finnic, Hungarian, Vogul and Ostyak to be cognate). 1770 Sajnovics, Affinitas . 1799 Gyarmathi, Demonstratio . After very extended studies, Gyarmathi wrote the comparative grammar of the Uralic languages based on the work of Sajnovics, and demonstrated the homogeneity of the Finno-Ugric branch of languages. Other very progressive studies were carried through by Hungarian and Finnish scholars: Budenz, Szinnyei, Donner, Setälä, Paasonen. In 1764, Francois Coeurdoux with attendance to the similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin proclaimed that they are left over from a more ancient language which exists no longer. Considering Coeurdoux’s theory, William Jones restated it in conference with no reference to Coeurdoux’s original statement that they go back to a more ancient no longer existent language, mentioning in his

17

famous Calcutta Lecture in 1786, only that Gothic, Celtic and Persian had evolved out of an original language which probably has disappeared. Research and studies in this field were achieved by the Danish Rask (1814) and the German Bopp (1816) and finally led to the laying out of the principles and bases of scientific comparative Indo-European language studies. The method of Rask and Bopp throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was finalised and completed, and used for the study of other language groups as well. This method is founded on phonological studies and proposition of reconstructed structures, words and grammatical morphemes. The comparison of the forms deduced out of the daughter languages enables reconstruction of the mother language. The long-range studies in two branches of languages were to follow, as the Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) language clan and Indo-European language clan comparisons, from 1836 with Lepsius, Wüllner (1838), Raumer (1863), Ascoli (1864), Delitzsch (1873), McCurdy (1881), and Abel (1884), and in the twentieth century they were continued by Møller (1906), Pedersen (1908), Cuny (1914) , Fardid (1950), Brunner (1969), Levin (1971), Bomhard (1977), Fellman 1978, Garbini (1981), Petrachek 1982, Hodge (1983, 1991) etc.; up to present the work continues. American Indian-Semitic: Leesberg (1903) / Basque-American Indian: Vinson (1875) / Basque-Berber: d’Abbadie & Chaho (1836) / Basque-Afroasiatic: Mukarovsky (1981) / Indo-European & Austronesian: Bopp (1841, 1842), Petrov (1967) / Amerind-Polynesian: Hale (1890[1888]), Key (1984) / Austric (Austro-Asiatic+Austronesian): Keane (1880), Schmidt (1906), Benedict (1975) Diffloth (1990, 1994), Schiller (1987), Shorto (1976), Reid (1994), Ross (1995) / Indo-European- Ural-Altaic: Menges (1945) / Indo-Uralic (Indo-European and Uralic): Wedgwood (1856), Anderson (1879), Paasonen (1907), Pedersen (1933), Collinder (1934, 1943, 1954, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1974), Ariste (1971), Claude (1973), Čop (1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1987, 1989), Holmer (1960); Schindler (1964), Rosenkranz (1966), Pisani (1967), Kerns (1967), Skalicka (1969), Schröpfer (1969), Uesson (1970), Joki (1973, 1980), Shimomiya (1973), Kiparsky (1975), Décsy (1980); Girardot (1980, 1982), Kudzinowski (1983), ), Janhunen (1983), Kortlandt (1989), Dezsö (1990); Gulya (1990), Ringe (1998). The scientific studies and research in polybranch language clans before Alfredo Trombetti include preliminary groundwork which began as a thesis published in 1851 by William (Wilhelm) Immanuel Guilelmus Bleek on comparison of the African, Australian, Coptic and Semitic languages called “De Nominum Generibus Linguarum Africae Australis Copticae Semiticarum Aliarumque Sexualium”.

18

William Bleek Leibniz’s Collecteana Etymologicum

More than 113 years ago the publication of his doctrine led to Trombetti’s uncontended appointment as University of Bologna Professor, and his name ranged alongside that of Marconi, inventor of the radio, as the “discoverer of language”. With intense raging, the opposition to the doctrine of monogenesis of language sought to cast aside and block the research; however, the impatient protests were based only on personal prejudices and purely unscientific hypotheses without any demonstrations or precise original proofs. The doctrine that all the languages of the world are cognate was rapidly developed, and led to the presention of the latest Sprachwissenschaftlich (scientific linguistic) matters in history.

19

150 years ago on January 13 the founder of monogenesis was born

ITALIAN SCHOOL

Alfredo Trombetti (1866-1929)

Trombetti noted that the concentration of studies was directed nearly completely towards Indo-European and Semitic languages, presumably languages of progressed peoples having determined the course of history, and out of this no exact vision of the nature, origin and evolution of language could have evolved. That is, “the fundamental question posed by Bopp, that of the origin of grammatical categories, could not be resolved by attention solely to Indo-European languages. It was necessary to vastly extend the comparisons and inquire into the processes undergone by the most archaic languages” (Trombetti, Elementi, p. 3). This remained an unattended point of which Illich-Svitych was again forced to remind those attacking his studies over 40 years later. The resistence to an extension of studies is a conservative movement existing to this day. To extend the studies beyond a

21

group or two groups of languages serves among other things to clarify also the inner relations among the languages within the group(s). The classifications previous to those of Trombetti were either psychological (Steinthal, Charakteristik der hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues, Berlin, 1860; Finck, Die Klassifikation der Sprachen, Marburg, 1901), or morphological like that of A. Schleicher, which is popular and still found in language manuals and generally referred to also in geographic scholastic texts: that of the isolating, agglutinating and inflective. Trombetti relegates, “These divisions only refer to mere transitory states of aggregations often coexistent and intertwined among the various languages, which do not realise the essence, they have no more value than the contraposition between water vapour, water and ice” (Elementi, p. 9). Then there are many other distinctions made in the morphological systems. Trombetti demonstrates that many agglutinating languages are at the same time polysynthetic. An example is the word sev-mek “to love” in Turkish with a reciprico-causative-passive-impossibilitative-negative form: sev-iš-dir-il-e-me-mek, which however is unlikely to occur in common usage even though it is theoretically possible. The polysynthetism of many languages of the American continent is often confused with another characteristic existing in these same languages, i.e. that of incorporation, which exists in many languages, and consists in the tendency to concentrate an entire sentence in not only intransitive (as is common in the prime example of an incorporating European language, ie. Basque: n-a-bil-ki-o “I go to him”), but also in transitive verbs along with the pronominal (Aztec: ni-k-mačtia “I teach you”) and sometimes nominal object (Aztec: ni-naka-kwa “I eat meat”). Often it is a question of a difference found between the written language and what might be really said or pronounced (in this case in Aztec: ni-k-kwa in naka-tl “I eat it the meat” would be more common). These processes always are recurrent in many languages. In Greenlandese (Kalaallisuuani) some word-sentences may be more apparent unities than real ones. Cf: Greenlandese: a-ner-quwaa-tit “he begs you to go out”, Italian: egli d' úscir prégavi. The morphological distinction between analytic and synthetic languages “is also here just a difference of degree”. The more important criterion of morphological classification involves the position of the formative element in the word (prefix or suffix). Indo-European, Ural-Altaic and Dravidian exclusively use prefixation, or nearly always. In the other groups both suffixation and prefixation can be found. There are no exclusively suffixing languages (Elementi, p. 10). All these systems have “fundamentally vague and non-applicable” criteria. They have not contributed to the advance of human knowledge. This defect leads to the necessity of resorting to other criteria. “The only truly scientific classification of languages, with an applicable base and founded with coherence and without limit, independently of whatever extrinsic criterion, is the genealogical classification, which has always been fecund yielding important results not only for the

21

internal history of language in its nature, origin and evolution, but also for the external history of language in the lives of people, and for many disciplines which are in strict rapport with Glottologia” (Elementi, p. 11). Trombetti exposed the weaknesses of the many existing systems of classification, then lay the foundations for Glottologia through his teaching. He instilled precise and rigourous thinking in his lectures and written works. Writings of his students reveal the respect and enthusiasm Trombetti’s presentations inspired. Many of his students resolutely pursued the revolutionary scientific studies shouldering the difficulties this involved in Italy during that historical period. Trombetti prepared the way making firm the bases for the accomplishment of scientific glottological studies. Trombetti studied the historical process of language as a concrete whole. “In glottologia we can speak as much as we like about distinct linguistic groups, but never about independent groups. Because coal and diamonds appear to us to be so diverse, should we say they have nothing in common?” (L’Unità d’Origine del Linguaggio, Preface). Trombetti’s studies were ever geared towards scientific achievement and never towards being a polyglot. He made evident the work he had shouldered in his introduction to L’Unità: “At the end of 1902 I had finished the major part of a work entitled ‘Connections between the Languages of the Ancient World ʼ which was to include the analytic examination of each of the principal groups in which it is possible to distribute the languages of Africa, of Eurasia and of Oceania, and a synthetic study of grammatical and lexical comparison of those groups among each other. Starting from the point up to which others had conducted the glottological research and rendering the analyses more profound so far as it was possible for me to do in order to uncover the most ancient elements of language, I proposed to attempt a vast synthesis on the basis of the facts which were put under accurate analyses.” Trombetti studied relations between over 2000 languages, working continuously for over 50 years. At the University of Bologna, he taught “Semitic Philology” (1904-1905), then “Comparative History of the Classical Languages and Neo-Latin” (1905-1906). During one academic year, 1925-1926, he taught “Indo-European Philology”. Otherwise, from 1907-1912 Trombetti taught the course “Science of Language” (from “Sprachwissenschaft”) which from 1912 on he called “Glottologia generale comparata”. His teachings and studies continued up until his untimely death by drowning in 1929, just after he had publicly announced he was ready to present the sum total of his career’s findings.

22

MONOGENESIS OF LANGUAGE

Trombetti emphasized the fact that he did not set out to prove any theories but only uncovered the evidence of monogenesis through long years of comparative study. Trombetti established the existence of only 11 primary linguistic groups, all interconnected with each other in the resolute sense of monogenesis. His book “L’Unità d’Origine del Linguaggio” (The Unity of Origin of Language, 1905) lays down the doctrine of monogenesis which, he repeated many times to the massive journalist onslaughts and the criticism of professors who seldom knew more than one language, is a doctrine and no longer a hypothesis. Trombetti indicated the case of Indo-European, which did not need to have all the proto-languages or early forms of words worked out in order to be accepted by the scientific community as a basis for the comparative works to follow. In fact, as Bengtson and Ruhlen have pointed out, no comparison would be made without the feasibility of such a hypothesis, and it is only after mass comparisons have been made that the proto-languages can be reconstructed. Trombetti also compared insistence that before monogenesis could be accepted all the details had to be worked out to saying that before the existence of the sky can be conceded all the details of what is on earth must first be worked out. The works of Trombetti make apparent that “all the linguistic groups are genetically connected between each other and presuppose a common origin” (Elementi, p. 189). Trombetti presented his

23

findings of the extensive parallels in lexicon, morphology and grammatical features across all world languages. In the literary journal Il Piemonte (year I, no. 14) 26 September, 1903, the article “La monogenesi del linguaggio” introduced the doctrine of the monogenesis of language. The first words which for Trombetti lit up the possibility of bringing together a proof of monogenesis were in themselves the flickering of the proof: Numeral Africa Munda-Khmer

1 mue, mo, moina, mosi mue, moi, moin, mos 2 bari bar, bare-a 4 unguàn unpuan 5 tano, sano, šan thsan, san 10 kumi, šumi šom The book The Unity of Origin of Language (1905) established the doctrine of monogenesis. In Saggi (1913), Trombetti presented the comparison and concordance of all the numbers. “From that comparison and from many other lexical and grammatical concordances, one deduces that the African languages are closely related to the Oceanic, which as we know form a group of higher order and arise out of southern Asia” (Elementi, p. 194). After having made many more comparisons, Trombetti determined that Dravido-Australian languages (especially Dravidian) are closer to the South African than to the Bantu languages. In 1909 (Die Sprachstämme des Erdkreises, Leipzig) Finck represented almost the same number of linguistic families based on the anthropological divisions of Keane, dividing humans however into four races, Ethiopic, Mongolian, American and Caucasian. Besides, Trombetti points out (Elementi p. 16), he left all names of colleagues which had definitely contributed to genealogical classification unmentioned: eg. Hervas, G. di Humboldt, J. Grimm, Gallatin, Buschmann, Bopp, Bleek, Donner, Bastian, Caldwell, Lepsius, F. Müller, Powell, W. Schmidt, H. Möller and Trombetti. [For another example of researchers remaining deprived by depravity of brilliant studies for a spell, control this (as the Jamaicans say): The pioneer Robert Caldwell, in 1856, solidly presented grammatical and glossarial affinities between Dravidian, Indo-European, Scythian (now Ural-Altaic), Elamite, Australian Aboriginal languages, and Semitic, emphasizing that Dravidian was a key for shedding light on the original oneness of the said language families. Even though Caldwell had broken ground indicating a way for long-range research to bloom, as Burrow mentions, P. Hunfalvys's miscriticism of Caldwell's hypothesis in the Second International Congress of Orientalists in 1874 in London stymied discussion on this subject, until

24

1925 when F. O. Schrader revived it through a paper which was still subjected to ridicule by E. Lewy in 1928. Schrader in turn rebutted Lewy in BSOAS VIII (1935-37). Furthermore Schrader was strongly supported by Burrow in 1943-46 (Hakola 2009, p. 19). Yet things did slow down.] In Elementi di Glottologia (1923, p. 189) Trombetti outlines that “the question of the unity or plurality of origin of language has passed through three stages or periods. At first the unity was generally accepted either by religious tradition, or through vague intuition, or based on insufficient if not false proofs. This is the period of prescientific dogmatism, within which the unique origin of man was simply admitted. In the second half of the last century (19th) Pott, Schleicher and F. Müller introduced the opposing dogma of the polygenesis of language into science. Given the great authority of these masters of glottology it is not surprising that their thesis, even if undemonstrated and impossible to demonstrate, was followed by the majority without examination. Therefore honest attempts at connecting one primary group to another were judged to be antiscientific and condemned a priori whereupon many withdrew from fecund research, to the grave damage of science…..It is appropriate to limited minds to want to limit the field of research…” The beginning of the 20th century the third period began well with all prejudice put aside, and as Finck expressed in Sprachstämme, 6 and Haupttypen, 155, “It is extremely probable that the mother tongues of the primary groups all derive from a unique mother tongue in the absolute sense.”

1905 Trombetti Classification of Languages of the World

Africa 1. Bantu to the south, 2. Hamito-Semitic to the north. Eurasia 3. Caucasian, 4. Indo-European, 5. Ural-Altaic, 6. Dravidian, 7. Indochinese, 8. Mon-Khmer. Oceania 9. Malayo-Polynesian, 10. Andamanese-Papua-Australiano. America 11. American group (of very high order). The first 9 groups had been distinguished by others for quite some time before. The connection between groups 8 and 9 (Mon-Khmer with Khasi, Munda, etc.) was recognised simultaneously by Trombetti and W. Schmidt (1906). Group 10 was first determined by Trombetti himself and then confirmed by Gatti. It was Trombetti who first presented few but secure elements as evidence for the American languages being a single group.

25

1918 Classification from: LA LINGUA ITALIANA E I DIALETTI

§ 1. — All the languages of the globe (circa 2000) have been distributed by affinity or genetic relation into nine groups: 1° Bantu-Sudanese 2° Hamitosemitic 3° Caucasic 4° Indoeuropean 5° Uraloaltaic 6° Dravidico-Australiano (languages of the Dravidians of southern India, of the Andaman Islands, of the Papúa of New Guinea, of Australia and Tasmania). 7° Munda Polinesiaco (languages of the Munda of India and of some populations of Indochina, and Malayo-Polynesian languages, that is, of Indonesia, Melanesia, Polynesia e Micronesia). 8° Indochinese (Tibetan, Birmanese, Siamese, Chinese, ecc.). 9° Languages of the American Indigenous peoples Trombetti further clarified the existence of two branches of languages in the world, the Austral and the Boreal in his work Elementi di Glottologia (Elements of Glottology), first published in two volumes in 1923 in Bologna.

The Austral Branch (Africa and Oceania)

By Austral branch, Trombetti meant the languages of Africa, including the Bantu-Sudanese group, and Hamito-Semitic group, the languages of Oceania, the Dravido-Australian and the Munda-Polynesian groups. Some of the correspondences he presents include a series of perfect correspondences between Dravidico-Australian (especially Dravidian) and the Nilotic personal pronouns, as follows (Elementi, 1923, p. 194): Nil. ān, ana, ane, Dinka γēn, Shiluk janè-n “I”: Drav. ān, anā, āne, yēn, yān Austr. ān, yan- “I” Bari nan, Masai nanu “I”: Drav. nān, nānu Austr. nan- “I” Nuba ar “we”: Kauralaig ri “we” Nil. (y)īn, īni, ēne “thou (subj.)” : Drav. īn, ini “thou (obj.)”, Austr. in, yin-, ene “thou (subj.)”

26

Kulfan on “thou (subj.)”: Tamil un- , Austr. un-, unni “thou (subj.) ” Nuba ir “thou (subj.), you (pl.) ”: Dravidian īr, Austr. yura “you (pl.) ” Nuba tar “he”: Kui tārā reflexive pronoun Nuba tan-, ten- “he”: Drav. tan-, Brahui ten- reflexive, Austr. tana “that, they” For the first time in history Trombetti was able to bring certainty into Sprachwissenschaft on the subject of the (genealogical) relation between groups of languages previously regarded as being completely separate. For example, by demonstrating the relation between Bantu-Sudanese and Hamitic-Semitic, the 28 groups of F. Müller were unified. Trombetti precisely reviewed the works of Bleek, Norris, Logan, Christaller, De Gregorio, Krause, Lepsius, Torrend, Finck, W. Schmidt, L. Homburger, and Reinisch regarding the collegation of Bantu with Sudanese. Trombetti indicated several weaknesses in Westermann's work on Sudanese, stating that his work represented a retrogression with respect to these other works (Trombetti, Elementi, 1923, p. 24). Trombetti was also first to hold that Sandawe belongs to a Khoisan family of languages. On page 43 of Elementi he presents 12 main points of correspondence between Sandawe and Nama and states that this connection appears fully confirmed.

The Boreal Branch (Eurasia and America)

“All the primary groups established by us are interconnected. Though usually grouped according to geographic distribution, profound separation cannot be noted even among the farthest groupings” (Elementi di Glottologia, 1923, p. 102). During his early studies, Trombetti attempted a historical tracing throughout the languages of Eurasia : from Hamito-Semitic to Caucasian, then Indo-European and Ural-Altaic. However, after study of the Dravidico-Australiano languages, they turned out to be too much separated from the Hamito-Semitic languages but near enough to the Munda-Polynesian and Indochinese. He proposed that then came Indo-European and Ural-Altaic, to close the circle in the Caucasian languages, though he knew he had to end up with the American languages; so then he attempted to view the migrational voyage setting off from the Caucasian languages. He tried again and again to divulge the pathways of the migrations of the past through the clues he found in languages. He estimated (Elementi, 1923) that Indo-European and Ural-Altaic lack vital prefixes and in many respects are less archaic than the other groups.

27

In general by Boreal Trombetti intended the Eurasiatic languages (Hamito-Semitic, Caucasian, Indo-European, Ural-Altaic, Dravidico-Australiano, Munda-Polynesian and Indochinese) and the American languages. Sergey Starostin used Borean to mean the Eurasiatic, Afroasiatic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric, (& Amerind) languages. In the classification of Hodjjat Assadian, proto-language and languages of the world based on the molecular biology and genetics of Homo sapiens sapiens divide into Proto-African (including: Congo-Saharan + Khoisan) and the classification of Borean by Sergey Starostin: 1. mtDNA haplogroup L0, L1, L2 and NRY M91, M60 for Proto-African, 2. mtDNA haplogroup L3, NRY M168 for Proto-Borean. Trombetti, more than 50 years previous to the final work of Morris Swadesh, wrote the following about the monogenesis of language: “So as not to be misunderstood (as has happened at other times) I would say that for me all known languages are propagations of a unique stock, continuations of one unique primogenetic (primogenio) language. The right to affirm this is that same by which it is affirmed that the Indo-European languages are continuations or phases of one unique language. And until the infinite proofs presented have not been refuted one by one and all together, my doctrine (neither theory nor hypothesis!) must be considered as demonstrated. For the rest, apart from my work, Glottology has proceeded for the past twenty years in the direction by me indicated.” (Trombetti, Elementi di Glottologia, 1923, Preface, p. iii)

28

Bibliography – some of Trombetti’s Works: 1897 Indogermanische und semitische Forschungen. Bologna: Libreria Fratelli Treves. 1902 Nessi genealogici fra le lingue del mondo antîco, 4 volumes, unpublished. Italian Academy Royal Prize. 1902-3 "Delle relazioni dell lingue caucasiche con le lingue camitosemitiche e con altri gruppi linguistichi". Lettera al professore H. Schuchardt. In Giornale della Società asiatica italiana, Firenze. 1905 L'Unità d'origine del linguaggio. Bologna: Luigi Beltrami. 1907 Come si fa la critica di un libro. Con nuovi contributi alla dottrina della monogenesi del linguaggio e alla glottologia generale comparata. Bologna: Luigi Beltrami. 1908 Saggi di glottologia generale comparata I. I pronomi personali. Accademia delle scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna. Classe de scienze morali. Bologna. 1909 Sulla parentela della lingua etrusca. (article) 1910 La lingua degli Ottentotti e la lingua dei Wa-Sandawi. nota preliminare - Academie delle scienze: classe di scienze morali. Gamberini & Parmoggiani. Bologna (Italy). 1911 Sull' origine delle consonanti enfatiche nel semitico. 1912 Manuale dell'arabo parlato a Tripoli. Grammatica, letture e vocabolario. 1913 Saggi di glottologia generale comparata II. I numerali. Accademia delle scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna. Classe di scienze morali. Bologna. 1913 Sulla parentela della lingua etrusca (article). 1914 Ottent. tiri-goe = Begia dir-kan. Bollettino dell'Accademia (short article). 1917 Grammatica Latina ad uso delle scuole. 1918 Grammatica Italiana ad uso delle scuole. [Grammars and Exercises for French, English, German, Spanish, Greek for use in schools (unpublished)]. 1920 Saggi di glottologia generale comparata III. Comparazioni lessicali. Accademia delle scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna. Classe de scienze morali. Bologna. 1922-3 Elementi di glottologia, 2 volumes. Bologna: Zanichelli. 1925 Le origini della lingua basca. Bologna: Azzoguidi. 1925 Die probleme der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, « Caucasica », 2. 1926 "Origine asiatica delle lingue e popolazioni americane." In Atti del 22 congresso internazionale degli americanisti, Roma, Settembre 1926, T. 1, pp. 169-246. Roma: Istituto Cristopho Colombo. 1927 "La lingua etrusca e le lingue preindoeuropee del Meditarraneo." Studi etruschi, T.1. Firenze. 1928 La lingua etrusca. Firenze: Rinascimento del libro. 1929 Il nostro dialetto bolognese. Bologna: Zanichelli.

29

II. Post-Trombetti Long-Range Historical Comparative Linguistics

Following Alfredo Trombetti, with the discovery and reconstruction of the protos of the various branches of the languages of the world, the research on the cognates of all the world languages finally led to the appearance of three pathways / Feldwege (methods!) in the history of scientific linguistics through the perseverant diligence of three founders of Schools: 1- USSR School - Vladislav Markovich Illich-Svitych (1934-1966) 2- USA School – Joseph H. Greenberg (1915-2001) 3- Iran (-Europe) School – Hodjjat Assadian (1958- ) While scientifically supporting each other, each of these three linguistic schools directed their work along a distinct pathway against the metaphysical Holzwege presented as meth-od (μεθʼ-ο δος)

in mainstream historical comparative linguistics: 1- USSR School and its development up to present, based on the comparative dialectical pathway with emphasis on the reconstruction of the protos and the demonstration of Nostratic and its extension as Borean. 2- USA School, based on multilateral mass comparisons, with emphasis on the classification of languages in the direction of probability. 3- Iran (-Europe) School, based on hermeneutical dialectics of the historical-comparative hodos (pathway), with emphasis on the reconstruction and classification based on linguistics and mtDNA and NRY molecular biology of Homo sapiens sapiens, directed towards the discovery and demonstration of Koinoetymology and the Proto-Phonogenes in the 140,000-200,000 year depth of history of humans. I will present a brief history of the first two Schools and will then dwell further on the third.

31

1. USSR SCHOOL

Vladislav Markovich Illich-Svitych (1934-1966)

ВЛАДИСЛАВ МАРКОВИЧ ИЛЛИЧ-СВИТЫЧ

1- The precise development of the linguistic work of Trombetti appeared in 1965 with the research of Illich-Svitych in the Moscow School under the name of Nostratic Linguistics. In the Moscow School, the reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic based on six large linguistic branches of the world languages was achieved by Illich-Svitych: 1- Proto-Indo-European 2- Proto-Asiatic (Afroasian / Semito-Hamitic) 3- Proto-Altaic 4- Proto-Uralic 5- Proto-Kartvelian 6- Proto-Dravidian.

31

At the age of 31 in 1965, Illich-Svitych published his work in a pathbreaking article in the linguistics journal “ЭТИМОЛОГИЯ / ETYMOLOGIA”: “Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of Nostratic”. Illich-Svitych planned to add the rest of the protos of the languages of the world to this collection. His tragic death prevented this from being carried out by his own hand; it was on August 22, 1966, by car hit in Zagorianskaia (Moscow Oblast). If Illich-Svitych started with a view to continue Indo-European and Semitic comparisons, after he published “The Most Ancient Indo-European-Semitic Connections” in 1964, he decided to gear the comparison instead with Afro-Asiatic. Thereafter his work horizon extended and he attended to all Afro-Asiatic languages. His near 50 pages of bibliographies attest to works in hand (including Trombetti). He was able to prepare “Essay of Comparison of Nostratic Languages” in which he proves the relationship of the Nostratic languages, and then “Preliminary Resources for the Comparison of Nostratic Languages” (manuscript). In this manuscript he presented the 600 completed etymologies as Proto-Nostratic, along with the reconstructed Protos of the sub-languages (printed in Etymologija, 1965), of which 378 were destined to become the Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages finally published by V. A. Dybo in three volumes, beginning in 1971 up until 1984. Nostratic work was assiduously followed through by Sergey Starostin and others. Illich-Svitych made a detailed case using nearly 1000 references (through the mid-1960s) substantiating the existence of the Nostratic macro-family, and therefore the genetic relatedness between the Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian and Altaic language groups, that is, the language groups available to him at that early date. He thus offered a detailed reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic. In the view of Illich-Svitych, the term Nostratic [from Latin nostras “ours”, introduced by Pedersen] refers to all languages of the world, although his short life cut his work off at six branches. Illich-Svitych was able to base his work on the comparison of reconstucted proto-languages. What this means is that he was able to systematically identify the phonological correspondences among the various proto-languages. He produced phonological tables maintaining their scientific validity up to present. By working on comparative phonetics he was able to compile the comparative dictionary of more than 600 common roots in Nostratic. He was also able to find the common roots (cognates) by comparing in parallel all of the six proto-languages at the same time, thus proving the common origin of the cognates found. So to clarify Illich-Svitych's accomplishment, we reiterate after Vladimir Dybo, that the primary goal of Nostratics is not the determination of the genetic relationship between the six major language families of the Old World. Illich-Svitych already managed this through his four early publications:

32

1. Towards a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages 2. Correspondences of Stops in Nostratic Languages 3. The Origin of the Indo-European Guttural Series in the Light of External Comparitive Data 4. The Reconstruction of Uralic Vocalism in the Light of External Comparative Data The first works devoted specifically to proving the distant genetic relation of the families in question inspired Illich-Svitych to continue study of the comparative historical grammars of these language families. The task before him was precisely non-Kantian and non-positivist science of language, i.e., the comparative historical Nostratic science of language as Sprachwissenschaft in the revolutionary dialectical thinking after Hegel. This involves the study of comparative historical phonology, morphology and word formation in the Nostratic languages and proto-Nostratic reconstruction. The establishment of genetic relationship in Illich-Svitych's view is a by-product of the main task. The necessity for external comparison of languages arises out of the task of comparative linguistics itself. In his own words, “In the more advanced areas of comparative lingusitics .... there has recently emerged a certain tendency to overestimate the possibilities of internal reconstruction, whose application without the strict control of external comparison can lead to the construction of a multitude of equally probable and equally arbitrary proto-systems. Such a situation requires that we go beyond the limits of any single language family. Only external comparison guarantees the appropriate verification and enables us to select the single variant out of numerous possible historical reconstructions which most closely approaches reality. The very existence of “Nostratic linguistics” can be justified by the fact that it not only utilizes the achievements of Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic and other branches of comparative linguistics, but is itself intended to significantly further the development of these areas, just as, e.g., Indo-European aids in the development of Germanic, Slavic, and Iranian studies” (Опыт Сравнения Ностратических Языков, vol. 1, p. 2). From this statement it is clear that Illich-Svitych founded Nostratic linguistics as upper level work with the general view toward the advance of all branches of comparative linguistics. Illich-Svitych carried out the rigourous examination of the data he used for comparison, with verification of the precision and reliability of the established reconstructions in each of the compared language families, as Vladimir Dybo attests is evident through his own experience using Illich-Svitych's work as a reference. This thorough-going work was just as necessary in reviewing Indo-European linguistics and etymologies as in the other fields. “As I have attempted to show, Illich-Svitych's research was not based on a comparison of reconstructed protoforms taken from etymological dictionaries and certainly not on the comparison of individual lexemes selected from dictionaries, as his critics have sometimes claimed. His worked was

33

distinguished by an exceptional attention to the entire corpus of the comparative evidence from individual languages, as well as by a methodological rigour which is often lacking in the work of many of his critics.” (Vladimir Dybo, Illich-Svitych and the Development of Uralic and Dravidian Linguistics, a Preliminary Report.) Alongside extreme systematic rigour and precision, for Illich-Svitych comprehensiveness of scope is an essential element for successful investigation of remote genetic relationships among the world's languages. Illich-Svitych's work makes up the ground and the basis of the USSR school. Vladislav Markonovich Illich-Svytich’s work has been actively and conscientiously pursued by his co-thinkers and co-workers Vladimir Dybo, Sergey Starostin, and others and now the Moscow school is the basis of research in Nostratic, Borean, Global Etyma, Nilal, DURALJAN and Koinoetyma. Illich-Svitych did something thought to be astonishing by the occident (Oxford =Abendland) as we see by the following comment made in 1971 by Gerard Clauson: “I have two reasons for writing this paper. The first is that, while I have occasionally heard the word Nostratic, I have never had a clear idea what it meant, and I suspect that most readers of this Journal are in a similar position. The second is that I have recently received from a colleague in Moscow a book just published there entitled “An attempt to compare the Nostratic languages” (Opyt sravneniya nostraticheskikh yazykov) which defines the term, gives a history of the origin and development of the Nostratic theory, and marshals a great deal of evidence in support of it. The author, V. M. Illich-Svitych, died in 1966, and the first part of his book, which was perhaps never finished, has now been published, with an introduction, notes, and some supplementary matter, by his friend and colleague, V. A. Dybo. This was Illich-Svitych's only major work, but the bibliography (p. 74; this and similar references are to pages in the book) lists also six articles by him in various learned journals. The first feeling of any reader of the book must be utter astonishment at the amount of sheer hard detailed work which he packed into a short life of no more than 32 years.”

34

35

The Nostratic Superclan (Illich-Svitych, 1965)

Bibliography – some of Illich-Svitych’s Works: 1964 "Drevnejshije indojevropejsko-semitskije jazykovyje kontakty". PIEJ : 3-12. 1965 "Материаль к Сравнительному Словарю Ностратических Языков (индоевропейский, алтайкий, уральский, дравидский, картвельский, семитохамитский)", Этимология, [Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages (Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Dravidian, Kartvelian, Hamito-Semitic) , ( timologija) 321-73. (& 1967) USSR. 1966 Manuscript notes for a Nostratic dictionary. M. 1966 "Соомвемсмвия смычных в носмрамических языках" [Correspondences of Stops in the Nostratic Languages], Этимология ( timologija) 314-355 and 401-404 (additions and corrections). (1968) 1968 "Rodstvo jazykov nostraticheskoj sem'i (verojatnostnaja ocenka ssledujemyx sxodstv) ". SlJD : 4O7-25. 1971 Ličnyje mestoimenija mi 'ja' i mi 'my' v nostratičeskom. IN: Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju. Moskva 1971. Pp. 396-403. 1971- 84 Опыт Сравнения Ностратических Языков (семитохамитский, артвельский, индоевропейский, уральский, дравидский, алтайкий) Наука, Москва [An Attempt at a Comparison of the Nostratic Languages (Hamito-Semitic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic)], 3 vols., Nauka, Moscow, USSR. 1989 Early Reconstructions of Nostratic. [Translation of Illič-Svityč 1967 ] IN: SHEVOROSHKIN 1989: 125-176. 1989 The Relationship of the Nostratic Family Languages: A Probabilistic Evaluation of the Similarities in Question. IN: SHEVOROSHKIN (ed.), Bochum: Brockmeyer. Pp. 111-113. 1990 Nostratic Reconstructions (translated and arranged by M. Kaiser). SHEVOROSHKIN. Bochum: Brockmeyer.

36

After Illich-Svitych

G. B. Dzhaukian (Jaukian) (1920-2005)

Գևորգ Բեգլարի Ջահուկյան

Геворк Бегларович Джаукян

G. B. Dzhaukian, after finishing studies at the Erevan State University in 1941, worked there between 1945-9, then served as docent there until 1958 when he became professor. He was head of the Foreign Languages department from 1948 through 1957. He received many prizes for his excellent work (1970, 1976, 1985, 1986, 1988). Dzhaukian had precisely studied and demonstrated the distant genetic relation between Hurro-Urartian (Caucasian) and Indo-European in the USSR before Illich-Svitych's work. Finally in 1963 Professor Dzhaukian was able to publish his Hurro-Urartian and Indo-European studies. Up until today this aspect of Nostratic has not been much dwelt upon. In explaining his work on the second page of the summary of The Urartian and Indo-European Languages (1963, p. 149), Dzhaukian informs: "At first, the author of this work was in agreement with the latter theory which endeavoured to explain "the Indo-European elements" in Urartian as having been influenced by the Indo-European languages (Armenian included). However, further study into the Urartian languages brought to light

37

so many "Indo-European elements" and of such quality as to make it impossible to consider them all as simply borrowings or substratum."

Urartian Indo-European Phonetic Correspondences

Dzhaukian (1963)

Proto-Indo-European Urartian Proto-Indo-European Urartian

voiced aspirates voiceless consonants

*bh b *g k

*dh d *p p

*gh g *t t *k k (q, ) voiced consonants

*b p *d ṭ (t )

Proto-Indo-European Urartian

*ā , *a a

*ē , *e e , i or a

*ō, *o u (*ō sometimes to a)

38

Dzhaukian presented pages of evidence of coinciding grammatical structures and vocabulary of the Urartian language with Indo-European, including specifically the existence of the Ergative or Active case surviving in the Urartian language, and various vocabulary including: 1. nouns 2. adjectives 3. numerals 4. pronouns 5. verbs 6. adverbs. After comparing these observations with the coincidences between Urartian with Hurrian, Hayasa and Armenian, he is led to the following conclusions (1963): 1) With the coincidence of the fundamental stratum of the grammatical structures and vocabulary, it may be said that Urartian must have been in definite cognate relations with the Indo-European languages. However, as Urartian did not have any close ties with any of the other Indo-European language groups, and since it retained archaic traits older than perhaps any other Indo-European language, and some particular features (the ergative construction) are not derivable from Indo-European, Urartian should be considered as a "collateral relative" having separated and lost contact with Indo-European languages at a time that it still had this ergative construction. That is, Urartian can be considered a related kin to the Indo-European language, existing alongside it. 2) Since relations with Indo-European were not completely severed, these languages mutually influenced each other (as can be seen in place names, which have resulted from the influence of Greek, Old Anatolian and other Indo-European languages). 3) Urartian held an intermediate position in relation to the Indo-European dialects and Hurrian languages, alongside plausibly other languages and dialects which have disappeared through history. 4) If truly Hayasa is a close relative to Old Anatolian and an Indo-European language, the Hayasa language must have been a transmitting link between Old Anatolian and Urartian. 5) There is work to be done in separating the Urartian-Indo-European coincidences which explain Armenian-Urartian parallels from those resulting under mutual influence. 6) The effect of Urartian on the Caucasian languages, and specially Georgian is not to be doubted, and can explain the elements in Georgian vocabulary and place names, which appear to be Indo-European.

39

CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES KARTVELIAN LANGUAGES

INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

In continuing his research, Prof. Dzhaukian developed the material which resulted in his presentation of long-range comparisons (a term he notes in the first chapter to have been introduced by M. Swadesh): Interrelations of the Hurro - Urartian, Indo - European, and Caucasian (including Kartvelian, Abkhazo - Adygian & Nakho - Daghestanian ) Languages, printed in 1967. Therefore, Dzhaukian presented concrete lexical and grammatical correspondences which support and clarify the genetic relationship existing between the Indo-European, Hurro-Urartian, Caucasian and Kartvelian languages, giving him reason to consider them to be Nostratic or North-Eurasiatic languages. Today, if as Vyacheslav V. Ivanov mentions, only the possibility of borrowing as the uniting factor between Hurro-Urartian and Indo-European has been widely accepted, it is still true that this thesis remains unestablished by proof and yet is treated as a given by a mystery source as a law to be disproven. The documentation provided by I. M. Diakonoff and S. Starostin has proven Hurro-

41

Urartian to be one of the branches of Caucasian, and therefore Hurro-Urartian through Caucasian and from there Dene-Caucasian exists as a cognate language to Indo-European within the Borean linguistic system. [See 2008, H. Assadian, Urartian-Sumerian-Basque (Caucasian) and Avestic (Indo- European) Koinoetymological Dictionary.]

Some of Dzhaukian (Jaukian)’s Works:

1963 Урартский и индоевропейские языки, Ереван, ИАНА ССР. 1963 Хайасский язык и его отношение к и.-е. Языкам, Ереван. 1965 Новые урартско-индоевропейские параллели, ИАН, Арм ССР, 3, СТР45-55. 1967 Взаимоотношение индоевропейских хурритско-урартских и кавказских языков, Ереван, ИАНА ССР.

41

Aharon B. Dolgopolsky (1930-2012)

А. Б. ДОЛГОПОЛЬСКИЙ

When Illich-Svitych began to publish regarding Nostratic, Aharon Dolgopolsky independently developed а theory linking Indo-European with Afroasiatic, Kartvelian and а series of languages in Northern Asia that includes Uralic, Altaic and Eskimo-Aleut (Dolgopolsky 1964, 1965). .....In а later work оn personal pronouns (1984), he included Gilyak and Chukotian along with Elamite and Dravidian. After meeting, Dolgopolsky and Illich-Svitych coordinated work. While Illich-Svitych handled the Chadic languages, Dolgopolsky took up the Cushitic. Dolgopolsky continued developing the brilliant work of Illich-Svitych after their collaboration was cut short. This took the form of a first attempt to reconstruct the Chukcho-Koryak proto-language on

the basis of regular sound correspondences [Golovastikov & Dolgopoĺskij, 1972]. Then they

formulated the preliminary phonetic correspondences between Chukcho-Koryak and Itelmen. Aharon Dolgopolsky referred to his learning the long-range comparative research basic methodology from Illich-Svitych. It was Illich-Svitych who discovered the main sound correspondences between Nostratic languages and the phonetic laws that underlie these correspondences. This Dolgopolsky relates in the foreword to his Nostratic Dictionary published in 2008 and dedicated to the memory of his dear friends and great scholars Vladislav Illich-Svitych and

42

Sergey Starostin. He included nearly all of Illich-Svitych’s 611 Nostratic etymologies in his dictionary. Nostratic Dictionary is now the greatest gathering of substantial Nostratic documentation and data, with 2805 Proto-Nostratic roots. Although ready in 2002, it took years to prepare for publication. It was published in 2008 by an institute for archaeological research. Nostratic Dictionary lies in support of the rapprochement between fields, archaeology and language in particular. According to Dolgopolsky, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Etruscan, and Elamite belong to Nostratic as do Afroasiatic, Kartvelian (South Caucasian languages), Dravidian (Greenberg differs in opinion on these three) along with Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic and Gilyak (which Greenberg does include in his Eurasiatic, his name for Nostratic). Dolgopolsky’s discusses that Greenberg’s exclusion of Hamitic-Semitic from Nostratic (or Eurasiatic) is definitely wrong. He points out that almost all “Eurasiatic” morphemes are shared by Hamitic-Semitic and/or Kartvelian and partially by Elamo-Dravidian.

Bibliography – some of Dolgopolsky’s Works: 1964 ‘Metody rekonstrukciji obščeindoevropejskogo jazyka i vneindoevropejskije sopostavlenija.’ [Methods in the reconstruction of PIE and external comparison]. Pp. 27-30. 1964 ‘Gipoteza drevnejšego rodstva jazykovyh semej Severnoj Evraziji s verojatnostnoj točki zrenija. [The hypothesis of the ancient relationship of the language families in Northern Eurasia from a probabilistic point of view]. 1964/2: 53-63. 1965 "Методы реконструкции общиндоевропейского яазыка и сибиро- европейская гипотеза" [Methods in the Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and the Sibero-European Hypothesis], Этимология (Etimologija) 1965:259-270. 1966 Nostratičeskije osnovy s sočetanijem dvuh šumnyh soglasnyh. [Nostratic roots with a cluster of two sibilants] IN: Moskva, 1966.Pp. 48-50. 1967 ‘Ot Sahary do Kamčatki jazyki iščut rodstvennikov.’ [From the Sahara to the Kamchatka languages look for relatives] 42: 43- 46. 1967 V poiskah dalekogo rodstva.’ [In search of distant relationship č 1967/6: 95-103. 1967 ‘Problemy semito-hamitskogo kornja v sravnitel'noistoričeskom osveščeniji.’ [Problems of the Semito- Hamitic root in the light of historical-comparative studies] IN: Moskva: Nauka. Pp. 278-282. 1967 (69) "Nostraticheskije osnovy s sochetanijem shumnyx soglasnyx". Etymologia : 296-313. 1967 "Ot Saxary do Kamchatki jazyki ishchut rodstvennikov" [Nostratic Roots with Sibilant Clusters], ZS,

43

No. 1:43-6; Этимология (Etimologija), 296-313. 1968 ‘Drevnije korni i drevnije ljudi.’ [Ancient roots and ancient people č 1968/2: 96-108. 1968(71) "Nostraticheskije etimologii i proisxozhdenije glagol'nyx formantov" [Nostratic Etymologies Origin of Verb Formatives], Etymologia : 237-42. 197O(72) "Nostraticheskije korni s sochetanijem lateral'nogo i zvonkogo laringala" [Nostratic Roots with a Cluster of Lateral and Voiced Laryngeals], Etymologia: 356-69. 1971 Nostratičeskije etimologiji i proishoždenije glagol'nyh formantov. [Nostratic etymologies and the origin of verb formatives] . Moskva, 1971. Pp. 237-242. 1972 (74) "O nostraticheskoj sisteme affrikat i sibiljantov" [On the System of Nostratic Affricates and Sibilants:

Roots with the Phoneme *ʒ], Etymologia: 163-175. 1972 ‘Opyt rekonstrukciji obšče-nostratičeskoj grammatičeskoj sistemy. A. Sistema enklitik i mestoimenij. B. Nostratičeskij sintaksis.’ [Experimental reconstruction of the Common Nostratic grammatical system. A. The system of enclitics and pronouns. B. Nostratic syntax]. Moskva. Pp. 32-34. 1975 Nostratičeskije jazyki. [Nostratic languages 12: 272. 1975 ‘Paleontologija lingvističeskaja.’ [Linguistic paleontology IN: 19:113. Moskva. 1975 ‘Jazyki i problema prarodiny’ [Languages and the problem of homeland] 6: 15-19. 1984 "On Personal Pronouns in the Nostratic Languages" in: Otto Schwantler,Károly Rédei, and Hermann Reichert (eds.), Linguistica et Philologica. Gedenkenschaft für Björn Collinder (1894-1983). 1986 A probabilistic hypothesis concerning the oldest relationships among the language families of northern Eurasia // Typology, Relationship, and Time: a Collection of Papers on Language Change and Relationship by Soviet Linguists. Karoma, pp. 27–50. 1987 "Cultural contacts of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Indo-Iranian with neighbouring languages". FLH VIII/1-2 : 1-36. 1988 "The Indo-European Homeland and Lexical Contacts of Proto-Indo-European with Other Languages", Mediterranean Language Review 3:7-31 1989 "Problems of Nostratic Comparative Phonology" in: Vitaly Sheveroshkin (ed.), Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Bochum: Brockmeyer, pp. 9O-98.

1990 "Language relationship and the history of mankind". Abstract. 1992 "The Nostratic Vowels in Indo-European" in: Vitaly Sheveroshkin (ed.), Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric and Amerind. Bochum: Brockmeyer, pp. 298-331. 1992 "Nostratic etymologies and the origin of verbal formatives". NDCAA : 29O-7 [transl. of NEPGF]. 1992 "Language relationship and the history of mankind". Ms. Paper presented at ZIF Conference on Biological and Cultural Aspects of Language Development, Jan. 2O-22, 1992 1994 "Nostratic" in: R.E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, vol. 5, p. 2838. 1997 "The Indo-European stops in the light of the long range relationship of Indo- European with Afroasiatic and some language families of northern and eastern Asia". JDV 4 II: 1O9-112. 1998 "The Nostratic Macrofamily. A Short Introduction". SNM (1998). S.p.1998 : The Nostratic Hypothesis and Linguistic Palaeontology. Cambridge: The McDonald Inst. for Archaeological Research. 1999 "The Nostratic macrofamily: a short introduction". NELM (1999): 19-44. 2008 (2012) Nostratic Dictionary, 4 vols., University of Cambridge.

44

Sergey A. Starostin (1953-2005)

С. А. Старостин Sergey Anatol’evich Starostin was born in Moscow in 1953. He grew up alongside a linguist father, but he was already on his own winning the Moscow Linguistic Olympics at an early age. When he attended the Nostratic comparative linguistics university course of studies led by Dogolposky after the accidental death of V. M. Illich-Svitych (1966), he was still in his teens. He was well versed in ancient languages (Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, classical Chinese, classical Japanese), English, German, Polish, French, modern Chinese, and modern Japanese, etc. With Sergey Starostin, the Moscow School reached the zenith of linguistic authority in the history of scientific linguistics in the world. Sergey A. Starostin is founder of Borean linguistics. (The Greek word β ας means "northern"). The Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkam, and Gilyak (Nivkh) languages were added to the Nostratic of Illich-Svitych by Dolgopolsky, and through Sergey Starostin, Proto-Dene-Caucasian, Proto-Austric (and Proto-Amerind) were added to the total Moscow School Nostratic work. In the dimension of scientific historical-comparative linguistics, Sergey Starostin demonstrated all the languages of the continents of Asia, Europe and America, Oceania and North Africa to be cognate, and called the stem of all the protos of all these languages Proto-Borean. All the Borean languages genetically belong to mtDNA Haplogroup L3 and NRY M 168.

45

Classification of Borean Languages

Sergey Starostin

46

Sergey Starostin used Borean to include the following macro-phyla: the Eurasiatic and Afroasiatic (= Nostratic as Illich-Svitych envisioned it), Dene-Caucasian, Austric, (& Amerind) languages. In fact, S. Starostin separates the Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Khoisan languages from Borean. Sergey A. Starostin of the Moscow School advanced possibilities for work in Nostratics as founded by Illich-Svitych. As student of Dybo and Dolgopolsky, he came through with many creative discoveries and was energetic co-worker in a vast number of group endeavors all reaching their destinations in print. His first scientific study dates back to 1971. In the early 1981’s the work of the Moscow School was made known again by Sergey A. Starostin through published papers. He set the deep genetic relationship of the Caucasian family with the Sino-Tibetan and Yeniseian families on firmer ground. In 1982 Starostin presented the first model of the reconstruction of the Yeniseian languages, which he later defined with more precision (1995). He was able to verify that Yenisseian was cognate with North Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan languages. This was a possibility suggested earlier by G.J. Ramstedt, A. Trombetti, K. Bouda and others. It was Sergey Starostin, however, who formulated the regular phonetic laws. This family was presented as “Sino-Causasian” by Sergey Starostin, and his colleague Sergey L. Nikolayev extended the family, which now includes the Na-Dene family of North America. If the number of Sergey Starostin’s works are less than 70, they each involve terrific efforts. His work on Old Chinese is one notable instance. Starostin produced a reconstruction of Old Chinese which included the same six vowel system arrived at independently by the Chinese scholar Zhengzhang Shangfang (鄭張尚芳). One further example of his diligence is A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary (Moscow 1994), consisting of more than 1400 pages. In 1991 Sergey Starostin wrote a volume demonstrating the relation of Japanese with Altaic languages. Illich-Svytich already had indicated the relation Korean and Japanese to Altaic. This relation has been accepted by all those accepting Nostratic except for Bomhard. Sergey Starostin reconstructed Proto-Borean, and this became possible with view on his reconstruction of the Altaic languages (including Korean and Japanese), and his introduction of the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis. The Dené-Caucasian hypothesis proposes the genetic relationship between Northwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian, Yeniseian, Sino-Tibetan, Basque, Burushaski and Na-Dené, and Starostin has demonstrated this relation in his work. With I. M. Diakonoff, S. Starostin presented documentation connecting Hurru-Urartian to the Northern Caucasian languages. Actually, Sergey Starostin rallied with colleagues towards the reconstruction of: Proto-Kiranti, Proto-Yenesseian, Proto-Birmano-Tibetan, Proto-North Caucasian, and Proto-Altaic.

47

Dene-Caucasian Language Clan

48

Sergey Starostin divided Borean into the Nostratic and the Dene-Daic groups, the Dene-Daic group being equivalent to the Dené-Caucasian and Austric macrofamilies. Starostin's dating on Borean is in approximation 16 thousand years ago, which makes Borean an Upper Paleolithic proto-language. Dravidian (Elamite) (probably the earliest split-off of Nostratic) separated from Eurasiatic, and then the more closely related families separated off: Indo-European, Uralic (+ Yukaghir), Altaic (including Korean and Japanese), Kartvelian. Starostin readily accepted Eskimo-Aleut and Chukchee-Kamchatkan as being included in Nostratic. Starostin did not deny the possibility of Sumerian as Sino-Caucasian in Trombetti's doctrine, presented by Bengtson, Blažek, Boisson and Assadian. Sergey launched Starling software and site from 1985. This was a collaboration with Murray Gell-Mann (Nobel in Physics). The site is a boon for determining the most probable phonetic correspondences between related languages, creating tree-diagrams, and calculating their absolute dates of divergence to mention only the most obvious possibilities it creates. Sergey Starostin worked at the Humanitas Russian State University, Santa Fe Institute and sometimes taught at Leiden, Holland where he received an honorary doctorate in 2005. He then died, it has been printed, of heart-attack. Sergey Starostin's contribution must be at least on the level of comparative-historical linguists Karl Brugmann, Ferdinand de Saussure, Antoine Meillet, Emile Benveniste.

Bibliography – some of Sergey Starostin’s Works:

1982 Праенисейская реконструкция и внешние связи енисейских языков o-Yeniseian Reconstruction and the External Relations of Yeniseian Languages) Studia Ketica, vol. 3. Leningrad: “Nauka” publishers; 144- 237. 1984 Гипотеза о генетических связях сино-тибетских языков с енисейскими и севернокавказскими языками (A Hypothesis about the Genetic Connections between Sino-Tibetan, Yeniseian, and North Caucasian Languages) Лингвистическая ре-конструкция и древнейшая история Востока. М.: ИВ АН СССР (Linguistic Reconstruction and the Prehistory of the East. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies); pp. 19-38. 1986 Indoevropejsko-severnokavkazskije leksi…eskije izoglosy. IN: Balkany v kontekste Sredizemnemorja. Moskva. Pp. 162-163. 1988 “Indoevropejsko-severokavkazskie izoglossy [Indo-European and North Caucasian Isoglosses .” Drevnij Vostok: Etno-kul’turny svjazi. Vol. 80. Ed. G. M. Bongard-Levin and V. G. Ardzinba. Moscow. 112-163.

49

1989 "Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian", in Vitaly Shevoroshkin, ed. Bochum, Germany, 42-66. 1989 "Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian". LRDIV-89 I: 1O6-24. 1989 "Sravnitel'no-istoricheskoje jazykoznnije i leksikostatistika". LRDIV I: 3-39.

1989 Rekonstrukcija drevnekitajskoj fonologičeskoj sistemy [Reconstruction of the phonological system of Old Chinese]. Moscow, Nauka Publishers.

1990 "A statistic evaluation of the time-depth and subgrouping of the Nostratic macrofamily". EMC: 33. 1991 "On the Hypothesis of a Genetic Connection Between the Sino-Tibetan Languages and the Yeniseian and North-Caucasian Languages", in Vitaly Shevoroshkin, 1991: 12-41. 1991 Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian, in: Vitaly Sheveroshkin, ed., Explorations in Language Macrofamilies, Bochum, Germany, 42-66. 1991 Алтайская проблема и происхождение японского языка [The Altaic problem and the Origins of the Japanese Language], Moscow. 1991 "O japono-korejskix akcentnyx sootvetstvijax". SIJSE: 44-7. 1992 "Methodology of long-range comparison". NDCAA: 75-9. 1998 "Comments on A. Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology". SNM. S. p. 1998 “Hurro-Caucasica.” V. N. Toporov Festschrift. Moscow. 1999 "Subgrouping in Nostratic: comments on Aharon Dolgopolsky’s The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology". NELM: 137-56. 2000 "Ob odnom novom tipe sootvetstvij shumnyx smychnyx v nostraticheskix jazykax". PID: 174-7. 2000 Comparative-Historical Linguistics and Lexicostatistics / Time Depth in Historical Linguistics / Ed. by Renfrew, McMahon & Trask. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge; pp. 223-259. 2002 "Nostratic stops revisited". FsAD: 3-6.

2003 Statistical Evaluation of the Lexical Proximity between the Main Linguistic Families of the Old World / Orientalia et Classica III Studia Semitica. Moscow, RSUH Publishers, pp. 464–484. 2007 Definition of the stability of the basic lexicon. Works on Linguistics (in Russian). (Определение устойчивости базисной ксики), Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures; pp. 827-839. 2007 Indo-European among other language families: problems of dating, contacts and genetic relationships / S. STAROSTIN. Trudy po jazykoznaniju [Works in Linguistics . Moscow, Jazyki slav’anskix kul’tur, 806-820.

Joint Works

1986 D’iakonov, I. M. and S. A. Starostin. Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian language. München. 1989 Starostin, S. A. Rekonstrukcija drevnekitajskoj fonologičeskoj sistemy [The reconstruction of the Old Chinese phonological system]. Moskva: "Nauka”. 1991 Starostin, S. A. Altajskaja problema i proisxoždenie japonskogo jazyka [The Altaic problem and the origin of the Japanese language]. Moskva: “Nauka”. 1994 Starostin, S. A. & S. L. Nikolayev, A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Moscow. 1996 Peiros, Ilia, and S. A. Starostin. A comparative vocabulary of five Sino-Tibetan languages. 5 vols. Parkville, VIC: Univ. of Melbourne, Dept. of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. 2003 Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages. 3 v. Leiden: Brill.

51

Kalevi E. Koskinen

In Finland Prof. Kalevi Koskinen was the Finnish Slavist who was able to continue the way Illich-Svitych had initiated. In 1980, Kalevi E. Koskinen published NILAL – Über die Urverwandtschaft des hamito-

semitischen, indogermanischen, uralischen, und altischen in Tampere, Finland. He called his classification of Hamito-Semitic (=Afroasiatic), Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic the NILAL languages, from fusion of the names Nil (indicating the Hamito-Semitic language branch), Ural and Altai. Semantics plays a foremost role in this research on more than 500 word correspondences, suffixes and phonology. In his comparisons of Dravidian with the Nostratic phyla, Koskinen found more correspondences to exist between Indo-European and Dravidian with respect to the other phyla, and also by correspondence of the vowels Dravidian is nearer to Indo-Euraopean than to Uralic and Altaic. His research showed there were sound laws to describe the correspondences of Dravidian with Nostratic. With Proto-Dravidian having no sibilant, he ascertained that Dravidian c - , - c - correspond to Indo-Euraopean, Altaic s - , - s- and to Uralic and Hamito-Semitic sibilants. He found regular correspondence between Dravidian - r - (- t -) and Indo-Euraopean – d - /- dh -, while Indo-Euraopean - t - corresponds to Dravidian - t - /- ṭ - . This combined with the fact of the exact correspondence of Indo-Euraopean - d - / - dh - and Altaic - d - (?- -) with Uralic - δ - /- δ ́ - for him point against the glottalization theory to Indo-Euraopean (-)d- having been a voiced stop, not a glottalized (-) tʼ - . Koskinen concluded that on the basis of his presented phonological correspondences (the sound laws) Dravidian probably goes back to the same linguistic community as Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic and Hamito-Semitic (Dravidian in the Light of Nostratic, p. 95). Basic Works:

1980 NILAL - Über die Urverwandtschaft des hamito-semitischen, indogermanischen, uralischen, und altischen, J. F. Ólan OY, Tampere, Finland. 1996 Dravidian in the Light of Nostratic, Tampere, Finland.

51

NILAL Phonological Laws, Koskinen, 1979

Afroasiatic (Ham.-Sem.) Indo-European Uralic Altaic NILAL

k-/ q- k- k- k- *k k-/ q- g(h)- k- k- *k ḥ-/ ḫ- k k- k- *k

- -) g(h)- k- g *g- Semitic: ḥ- gh- g *g g(h)- (k-) g- *g

ḥ-/ ḫ g- k- k- g(h)- k (Ham.), Sem. ḥ- k Sem. ḫ- k- ḥ-/ḫ g-/gh-

s-/ š- (z-/ ṣ-) s-/ (st-) s-/ ś-/ š- s- *s-

t- (ṭ-) t- t- (č-/ ć-) t- (č-) *t- (Sem. ṯ- -) t- t- (č-/ć-) t- (č-) *t- d- (ḏ-) d(h)- t- (č-/ć-) d-/dž- *d- -) d(h)- t- (č-/ć-) d-/dž- *d-

p- (Ham. auch f-) p- p- p- *p- (specially Sem.) b- p- p- p- *p- b- b(h)- p- b- *b- m- m- m- m- *m- n- n- n- n- *n-

l- l- l- n- *l- r- r- r- nicht belegt; ?n- *r-

w- - -) w- ü-/u-(ū-)/ u-/ō-/?o- j- vor u-, o-, ö-( )/ *w- ō- (?ü-) haltigen ?o-/j- Vokal; ü-/u-/?o- vor einem Vokal

-k- *-k- -g(h)- -g-/ ŋ *-k- (NILAL: *-g-) (in Alt. *-k-/ *-g-)

-dh-/ (-d-) -d- *-t- -t- ?-t-/-č- *-t- -d-(-δ-)/ -dh- -δ-/ -δ'- d- *-d- ?-t- ?-δ-/?-δ'- ?-t- *-d-

Semitic: -b- -p-/?(*-b->-w-) *-m- *-b- - - -)

-r- -l- -l- *-l- *-l-

52

NILAL LANGUAGES SUPERCLAN

URALIC LANGUAGES ALTAIC LANGUAGES

INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES

AFROASIATIC LANGUAGES

53

Panu Hakola (1932- ) In 1989, Hakola demonstrated that lexical similarities of basal vocabulary in representatives of five major („agglutinative“) language families, Dravidian, Uralic, Altaic, Japanese-Korean and Andean are much higher than can be explained by chance. Hakola began his data collection independently only to find his work lies in complete agreement with the Nostratic of Illich-Svitych and the Moscow School and nearly with that Bomhard of the USA School. In addition it is precisely corroborated by the genetics research of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. H. P. A. Hakola followed up with the presentation of his DURALJAN Hypothesis in “1000 DURALJAN Etyma”, in the year 2000, published by the University of Kuopio, Finland. DURALJAN is an acronym (D – Dravidian, Ur – Uralic, Al – Altaic, J – Japanese-Korean, An – Andean) with which Hakola proposed a hypothetical superfamily. Along with a presentation of 1000 sets of cognates and re-constructions of words of Proto-DURALJAN, Hakola provided sound correspondences, surveys of the morphology of the DURALJAN languages, of the comparative linguistic studies in these families and the Nostratic macro-family, including studies in archaeology, genetics and some humanities such as musicology. Hakola considered DURALJAN as an intermediate branch within the linguistic pedigree, situated at a level between the Nostratic or Eurasiatic macrofamilies and the individual families. The time indicated through several meanings in the cognate sets lies between the Upper Palaeolithic and the Chalcolithic era. The studies of Hakola on DURALJAN languages represent a continuation of the Moscow School Nostratic studies towards Amerind. Hakola encourages long-range linguists:

54

„Forge yourself from steel of theory tools, not fetters! “ (1111 DURALJAN Etyma, p. 11) In 2003 the co-work of Hodjjat Assadian and Panu Hakola led to the addition of Sumerian to the Proto-DURALJAN lexicon, coining the SUDURALJAN hypothesis, and the publication of the evidence.

The Schematic Tree of the DURALJAN Superfamily

Dravidian Uralic Altaic Japanese-Korean Andean-Equatorial

Panu Hakola discovered the rare genetic Nasu-Hakola Disease. He is inventor of Carbamazepine

in Schizophrenia. For over 40 years Prof. Hakola has been following through on Soviet and American

Nostratic studies in relation to his Proto-DURALJAN hypothesis in linguistics.

Bibliography - Some of Hakola’s Works:

1984 Are the Agglutinative Languages Genetically Related? Lang. Sc. 4/11: 367-394. 1997 DURALJAN Vocabulary. Lexical Similarities in the Major Agglutinative Languages. Kuopio University. 2000 1000 DURALJAN Etyma. An Extended Study in Lexical Similarities in the Major Agglutinative Languages. Kuopio University. 2003 (with H. Assadian), Sumerian and Proto-DURALJAN, A Lexical Comparison Concerning the SUDURALJAN Hypothesis. Kuopio University. 2006 DURALJAN Hypothesis, Towards the Mother Tongue of Man, University of Kuopio. 2009 Lexical Affinities between Tamil and Finnish, A Contribution to Nostratic Studies from the Angle of Close Genetic Affinities between the Dravidian and Uralic Language Families. University of Kuopio. 2011 Lexical Affinities between Tamil and Finnish, a Supplement, University of Eastern Finland, (Kuopio).

55

DURALJAN LANGUAGES SUPERCLAN

URALIC LANGUAGES ALTAIC LANGUAGES

DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES AMERIND LANGUAGES

NOSTRATIC LANGUAGES

56

2- USA SCHOOL

Joseph H. Greenberg (1915 – 2001)

In the Unites States of America, Morris Swadesh founded work which was precisely carried forward by Joseph Greenberg, and which finally led to the appearance of the Proto-Eurasiatic doctrine. One of the pioneers in the development of the USA school of comparative linguistics, Joseph Greenberg's work in the early stages focused on statistics, numbers and quantities. He managed the long trek concentrating on discovering language universals through mass multilateral comparisons, meeting with sharp but not obliterating opposition.

Joseph Greenberg was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1915. He obtained elementary Hebrew education at an early age, but his interest drove him to continue its study on his own. He studied Latin and German in High School while on his own he studied the parallel-text editions of Sophocles plays and the Oxford dictionary etymologies in order to learn Classical Greek.

Greenberg got used to teaching himself, studying Classical Arabic while he took Latin and Greek at Columbia University beginning in 1932. He signed up for Akkadian, and various Slavic languages, finally launching into comparative linguistics in his junior year and anthropology in his senior year. He audited a class on American Indian languages taught by Franz Boas after which he immersed himself in the grammars in this professor’s Handbook of American Indian Languages (Boas, 1911, 1922).

57

Greenberg followed his anthropology professor's suggestion and went for his Ph.D. at Northwestern University. After learning Hausa doing fieldwork in Nigeria, he completed his dissertation on the influence of Islam on one of the few remaining Hausa groups not converted to Islam. Herskovits, Greenberg's professor and Africanist at Northwestern University, had encouraged his protegé Greenberg to continue at Yale University. During 1937-1938 he studied there under anthropologists Leslie Spier and Robert Lowie, and linguists Edgar Sturtevant and Franklin Edgerton. Edward Sapir was his favorite, but he never met him before he died in 1940. At this time comparative linguistics in the USA was limited to Indo-European language studies. Yale was also where Greenberg came into touch with American structuralism, auditing courses with Bernard Bloch, George L. Trager and Benjamin Lee Whorf (all structuralists). Greenberg also met one who was considered in many places (except for Yale) to be the founder of American structuralist linguistics, Leonard Bloomfield, who introduced Greenberg to logical positivism through his suggestion of reading Rudolf Carnap. Greenberg was drafted into the Army in 1940, taking with him Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica. Greenberg published axiomatisations of kinship systems and phonology. Here we see Greenberg weathering through the mathematical influence. His Army work involved being code breaker, deciphering German and Italian codes during WWII, first in Casablanca, later in Italy, where he learned Italian by the end of the war. In 1946 Greenberg found work at the University of Minnesota and in 1948 he transferred to the Columbia anthropology department. The Linguistic Circle of New York had been founded by newly arrived from Europe structuralists, Roman Jakobson and André Martinet. Therefore Greenberg knew of the structuralism of the Prague School and then also of Nicolas Trubetzkoy's work on markedness. In 1948 Greenberg first published his genetic classification of the languages of Africa in American Anthropologist, following up with the complete classification serialized and published in the Southwestern Journal of Anthropology in 1949-1950. Instead of the five families of Newman (1995), ie., Semitic, Hamitic, Sudanic, Bantu and Bushman, Greenberg made his classification into 16 families based on two principles. The principle of exclusion of typological features from genetic classification arose for him because formal properties (phonological or grammatical patterns) or semantic patterns of meaning are likely to diffuse, are too small in number, and may very probably result from independent convergence, so they cannot act as indicators of genetic descent. Rather it is the arbitrary coincidence of form and meaning in morphology and lexicon that provides the best evidence for genetic classification. Later on in his career Greenberg focused on typology.

58

The second principle for Greenberg was the exclusion of nonlinguistic evidence from the establishment of linguistic genetic families. All the previously accepted classifications of African languages, or at least those known in the United States at that time, involved typo-logical features (such as the presence or absence of gender) or nonlinguistic factors, especially what was still called “race”. As Greenberg's classifications were published, the British and German Africanists defended their typological and non-linguistic classifications, and in order to explain their non-acceptance of Greenberg's work, the Americanists and Indo-Europeanists relied on the argument that only reconstruction of the protolanguage would "suffice" to prove a genetic classification of languages. In 1950 Greenberg published the article "The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic" in which he examined 3775 Arabic triliteral roots along with roots in other Semitic languages. He came up with a number of constraints on the occurrence of phonemes and phonological features running across Semitic root consonants. From 1950 to 1954 he became coeditor of Word, the Linguistic Circle of New York journal. It was during these years of co-work with Morris Swadesh that he began writing on American Indigenous languages; evidence is the article "Jicaque as a Hokan Language" [published in the International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol_19, No_3 (Jul_, 1953), authors: Joseph H. Greenberg and Morris Swadesh. Here in the p. 220 footnote we have the reference to the article by Morris Swadesh on Lexico-Statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts, APS-P 96.452-63 (1952)].

Morris Swadesh (1909-1967) Vitaly Shevoroshkin (1932-)

59

TANGENT Prof. Morris Swadesh was born in Massachusetts and died in Mexico. He was one of the many pressured to leave their teaching posts in the United States during the era of McCarthyism while his work, then refuted and boycotted by neo-Kantian linguistic bands, finally reemerged after his death through the efforts of Prof. Vitaly Shevoroshkin and Prof. Joseph Greenberg. He was one of the founders of the International Association of Linguistics. His book The Origin and Diversification of Language was published in 1971. Swadesh’s final pronouncement based on the view he had gained through his lifelong work was in support of the monogenesis of language. In Swadesh’s view, “all the languages of the world have a common origin, they are genetically related and have come to form a connected network which extends throughout Europe and also from Africa until Oceania and America”. Vitaly Shevoroshkin (1932- ) was born in Georgia. He was already publishing linguistic articles in the early 1961’s. He reached the United States from the USSR during the 1971’s. Illich-Svitych’s Nostratic scientific linguistics was made known to the Occident by efforts of Shevoroshkin. In the 1981’s, he organized the First International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor where he is still professor. This event brought together 46 scholars from all over the world and intensified international cooperation in research. In addition to his own writings, Sheveroshkin edited the symposium materials, some of which were published from 1989 on, such as: Reconstructing Languages and Cultures, Explorations in Language Macrofamilies, Proto-Languages and Proto-Cultures, Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages, Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric and Amerind. Prof. Shevoroshkin is a leader in the study of paleolinguistics (Proto-World). END OF TANGENT At this time in the USA, linguistics was just beginning to develop as an independent field, so Greenberg actively broke the ground for the establishment of scientific linguistics; those working on historical linguistics were philologists, and then there were those linguists who worked on exotic languages because of the needs of studies in anthropology. When first turning towards the languages of the Americas, Greenberg grouped the South American languages into seven families. In Australia he identified one widespread family equivalent to Pama-Nyungan which he called General Australian, alongside many small families of languages. Some of the results of his studies were published in an article in 1953, “Historical Linguistics and Unwritten Languages ”.

61

It was in response to criticisms at this point that he managed the formulation of his third and final principle of genetic classification, that of mass comparison, which he later called multilateral comparison. This consists in the simultaneous comparison of the full range of languages and their forms for the area under study. In 1955 Greenberg reprinted his African classification to include this time only 12 rather than 16 families. According to his own description of his advancing steps, the idea of looking at all 12 families of Africa together occurred to him in early 1959 as he was walking to Columbia University. Thereafter his classification of African languages was to include just four families, Afroasiatic, Khoisan, Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan (1963). Joe Greenberg’s main questioning directed towards the structuralists was on their lack of attention to meaning in language, use of language, and their complete separation of that which is synchronic from the diachronic. 1953 was the year of the interdisciplinary seminar on linguistics and psychology, organized by the Social Science Research Council. Here Greenberg’s task was to present the state of the art of linguistics, ie., the very scientific methodology of American structuralism which was causing him all the questioning! Charles Osgood, a psychologist, mentioned to him that if something true of all languages were presented, that would be interesting to psychologists. He said later that "this remark brought home to me the realization that all of contemporary American linguistics consisted of elaborate but essentially descriptive precedures". He thereafter turned to work on universals in language. However, this was to yield a publication only 4 years down the line. Up to that point, work on universals had focused on differences rather than similarities. His next publication in 1954 involved synchronic theory and the refinement and quantification of Sapir's typology. Only in 1957 did he publish his first paper on language universals (Essays in Linguistics). In the last essay in this collection, he established the basic principle that universals must represent generalizations over historically independent cases of the phenomenon to be studied. He also made the link between language universals and typological classification. He noted here that the focus of the search for universals must be on the distribution of types found in languages. Universals that are interesting are to be found in constraints on crosslinguistic variation rather than in crosslinguistic uniformity. As such they require an account of the functional, social and psychological factors underlying all language behavior (1957, p. 86). Here with this statement of a functionalist approach to language, Greenberg was invited to Stanford's Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences by the psychologist Osgood the following year, where Thomas Kuhn was busy writing The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Q. E. Quine, Word and Object.

61

In 1961 Greenberg presented “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements” first at the Dobbs Ferry conference, and then in 1962, he presented the same paper at the Ninth International Congress of Linguists at MIT. [Noam Chomsky also presented his ideas at this conference for the first time for an international audience.] It is in this paper that universals are presented as implicational universals and biconditional universals. He established here the basic methodology which became known as the typological approach to grammar. The drama on the American linguistics scene was played by Chomsky on one hand arguing for focus on syntax as opposed to just phonology and morphology, while at the same time arguing that there indeed are significant language universals to be discovered, however that they lie in the “deep structure” and its transformations into surface structure. This means that at nearly the same time, Chomsky and Greenberg presented opposing theories on universals of grammar – on what they are, whether or not to focus on syntax, and how they are to be discovered and explained. These later came to be known as the Chomskyan and the Greenbergian approaches to language universals, and more broadly categorized as the formalist and the functionalist approaches to language, although the functionalist approach actually embraces a broader range of theories. In 1962 Greenberg moved to Stanford University which only had a committee on linguistics at that time. This meant that he had very few graduate students. It was up to him to establish a department of linguistics at Stanford and this he did in 1973. He received a grant for research on language universals. The grant did lead to a series of 20 Working Papers in Language Universals and the Universals of Human Language (Greenberg et al., 1978). Greenberg continuously researched and realized that the constraints found in synchronic typology should be reanalyzed as diachronic typology. He demonstrated this in “Some Methods of Dynamic Comparison in Linguistics” (1969) and more generally in “Rethinking Linguistics Diachronically” (1979). Ever after Greenberg argued that the prerequisite for synchronic and diachronic typological research is that genetic classification of languages be established. Therefore, although Greenberg worked on universals through the 71’s, his interest in mass comparison hadn’t waned, and he proceeded to publish on Indo-Pacific languages (the New Guinea Papuan, languages of the Andaman Islands and Tasmania excluding the Australian Aboriginal languages). “The Indo-Pacific Hypothesis” (1971, I) was Greenberg's first new work on the classification of languages outside Africa. The material he gathered between 1960 and 1970 included all the material published on the Indo-Pacific languages up to then and some unpublished material also. He arranged the data into 12 notebooks, each including 60-80 languages with up to 350 lexical entries for each language. Grammatical comparisons filled three other notebooks. He also prepared similar

62

vocabularies for 50 Austronesian languages to check for borrowings. Here he divided the 14 previously found subgroups from 1958 into smaller sub-subgroups, proposed internal groupings of the 14 subgroups, and that the Austronesian languages resulted from a more recent migration. This endeavor was at the time largely ignored. He then worked on through the Amerind, Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut language groups, published in 1987 as Language in the Americas, one year after retiring from Stanford. Here he presented lexical and grammatical evidence for 11 subgroups of Amerind and for Amerind itself. Eskimo-Aleut had already been accepted, so for the Na-Dene family that Sapir had worked on, he presented a response to an attack. In this response he defends his method, scrutinises the comparative method, and suggests that all languages of the world may form a valid genetic unit. The work met with ongoing critiques. He replied, (1) demonstration of an empirical scientific hypothesis requires a quantitative probabilistic argument (2) his method and a demonstrated probable classification necessarily precedes reconstruction (3) his method of linguistic genetic classification was the same in the Americas as what he had accomplished on Africa (4) other hypotheses were not supported by other sciences. Greenberg contributed to the linguistic debates, responding, commenting and reviewing, all the while consistently maintaining his position on his genetic classifications, repeating patiently that a quantitative probabilistic argument is what is required in a proof of a scientific hypothesis. His method necessarily precedes reconstruction he pointed out. [The thorough discussion of his method can be found in several papers directly preceding his last book (Greenberg 1996, 2000b).] In order to again have an idea of proceedings for the book Language in the Americas, over 30 years Greenberg had collected data assembled in 23 notebooks covering around 80 languages in each, with up to 400 lexical entries for each language. Then there were 6 notebooks full of grammatical comparisons. Greenberg’s Amerind hypothesis gained the support of physical anthropology and genetics findings, as the studies of Stephen Zegura and Christy Turner which independently led to hypothesizing a three-migration pattern into the Americas based on dentition and genetic evidence (three papers published together 1986). In 1988 Greenberg's findings were corroborated by the genetic findings of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1988), who claimed his findings on genetic groupings of humans largely follow the lines of Greenberg's classification of languages. Greenberg continually insisted that linguistic classification be established on linguistic evidence alone. Multilateral comparisons necessarily mark the way by which one gathering masses of data can look at the array and note how the genetic groupings are likely to fall. Then the languages

63

presumed related can be compared and proofs offered. For Greenberg, “how are languages to be classified genetically?” is the question and not “when are two languages genetically related?” (Greenberg, 1987). In 1998, Greenberg published an article entitled, “The Convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostratic”. Here he mentions how the work of the Moscow school had remained unknown in the United States so that he had arrived at his own results independently. The Nostratic work began including the following six families: Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Afroasiatic, Kartvelian and Dravidian.

“Stated in this manner, there are оn the surface major differences, the inclusion of Yukaghir, Gilyak, Eskimo, Korean and Japanese in Eurasiatic and the exclusion of Afroasiatic, Kartvelian and Dravidian. There is also, however а common core consisting of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic. Because of this common core the term Eurasiatic/ Nostratic is sometimes employed...” The on-going discussions against Greenberg have been repeatedly maintained from the 1980’s up until present. However, much earlier Greenberg had arrived at his “controversial” classifications for:

- the languages of Oceania (Indo-Pacific = the New Guinea Papuan languages of the Andaman Islands and Tasmania) into 14 families (1960). [He reported 14 families can be identified for the non-Austronesian non-Australian languages of Oceania (Wenner-Gren Foundation, 1958), and that the Austronesian resulted from a more recent migration.]

- the Americas into three groupings (1960, originally published in 1956, which was the same conclusion Morris Swadesh and Sydney Lamb had arrived at in parallel and independently).

- and Eurasia (already in the early 1960's but published much later on). Greenberg presented etymologies involving languages generally not included in Nostratic studies. Afflicted with cancer, this would be his last work. He demonstrated Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Altaic, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Proto-Eskimo-Aleut, Gilyak and Korean-Japanese-Ainu to be cognate, naming this vast grouping Eurasiatic. Greeberg wrote the first Eurasiatic common grammar (2000), and in 2002 the Eurasiatic etymologies were published at Stanford in “Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family”.

64

Greenberg Eurasiatic Macro-Clan

Language Phyla of the World

Bibliography - Some of Greenberg’s Works:

1950 The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6:162-181. 1953 Historical linguistics and unwritten languages. In Anthropology Today , pp. 265-286. Chicago: 1953 "Jicaque as a Hokan Language". In International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol_19, No_3 (Jul_, 1953), authors: Joseph H. Greenberg and Morris Swadesh,

65

1954 Concerning inferences from linguistic to nonlinguistic data. In Language in Culture, ed. H. Hoijer, pp. 3-18. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1955 Studies in African Linguistic Classification. New Haven, Conn.: Compass Press. 1957 Essays in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1963 The Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Grammar, ed. J. H. Greenberg, pp. 73-113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1969 "Some Methods of Dynamic Comparison in Linguistics", in: Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of Californai Press, pp. 147-203. 1970 The role of typology in the development of a scientific linguistics. Theoretical problems of typology and the Northern Eurasian languages, ed. László Dezs and Péter Hajdú, 11-24. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 1977 A new invitation to linguistics. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press / Doubleday, pp. 147. 1978 Universals of human language, (Chief Editor), 4 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1978 Introduction, Universals of human language, volume 1: method and theory, ed. J.H. Greenberg et al. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Volume 1:1-5. 1978 Typology and cross-linguistic generalization, Universals of human language, volume 1: method and theory, ed. J. H. Greenberg et al., 33-59. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1978 Diachrony, synchrony and language universals, Universals of human language, volume 1: method and theory, ed. J. H. Greenberg et al., 61-91.Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1978 Introduction, Universals of human language, volume 2: phonology, ed. J. H. Greenberg et al., 1-8. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1980 Universals of kinship terminology: Their nature and the problem of their explanation. On linguistic anthropology, essays in honor of Harry Hoijer, ed. Jacques Maquet, 9-32. Malibu: Undena Publications. 1987 Languages in the Americas. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. 1989 Proto-linguistic variation: a link between historical linguistics and sociolinguistics. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 91-101. Berkeley. 1990 Two approaches to language universals. On language: selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1991 Some problems of Indo-European in historical perspective. Sprung from some common source: investigations into the prehistory of languages, Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1992 Preliminaries to a systematic comparison between biological and linguistic evolution. The evolution of human languages, 139-58. Redwood City, CA. 1993 Observations concerning Ringe’s Calculating the factor of chance in language comparison. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 137. 79-90. 1993 "Convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostratic". StN , Handout. 1996 Genes, languages and other things: review of History and geography of human genes by Luca Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza. Review of Archaeology 16: 2.24-28. 1998 The convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostratic. Nostratic: sifting the evidence, 51-60. Amsterdam. 2001 The methods and purposes of linguistic genetic classification. Language and Linguistics 2.111-136. 2000-2002 Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. 2 vols. Stanford, CA. 2007 An Amerind Etymological Dictionary (with Merritt Ruhlen), Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University.

66

Merritt Ruhlen (1944- )

Merritt Ruhlen reinforced Professor Greenberg’s research. In 2117, Ruhlen with Greenberg’s co-work classified all the indigenous languages of the American continent and published the first comprehensive etymological dictionary of the Amerind languages dedicated to the Amerind people. Merritt Ruhlen has considered language as a cultural artifact interacting with the biological scenario in which it appears through a long period of evolutionary process. He has presented his book on the comparison of phonological systems based on 400 languages resulting through his work on universals as student of Greenberg. He relies on the genetic work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. There is no concept of race on the genetic level. There is no primitive population. There are no languages more simple than others, all of them have attained the same level of complexity. Merritt Ruhlen continues working with a radical application of Greenberg's method of genetic classification. Ruhlen has presented the possibility of at least partial reconstruction of Proto-World, the original language of humankind. Along with John Bengtson he presented Global Etyma. Ruhlen noted the stages necessarily passed through in the comparative method of linguistics:

67

The Comparative Method ↓

Taxonomy = Classification ↓

Historical Linguistics ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ construction Sound Homeland ..... Correspondences

It is taxonomy and not historical linguistics, he says, that enables linguists to reconstruct the proto-languages, from which then the sound correspondences are detected. Ruhlen worked with Greenberg through until the end of his life when he helped him prepare the Eurasiatic material and to publish Indo-European and its Closest Relatives which is in fact dedicated to "Merritt Ruhlen, optimo descipulo". Ruhlen published Amerind Etymological Dictionary in 2007. Notable is his dedication of this book to the Amerind peoples. In his introduction Ruhlen makes the following important point: “It is often claimed that as one goes back in time words are lost in all languages at a gradual rate so that the taxonomic picture gets dimmer and dimmer and finally turns to black. While it seems obvious to anyone that as one goes back in time things do get dimmer, it’s not true. Sometimes as one goes back in time things become more clear. The failure to understand this fundamental taxonomic principle is the source of much of the current confusion in historical linguistics.” In an article entitled Taxonomy, Typology and Historical Linguistics, Ruhlen concludes, "It is a sad commentary on the fate of historical linguistics in the twentieth century that families such as Eurasiatic and Amerind, whose outlines were already perceived by scholars such as Trombetti and Sapir at the beginning of the last century, are still considered controversial, at best, or completely spurious, at worst." Ruhlen represents the USA School. He compiled a great database containing different kinds of linguistic and non-linguistic information about 5111 of the world’s languages, and is continuing work at Stanford University.

68

Bibliography – a few of Ruhlen’s Works:

1975 A Guide to the Languages of the world. Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project, Stanford University.

1987 A Guide to the World's Languages. Stanford. 1988 The Origin of Language: Retrospective and Prospective. In: Proceedings of a Conference on Language Change and Biological Evolution. Torino,1988. 1989 "Nostratic-Amerind Cognates", in: Vitaly Sheveroshkin (ed.), Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Bochum: Brockmeyer, pp. 75-83. 1989 Material for a Global Etymological Dictionary, First- and Second-Person Pronouns in the World’s Languages. 1990 "Evolution of language: a global perspective". EMC : 34. "Linguistic evidence for human prehistory". CArchJ V/2: 265-8.

1990 "Phylogenetic Relations of Native American Languages", in: Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals (Special Issue 1990), 7: 85-96. 1991 "The Amerind Phylum and the Prehistory of the New World", in: Sidney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell (eds.), Sprung from some Common Source. Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages. Stanford, pp. 328-350. 1994 On the Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 1994 On the Origin of Languages. Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford. "Nostratic-Amerind cognates". RLC : 75-83. 1997 "Proto-Amerind *KAPA 'finger, hand' and its origin in the Old Word". FsSh : 32O-5. 2007 Amerind Etymological Dictionary. With Joseph Greenberg.

69

Classification of Amerind Languages

71

71

John D. Bengtson (1948- )

John D. Bengtson was born to American parents in Bumbuli, Tanzania, East Africa. He has been president and vice-president of the Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory (ASLIP). From 2001 up to the present Bengtson has participated in the Evolution of Human Language Project, based in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Fruitful cowork with Merrit Ruhlen led to the presentation of Global Etymologies, that is, some of the world's oldest words uncovered. In 1994, Bengtson & Ruhlen published the world roots in Global Etymologies at Stanford University. Bengtson has concentrated on unraveling some of the knots which were left in the paleo remainders, such as Basque, Burushaski and Ainu. With new materials he again demonstrated Trombetti’s doctrine on Basque being a branch of the Caucasian languages, and presented the reconstructions for Proto-Basque in relation with Caucasian in 2009. With Blažek he says Sumerian is a branch of Sino-Caucasian. Bengtson has been active as editor of the Mother Tongue journal (1996-2003, 2007- ). This journal reflects much on the proceedings and development of linguistic searching, discovering and critiques made on studies daring deep history (long-range and international). As an expert in the study of prehistory through linguistic evidence or paleolinguistics, Bengtson says, “For biologists monogenesis of Homo sapiens sapiens has been generally accepted. Darwin in 1871 noted that the formation of different languages and different species and the proofs of this gradual process are parallel to each other and is worth being curious about”.

72

Basque Dialects

Bibliography - Some of Bengtson's Papers, Conferences and Works: 1988 Global etymologies and linguistic prehistory. Symposium on Language and Prehistory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, November. 1997 Founder effects in the Dene-Caucasian macro-family. Arrows of Time and Founder Effects in Language Evolution. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, December. 2001 Genetic and cultural linguistic links between Burushaski, the Caucasian languages, and Basque. Third Harvard Round Table on South and Central Asia, Harvard University, Cambridge, May. 2002 Macro-Caucasian Cultural Vocabulary: Evidence for pastoral-agricultural culture. Fourth Harvard Round Table on Ethnogenesis of South and Central Asia, Harvard University, Cambridge, May. 2003 Basque Phonology in a Dene-Caucasian Context. Linguistic Databases and Linguistic Taxonomy Workshop. Santa Fe Institute. January. 2006 A Multilateral Look at Greater Austric. ASLIP conference on Asian and Sahulland Languages, Isolates and Substrates. Harvard University, Oct. 20-21. 2008 Some recent developments in the comparative study of Dene-Sino- Caucasian languages. Проблемы изучения далнего родства языков (к 55-летю С. А. Старостина). [International Conference on Problems in the Study of Distant Relationships of Languages (on the 55th birthday of Sergey A. Starostin)]. Russian State University for the Humanities (РГГУ), Moscow, Russia, 25-28 March. 2008 More on Genetic and Cultural Relations of Burushaski. Eleventh Round Table on the Ethnogenesis of South and Central Asia. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 8-9. 2009 “Dene-Yeniseian” and the Rest of Dene-Caucasian. Athabascan (Dene) Languages Conference. University of California at Berkeley, 10-12 July.

73

Articles 1991 Paleolexicology: A tool toward language origins. In Walburga von Raffler- Engel, Jan Wind, and Abraham Jonker, eds., Studies in Language Origins 2: 175-186. 1991 Some Sino-Caucasian etymologies. In V. Shevoroshkin, ed., Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages (Boch. Br.): 172. 1991 On Dene-Caucasian substratum in Europe. In Shevoroshkin, ed., Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages (Bo. Br. ): 171. 1991 Macro-Caucasian: A historical linguistic hypothesis. In V. Shevoroshkin, ed., Dene -Sino- Caucasian Languages (Bochum: Brockmeyer): 162-170. 1991 Postscript II: Some Sumerian-Dene-Caucasian Comparisons. In Shevoroshkin, ed., Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages (Bochum: Brockmeyer): 158-161. 1992 Macro-Caucasian phonology. In Shevoroshkin, ed., Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind (Bo. Br.). 1992 A case for the Austric affiliation of Ainu. In V. Shevoroshkin, Nostratic, Dene Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind (Bochum: Brockmeyer): 364. 1992 Eve’s dictionary. In V. Shevoroshkin, Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind (Boch. Br.): 474-479. 1992 Global etymologies and linguistic prehistory. In V. Shevoroshkin, Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind (Bochum: Brockmeyer): 480-495. 1994 (with Merritt Ruhlen) Global Etymologies. In M. Ruhlen, On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1994 Edward Sapir and the 'Sino-Dene' Hypothesis. Anthropological Science 102.3: 207-230. 1994 On the genetic classification of Basque, MotherTongue Newsletter 22:31-36. 1995 (with Václav Blažek) Lexica Dene–Caucasica. Central Asiatic Journal 39.1: 11-50; 39.2: 161-164. 1996 Correspondences of Basque and Caucasic final vowels -i/-e/-u/-o, Fontes Linguae Vasconum 71: 7-15. 1997 Ein Vergleich von Buruschaski und Nordkaukasisch. Georgica 20: 88-94. 1997 Basque and the other Dene-Caucasic languages. In Alan K. Melby, ed., The Twenty-third LACUS Forum (Chapel Hill, NC : LACUS): 63-74. 1997 The Riddle of Sumerian: A Dene-Caucasic language? Mother Tongue 3: 63-74. 1997 Long ranger extraordinaire: Sergey A. Starostin, Mother Tongue 3: 99-107. 1998 Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan: A Hypothesis of S.A. Starostin. General Linguistics 36.1/2: 1999 Wider genetic affiliations of the Chinese language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27.1: 1999 Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan: A hypothesis of S.A. Starostin,General Linguistics 36(1/2): 33-49. 1999 Consonantal Ablaut (Apophony) in Proto-Human, Mother Tongue 4 (December)138-140. 2000 (with Václav Blažek) Lexical Parallels Between Ainu and Austric, and Their Implications. Archiv Orientální 68: 2000 Review of I. Čašule, Basic Burushaski Etymologies: The Indo- European and Paleo-Balkanic Affinities of Burushaski. In History of Language 6 (1): 22-26. 2111 Review of V. Blažek, Numerals: Comparative-Etymological Analyses of Numeral Systems and Their Implications. Mother Tongue 6: 182-183. 2001 Review of J.H. Greenberg, Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives. Mother Tongue 6:131-135. 2003 Notes on Basque Comparative Phonology. Mother Tongue 8: 21-39. 2004 Some features of Dene–Caucasian phonology (with special reference to Basque). Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 30.4: 33-54. 2008 Materials for a Comparative Grammar of the Dene-Caucasian (Sino-Caucasian) Languages. In Aspects of Comparative Linguistics, v. 3., pp. 45-118. Moscow: RSUH Publishers.

74

Allan R. Bomhard (1943- )

Allan R. Bomhard, the great American Nostratic expert, accomplished a thoroughgoing study on the Nostratic languages after Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky. Bomhard's most important book on the subject is “A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics with special reference to Indo-European” in four volumes, 2114. In these volumes he presents his own views which include respect for the bases of Nostratic linguistics along with criticism of some aspects of the Moscow School work. Bomhard calls attention to this important point that the way of development of Nostratic linguistics is that same way of development of Indo-European linguistics. He makes clear with ample examples that recourse to reconstructions is not necessary when analyzing the data of individual Nostratic daughter languages and establishing phonological correspondences. Analysis has made possible the demonstration of both regular sound correspondences and the identification and explanation of exceptions. On this basis then the Proto-Nostratic forms have been reconstructed just as has been done in Indo-European studies and as is the procedure still in Comparative-Historical Linguistics. Proto-Indo-European was reconstructed through direct comparison of the “actual attested data” gathered from the daughter languages of the Indo-European group, without first reconstructing

75

the intermediary levels (Proto-Italic, Proto-Greek, etc.). Reconstruction of the various levels is helpful and necessary in following the development of the individual languages closely, and for understanding historically why some features appeared in a language while others were phased out and became extinct. Any additional information of processes in one language can also aid in explanation of what has taken place in another related language. According to Bomhard, sufficient agreements in vocabulary and grammatical formants have been uncovered in the Nostratic daughter languages, not explainable as being due to linguistic borrowing or mere chance, to accept that there exists a genetic relationship and therefore a common origin. As Bomhard’s chart below shows, first Afrasian (Afro-Asiatic / Hamito-Semtic) separated from Nostratic, then Elamo-Dravidian, then Kartvelian, and lastly Eurasiatic. In Bomhard’s view Eurasiatic includes:

1. Indo-European 2. Uralic-Yukaghir 3. Altaic 4. Chukchi-Kamchatkan 5. Gilyak 6. Eskimo-Aleut 7. Tyrrhenian

Bomhard adds Tyrrhenian (Etruscan + Raetic + Lemnian) to the Nostratic language group, but says the Sumerian languages are perhaps directly related to Elamo-Dravidian or descended from a language that in some way was related to Nostratic, and therefore is not a Nostratic language but related to Nostratic. Bomhard has mentioned several cognates of Old Japanese, but leaves open whether Japanese-Korean is related to Altaic and thus to the Nostratic Macrofamily. Illich-Svitych, Dolgopolsky and Starostin consider Korean-Japanese to be Altaic languages. H. Assadian also has shown not only that Korean-Japanese languages are cognate with the Altaic languages, but that the genetic structure of their mtDNA and Y chromosome (non-recombining portion) of the Korean-Japanese peoples are related to those of the Altaic peoples (lecture in ICKPT, 2008).

76

Tyrrhenian Indo-European Uralic- Altaic Chukchi- Gilyak Eskimo- Yukaghir Kamchatkan Aleut Some Nostraticists use the term Nostratic in their own manner, but a non-Nostraticist manner if we go back to Pedersen’s introduction of this term. This term was adopted because of its meaning in Latin: nostrates = 'ours'. This refers back to ourselves, we Homo sapiens sapiens. Some differ in imagining the existence of non-Nostratic languages. Bomhard's suggested scenario of the Nostratic parent language homeland is as follows: “The unified Nostratic parent language may be dated to between 15,000 to 12,000 BCE, that is, at the end of the last Ice Age – it was located in the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus (see map). Beginning around 12,000 BCE, Nostratic began to expand, and, by 10,000 BCE, several distinct dialect groups had appeared. The first to split off was Afrasian. One dialect group spread from the Fertile Crescent to the northeast, eventually reaching Central Asia sometime before 9,000 BCE – this was Eurasiatic. Another dialect group spread eastward into western and central Iran, where it developed into Elamo-Dravidian at about 8,000 BCE. If Nichols is correct in seeing Pre-

77

Kartvelian as having migrated from Central Asia westward below the Caspian Sea to the Caucasus, this would seem to imply that Pre-Kartvelian had first migrated northeastward from the Fertile Crescent along with or as part of Pre-Eurasiatic, that it stopped somewhere along the way, and that it then returned to the Middle East. The early dispersal of the Nostratic languages...” he shows to have occurred, so that they reached the northeastern fringe of Africa and moved past the Iranian plateau towards Central Asia, India, and to the Caucasus area between east of the Black Sea and southeast of the Caspian, by about 8,000 BCE.

Nostratic homeland at about 15,000 BCE.

78

Some of Bomhard’s Works:

1977 "The Indo-European/Semitic Hypothesis Re-examined", Journal of Indo-European Studies5/1:55-99. 1981 "Indo-European and Afroasiatic: New Evidence for the Connection", in: Yoël L. Arbeitmen and Allan R. Bomhard (eds.), Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, part II, pp. 351-474. 1982 Papers from the 3rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics. (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol. 13.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1984 Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto- Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol. 27) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1994 (with C. J. Kern) The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Berlin, New York, NY, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 1996 Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Charleston, SC: SIGNUM Desktop Publishing. 2008 Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary. Leiden and Boston, MA: E. J. Brill. 2 vols. 2010 The Indo-European Elements in Hurrian. On-line: http://www.nostratic.net. 2011 The Nostratic Hypothesis in 2011: Trends and Issues. (JIES Monograph Series, no. 59), Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. 2012 An Introductory Grammar of the Pali Language. Charleston, SC: Charleston Buddhist Fellowship. 2014 A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics with special reference to Indo-European” in four volumes.

79

Monogenesis of Language

on the Horizon of the Post-Metaphysics Hodos

3- At this point, I shall devote space to an overview of the latest scientific historical-comparative linguistic school in the history of linguistics, i.e. the school of Koinoetymology and Phonogenes of Iran(-Europe). This linguistic school was founded by Hodjjat Assadian and some other European linguists in the year 2000 in Finland, and it was later furthered in other countries. In Europe Assadian achieved and followed through on fundamental studies in linguistics and genetics. However because of its bases he named his linguistic school the Iran Linguistic School rather than the “European Linguistic School”.

Prof. Gevork Jaukian Prof. Manfred Mayrhofer Prof. Ahmad Fardid M. R. Assadian

During his youth, Assadian’s fundamental research involved three linguistic schools: the Armenian SSR School, Illich-Svitych’s Moscow School and the Iran School. His familiarisation with linguistics began through his father, M. R. Assadian, who belonged to the linguistic school of Professor Djaukian (1920-2005) in Armenia. Then with due recognition to the importance of the works of the Moscow School, Assadian continued studies with Professor Fardid (1904-1994), founder of the Iran Proto-Communic Linguistic School. In the field of Indo-European linguistics, Assadian was a student of Professor Manfred Mayrhofer.

81

In 1963, before the publication of Illich-Svitych’s Nostratic etymology article in Этимология ( timologija, 1965, pp. 321-73), Gevork Djaukian (Jaukian) demonstrated the Hurru-Urartian (Old Caucasian) languages and Indo-European languages to be cognate based on scientific linguistic laws. Then in 1967 he published proofs that Proto-Indo-European, Kartvelian, Caucasian and Hurru-Urartian are related genetically. Ahmad Fardid also, from 1950 on, proved the Indo-European and Afroasiatic languages to be cognate with many other branches of the world languages. For over 50 years Prof. Fardid worked on the various branches of the world languages and the phonological laws of their inter-relation. His works have not been published up until present; however, Assadian has prepared the comparative linguistics teachings of Prof. Fardid for publication. Fardid’s work was related to the monogenesis of language and he had discovered and unhidden many of the earliest roots. Fardid called these etyma Proto-Communic, i.e., reconstructions of the common roots of all the languages of the world.

Classification of the World Language Superclan

1. Khoisan 2. Congo-Saharan: Niger-Kordofanian Nilo-Saharan 3. Afro-Asiatic 4. Eurasiatic: Indo-European Uralic Altaic Gilyak Chukchi-Kamchatkan Eskiomo-Aleut

Dravidian Kartvelian 5. Austric: Australian Indo-Pacific Australian

6. Dene-Caucasian 9. Amerind

81

3. IRAN SCHOOL

Hodjjat Assadian (1958- )

From 1992 on, after completing research on Sumerian, Assadian concentrated study on the languages of the African continent, i.e. the Khoisan, Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages, and their genetic relations with Proto-Nostratic and Proto-Borean. After rigorously studying the works of the linguistic schools, i.e. Trombetti’s Primogenio, Fardid’s Proto-Communic, the Nostratic of Illich-Svitych, Dolgopolsky, and Bomhard, Sergey Starostin’s Borean, Bengtson & Ruhlen’s Global Etymologies, Koskinen’s NILAL, Hakola’s DURALJAN, and also the works of Möller, Cuny, Brunner, Vitaly Sheveroshkin, Blazhek, Boisson and others, he presented and founded Koinoetymology and laid open the discovery of the early and late Phonogenes in the history of scientific linguistics. In the year 2000, with the participation of specialists in the fields of linguistics and related fields, Assadian founded the “International Committee of Koinoetymology and Post-Metaphysical Thinking” in Helsinki, Paris, Brussels, etc. with no kind of governmental support and completely independently. He is multidisciplinary and a polymath, and therefore he easily recognises the links between the various sciences and benefits from all of them in direction of the demonstration and proof of the unique Old World language of Homo sapiens sapiens in the depths of history. Assadian has taught

82

philosophy, historical-comparative linguistics and human migration molecular biology (genetics) for over 20 years in universities and scientific centers of various countries. His philosophy lectures and teachings, his making clear the inner core of the thinking of the pre-Socratics on the basis of the language of ancient Greece, and its precise classification, are some of his fundamental achievements, the like of which still cannot be observed in any of the books on the history of philosophy. In addition, Assadian is also one of the prominent specialists in the field of Islamic Philosophy, Mysticism and Gnosticism. In the field of genetics and molecular biology research, Assadian’s work refers to the work one of the world’s most eminent molecular biologists, Professor Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is the most well-known expert in genetics confirming the monogenesis of languages of the world on the basis of the common genetic origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. Nostraticist, Boreanist and Koinoetymologist linguists conduct their research along the lines of the genetic work of Cavalli-Sforza. In 2005 Assadian finalised the latest genetic classification of the languages of the world on the basis of historical-comparative linguistics and mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) and NRY (non-recombining portions of the Y chromosome) in molecular biology, in the Committee of Koinoetymology and Post-Metaphysical Thinking, Finland. In 2011, he also presented the table of all the human genetic haplogroups from L0 to L6 with the tree with all the branches of their languages in the seminar of the Committee of Koinoetymology in Paris, and later in Bologna and Florence lectures, he presented the latest findings on the role of the mutation in the FOXP2 gene and its relation to the origin of language. In searching for speech-related genes on one hand, and for brain centers related to the faculty of speech on the other, some progress has been made. Based on several cases of speech impairment or developmental verbal dyspraxia occurring within a single family, it became possible to conclude that the situation was connected with a mutation in the FOXP2 gene which was transferred to each individual with the impairment. The individuals involved have no cognitive deficiencies but are unable to coordinate and produce the required movements needed in speech. Analysis of Broca’s area and the putamen in these individuals show them to be underactivated when they perform silent verb generation and spoken word repetition, and this also strengthens the possibility of these areas being related to speech. The FOXP2 gene has therefore been called “the language gene”. The gene has been shown to affect development of other parts of the body as well, such as lungs, etc. However, there is evidence that the deficiency caused by a mutation in this gene is not simply the result of motor disfunction. For example, the cortical and basal / ganglia regions of the brains of these individuals show functional abnormalities, and this too shows that the problems evolved extend beyond the motor system.

83

FOXP2 Gene

Mitochondrial DNA

84

First Migration

85

86

87

The Y-chromosome haplogroup tree with nomenclature, indicating the branch-defining mutations screened for by using SNaPshot minisequencing panels and RFLP assays in the HGDDRU laboratory. Markers screened using SNaPshot blue color Markers with both SNaPshot and RFLP assays available red color Markers screened using RFLP assays black color

In 2012, Assadian published the Khoisan-Amerind Koinoetymological Dictionary basing his work on the discoveries of molecular biology, the classification of the world languages and historical-comparative linguistics. The Khoisan click-languages belong to the oldest human genetic haplogroup, mtDNA L0 (L0d, L0k, etc.), NRY M 91, which have been shown to be cognate with the languages of the peoples populating the Americas, the last point of human migrations, that is, those peoples speaking Amerind languages, belonging to mtDNA haplogroup L3 (A, C, D, B), NRY haplogroup M 168. Thus, the genetic relation and being cognate of the languages of the first and last geographical points have been demonstrated and proven in scientific historical-comparative linguistics. In 2003, Alec Knight, Lev Zhivotovsky and Merrit Ruhlen et al. (Current Biology, vol. 13, 464-473) demonstrated in a paper on the genetic diversity among the peoples speaking click languages that the existence of clicks in languages bears no relation to the genetic structure of Homo sapiens

88

sapiens and is not dependent on a gene. This matter reinforces Assadian’s view on the fact that clicks existed in all languages, but through the changes in relations of production of communities based on hunting-foraging leading to agricultural clans and later through the appearance of new kinds of relations of productions, the clicks have undergone changes according to specific laws. George Starostin, renowned specialist of the Khoisan languages, has worked in depth on and presented tables on the clickological changes and proto-clicks in the Khoisan languages.

mtDNA and NRY Haplogroup Correspondences

mtDNA NRY Population

L0 A Khoisan Lgs. & People in South Africa

L1 / L2 B Pygmies in Africa

L3 E1, E2, E1b1a Sub-Saharan Afr., specially Bantu Lgs.

CZ / C / Z, D, G, A, B, F O, N, C3 East Asia and Siberia

R, P, Q K, M Oceania

HV/ H / V, JT / J / T, U/ K R, I, J, E1b1b Europe, West Asia, North Africa

A, X, Y, C, D Q, C3 East Siberia, Americas

(mtDNA= mitochondrial DNA ; NRY= Non-Recombining portion of the Y chromosome)

mtDNA

L0a L0k L0d L1 L2 L3 M N NRY haplogroups

Simplified Homo sapiens sapiens mtDNA Phylogeny (Non-Recombining portion of the Y chromosome)

89

91

It is with precision in these matters that H. Assadian looks at the Khoisan languages as the nearest languages to the most ancient language of Homo sapiens sapiens and points out that the relation between the Khoisan and the Amerind languages is extremely important based on the fact that the Khoisan languages and the peoples of haplogroup L0 have been the beginning point and the origin of humans. Finally different peoples developed out of L0 into L1 and L2 until L6. Then some mtDNA L3 / NRY M168 migrated out of Africa at different time periods. It is the speakers of Amerind languages who reached the farthest geographical point, that is Chile. Therefore the relation between the Khoisan languages and the Amerind languages exists as a relation between the beginning and the end. So in the language of molecular biology, the aforesaid relation is between mtDNA, haplogroup L0d, L0k and mtDNA, haplogroup L3 - A, C, D, B, which has been proven in genetic science, and H. Assadian has shown this matter clearly and precisely in scientific linguistics. Therefore, according to this doctrine, all the languages and world protos lie in the interval between the Khoisan as the first and the Amerind as the last languages in geographical distance. The World Mother Tongue Protos were coined Koinoetyma ( μα, from koinos “common” + etymos ) at a 1999 Kuopio University linguistics seminar by H. Assadian. In Bologna, 2010, he reminded that the responsibility of wissenschaftliche linguistics is to consider the precision in reference to humans that they belong to the genetic haplogroups of AMH mtDNA and NRYs. In the genetic classification of languages, H. Assadian considers not only linguistics and molecular biology, but also political economy, production-relations, and other sciences. H. Assadian remains in complete agreement with Cavalli-Sforza: “For geneticists like us, it seems natural to think that modern languages derive mostly or completely from a single language spoken in East Africa around 111 kya, given that today’s genes also derive from that population.” (Nature Genetics Supplement, 2003, volume 33, p. 27).

Possible routes of modern human migrations from Africa to Indian subcontinent (Tamang-Singh-Thangaraj, 2012)

91

1 Migration of Homo sapiens sapiens from point of origin (red colour) to the rest of the world

Homo sapiens sapiens mtDNA Haplogroups African Languages 150000-200000 BCE

92

AFRICAN LANGUAGES

Khoisan Language Phyla Nilo-Saharan Language Phyla

Niger-Kordofanian Language Phyla Afroasiatic Language Phyla

93

Hodjjat Assadian has created and launched a field of study with the uncovering of Phonogenes and the determination of their relations to human genetic migrations. The three resources and three parts of H. Assadian's thinking on language are based on these three principles: 1- Post-metaphysical thinking and the hegemonia (= Arabic: hekmat / ) of history of

post-metaphysics (based on Produktionsverhältnisse) in opposition to the philosophy (=metaphysics) of history. 2- Comparative historical linguistics of all languages of the world based on the monogenesis of language in two forms, from the particular to the general (the Koinoetyma) and from the general to the particular (Phonogenes), with reference to the non-metaphysical semantics of pre-metaphysics and post-metaphysics. 3- Molecular biological and genetic classification of Homo sapiens sapiens and correlation of this classification with language.

The difference between Assadians’s doctrine of Koinoetymology and Phonogenes and the Nostratic of Illich-Svitych and Eurasiatic of Greenberg lies in this, that with his deep knowledge relating to history on one hand and to the history of thinking including pre-metaphysics, metaphysics and post-metaphysics on the other hand, alongside his formation in molecular biology and genetics, he has been able to discover a coherent composite system in the field of historic-comparative linguistics on the basis of the human genetic structure and the relations of the modes of production. This is why Professor Sasse pointed out that “Assadian’s view is the most scientific multilateral perspective which has been presented with utmost precision in the history of comparative linguistics” (Sasse, Hans Jürgen, 2010, p.c.).

94

Language Phyla of the World

Based on Human Genetic Migration and Historical Comparative Linguistics Document of International Committee of Koinoetymology and Post-Metaphysical Thinking

H. Assadian 2005

Violet: mtDNA Haplogroup L0 / Non-Recombining portion of Y-Chromosome M 91/ Khoisan

Yellow: mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, (L3) / Non-Recombining portion of Y-Chromosome M 60 / Congo-Saharan

Green: mtDNA Haplogroup L3, M, N / Non-Recombining portion of Y-Chromosome M 168 / Borean

95

Assadian’s language doctrine in the field of post-metaphysics involves “the uncovering and unhiddenness (ἄληθεια / alētheia) of language and its truth (ε μος / etymos) in the historical cycles and phases”. He shows that with due attention to the achievements of all sciences in the horizon of the post-metaphysical thinking, this matter is neither a theory nor is it a hypothesis, but rather this matter is itself in reality a doctrine. H. Assadian names the way of post-metaphysical thinking hodos in opposition to methodos. In his view, any method belongs to the history of metaphysics, and metaphysics in essence is meta-hodos. H. Assadian's hodos of proto reconstruction is based on two principles: 1- Koinoetyma reconstruction based on historical-comparative linguistics (according to the Moscow School). This implies a comparative method moving from the particular to the general. This method of research in word correspondences began in languages and has reached the protos concerned. 2- Phonogene reconstruction In H. Assadian's view the most ancient Koinoetyma are of the form: V/ VC / CV/ VCV, but even the reconstruction of these Koinoetyma are reconstructions based upon modern languages, ie. the languages left to us as historical documents, or official languages which have been in use with documents surviving up until today. Therefore, in order to convert the Koinoetymas into World Mother-Tongue Protos, the main attention and base must refer to the click languages in Africa so that the correct and precise Koinoetymas may be reconstructed. This is because all human groups have first experienced the original phase of living as gatherers (combined with hunting) of food, and the clicks refer to languages of communities whose living and lives resemble closer to very early elementary phases of the lives of the ancestors of all peoples on the earth. Today only a relatively short time has passed since some of the speakers of these click languages have come under the influence of modern living and have changed their styles of living; the disappearance of the clicks in languages even with these changes in life modes sometimes takes thousands of years. Assadian indicates these protos exist as ‘phonogenic units’. For example, an ancient proto-word such as *kala meaning “fish” is made of the combination of three phonogenes: ka “food ” + a “water ” + la “light and shining ” So the proto-word *kala means “food in water which we distinguish through the light and shining of its scales in water and capture with a spear” (cf. Sumerian kua , ku6 “fish”= kú “food” + a “water”, and li9 “to glisten, to shine ”).

96

Thus the Koinoetyma *kala is itself three phonogenes. That is, each Koinoetyma is a composition which we today call and consider a “word”, and exists as a sentence in very ancient languages: KOINOETYMA: *kVlV "fish, big fish, whale” (Assadian, 2118) LATE PROTO-PHONOGENE: *kV “food” +*V “water ”+*lV “light and shining”(Assadian, 2119) EARLY PROTO-PHONOGENE: *≠ ; * !kV “food”+*V “water ”+*lV “light and shining” 1. mtDNA haplogroup L0 (L0d , L0k) / NRY M 60 : Khoisan: !Kung: !karro “a long fish” , ≠ari “silver fish” 2. mtDNA haplogroup L1 , L2 / NRY M91 : Nilo-Saharan: Koman: Uduk: góórr “to catch fish with hook and stick”, àgórá “fish hook” 3. mtDNA haplogroup L3 / NRY M168 : A. Proto-Afroasiatic: *kwVl - , *kl- “fish, big fish”: B. Proto-Dravidian: *koll - “fish” C. Proto-Kartvelian: *ḳalmax - “fish” D. Proto-Indo-European: *kʷal - ,*k wol - ,*(a)skʷal - “fish, whale” [Avestic: kara - "a mythical fish"; Gilaki (North Iranian dial.): kuli "a kind of fish"] E. Proto-Uralic: *kala "fish" F. Proto-Altaic: *k ʻolV, *k ʻialV "fish, big fish, whale" G. Proto-Chukchee-Kamchatkan: *kalúal "горбу ша / a kind of salmon fish" H. Gilyak (Nivkh): q ʻol "a kind of fish", qʻalm "small whale" I. Eskimo-Aleut: Proto-Eskimo: *iqaɬuγ "fish, salmon fish" J. Caucasian: Sumerian: kua , ku6 "fish" (kú "food" + a "water"+ li9 "to glisten, shine") K. Proto-Amerind: *k ʼal, *kal "fish" After separating the primary non-combined Koinoetyma, Assadian proceeds in the search for the root of the Koinoetyma in African languages with special attention to the Khoisan languages and then approximately determines the clicks or proto-clicks and phonogenes. Since the structural base of clicks in language refers back to hunter-gatherer clans, with their transformation from hunter-gatherer clans and tribes to agricultural tribes, the clicks lose their original function - some disappear and others transform into other phones. Thus Assadian agrees with Alec Knight, et al.: “The deep genetic divergence between the click-speaking groups is consistent with the hypothesis that clicks are an ancient element of human language.” (Current Biology, 2113, Vol. 13, p. 471a) It seems that Assadian’s particular attention to phonogenes cannot be unrelated to his vast studies of the Afro-Asiatic languages, and especially the Arabic language. For years Assadian has studied Khalil ibn Ahmad Forahidi’s “Ketab ol- ʕAyn / ” and Ibn Djenni’s theory of “The

97

Greater Derivation / ”. His resolute attention to semantics fits with thorough study of the books “The Differences of Words / ” in Arabic linguistics in the Islamic Middle Ages, and works of scholars such as Abu Helal ʕAskari, Ṯaʕālabi, Sajastāni, Ṯābet, Ibn Fāres, Ibn Dorostvay, Abu Ali Fārsi, Siuṭi, etc. Therefore, the phonological scope of the languages of Homo sapiens sapiens divides into these three divisions: 1- kinds of vocals, diphthongs and consonants 2- kinds of clicks 3- combinations of clicks and phones or sounds From this we see that in H. Assadian's doctrine: 1- In early phonogenes usually clicks exist. 2- In late proto-phonogenes the clicks gradually disappear. 3- Usually in Koinoetymas the clicks disappear completely. On this Assadian reminds us that even today in dialogues of some of the modern languages clicks still exist; however, linguists have paid scarce attention to clicks and dialectologists have barely taken note of them in their publications or dictionaries of dialectology. The clear example of this matter, Assadian notes, is the click /, existing in the Persian (Farsi) colloquial language: ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: ****/ V negative “no, not” Late Proto-Phonogene: ***/ V ; *** / nV ; *** / ŋV , *** nV negative “no, not” Koinoetyma: **/V ; ** / nV ; ** nV ; **ŋV ; **VnV negative “no, not” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: */ V ; * / nV ; * nV ; *ŋV ; *Vn , *Vŋ II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60 : CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *nV “no” negative 1. Niger-Congo: Proto-Volta-Congo: *na “no” 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *na : ; * (a )na : negative particle

98

III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *nV , *VnV negative 1. Elamite: ani , inni “no, not” 2. Proto-Kartvelian: *nu - “not (prohibitive particle)” 3. Proto-Indo-European: *nē , *ne , *nei negative particle ; *ne , *n negative prefix [Persian: na “no, not”; Persian colloquial: / ; / V ; / nV “no, not” 4. Proto-Uralic: *nV “not / nicht” / Yukaghir: ńe , ńo - , ń , ne 5. Proto-Altaic: *ā ni “not, negative verb” 6. Proto-Eskimo: *nV - “no (negation); *- ǝnʁi - ʁ - , *- ǝnʁi - t negat. affix: “to stop doing, not (imperat.)”; *- (ŋ )i - negative affix (no, without, have no more, to lack etc.); *VŋV (r ) “don’t do it, stop” 7. Afroasiatic: Egyptian: n , nn , nw , ny “not” ; ỉn negative adverb Proto-Cushitic: *nV / Proto-Semitic: *ʔayin “non-existence; not” 8. Caucasian: Proto-Sumerian: *nV “not” & negat. prefix / Basque: nehola “not at all, in no way” 9. Austric: Proto-Miao Yao: *n - negative Proto-Austronesian: *ini “no, not”

H. Assadian points to the need for an overall increase in dialectical awareness in historical semantics. In general, work accomplished up to the present includes no indication of the changes in the relation between the Unterbau and Überbau occurring during the various cycles of humans living through history. Numerous semantic mistakes in the kinship vocabularies in Proto-Nostratic and Proto-Borean with regard to the 12 to 15 thousand year time depth strike the eye. For example, we know that 12,000 to 15,000 years ago in the matriarchal polygamous communities, the maternal kinship relations of a child were clear and determining. Assadian’s criticism of semantics involves the differentiation between dynamic and static semantics. Dynamic semantics reveals that many words in each cycle of history bear a new burden of meaning based on the totality of the relations that has changed within that system, while in static semantics the meanings of the kinship vocabularies are taken to be static. For example, in the patriarchal historical phase in the patriarchal communities, which is the last phase of das Gemeinwesen and after that, during the cycles of Gesellschaft up until present, paternal kinship relations are clear and determining. In static semantics, meanings for kinship vocabularies in the patriarchal communities, none of which have appeared previous to 7,000 years ago in written and unwritten languages through history, are given as meanings for all the cycles in history. Most of the meanings given for the kinship words

99

reconstructed as protos going as far back as 10-15,000 years ago should refer back to the matriarchal phase of das Gemeinwesen, while those same meanings of the patriarchal phase are assumed by static semantics to have existed during the matriarchal cycle. In sum, all the findings of the research of ethnology and anthropology have not been given due consideration by linguists. Assadian has made the first step in this direction: mtDNA Haplogroup L0, L1, L2, L3; NRY – M 60, 91, 168:

Koinoetyma: *VpV , *VbV “communal position of the mother during the matriarchal phase of Gemeinwesen; grandmother, mother; the concept of father during the patriarchal clan phase of the Gesellschaft cycle” [However, in Dolgopolsky's reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic: *Ɂaba ; *Ɂap a , the meaning of this same root is given as “daddy, father” (2118, no. 5), and in Bomhard Ɂab(b)a ; Ɂap h (ph)a as "father, forefather (nursery word)” (2118, no. 534) and in S. Starostin as Proto-Borean: HVPV “father” (Starling, 2116)]. I. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168:

A. Proto-Afro-Asiatic: *Ɂab - "father" B. Proto-Dravidian: *appV , *appV- , *apV , *apV- "father" C. Proto-Indo-European: *Ɂab - , *Ɂap - , *Ɂapp - "father" D. Proto-Uralic: *VppV "father-in-law" E. Proto-Altaic: *ap ha , *aba "father" F. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan: *VpV , *VppV "grandfather, daddy, uncle" G. Proto-Eskimo: *apa , *apa "father, grandfather" H. Etruscan: apa "father, husband" I. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *ɁŭṗV "father": a. Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *VpV "father" b. Proto-Yenisseian: *Ɂob "father" c. Proto-Caucasian: *ɁŭṗV "father" d. Proto-Sumerian: *ab , *aba , *abba "Vater" J. Proto-Austric: *aba "father" (PAN) K. Proto-Amerind: *VpV "man, person, husband"

111

II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60:

1. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *aɓo - "grandmother, woman" Koman: Uduk: àɓom "woman" Saharan: Zaghawa: abo "grandmother" For: abo "grandmother" [Semantic note: Proto-Nilo-Saharan *aɓo - "grandmother, woman" refers to matriarchal communal meanings.] 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *àp ʼ à "father" (Ehret, 2001, 410, no. 700) Proto-Central Sudanic: *ap ʼ a "father" Kunama: afa "grandfather" Sahelian: Kunuri: ava "father" Kir-Abbaian: Daju: Shatt: app "father" [Note: Cf. with Niger-Congo: Bantu *- bààbá "father"] III. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: Proto-Khoisan: *ab "father" (H. Assadian, 2007) Proto-!Wi : *aw "father": Seroa : w (Wu.) ; G ne : w Proto-Khoe : *àb "father; old man" Proto-Khoekhoe: *abo "father, forefather": Proto-West Khoe : *àb "father; old man"

111

The Essence of Etymology

in

Post-Metaphysical Thinking

For H. Assadian as post-metaphysical thinker, etymo-logia essentially is not a part of linguistics and subsequently not a part of historical comparative linguistics. Rather, etymology is made up of: ετυμ -λ για / etymo-logia. This means “the solidary knowledge and originary and archaic connaissance in the cycle of Gemeinwesen / the true gathering (λ γ ς / Logos) with respect to etymos (ετυ μ ς)”. For H. Assadian, etymology is none other than the “Wissenschaft der Wahrheit / knowledge of truth” (= etymology). The ranking of etymology as subgroup of linguistics and even historical comparative linguistics, makes it subsidiary to archaic and originary etymology which means gemeinwesentliche Wissenschaft des Etymos (“communal cycle solidary knowledge of the etymos / truth”). This matter becomes precisely understood when we attend to the fact that M. Heidegger used to translate ancient Greek α-ληθεια, which is usually translated as Wahrheit (truth), as Un-verborgenheit (un-hiddenness / unconcealment), to show that pre-Socratic thinkers of Greece did not know truth to consist in correspondence (in the history of Philosophy/=metaphysics), but that truth for them was unconcealing and unhiddenness (α-ληθεια). However, the distinction between the view of Heidegger and that of H. Assadian lies in this, that Heidegger took αληθ α itself to be truth, while for H. Assadian αληθ α is not truth itself, but rather it is through αληθ α (unhiddenness) that the essence of truth and truth itself which consists in ε μος manifests and appears. So ε μο-ς, and not α-ληθεια, is truth itself. Thus, for H. Assadian truth consists in ε μος itself which is realised (west in German) through unhiddenness / αληθεια and in just this way for him etymology is solidary communal knowledge and

112

connaissance in the place of true gathering (= das Logon / τ λ γ - → das Gemeinwesen in the matriarchal period) through αληθεια in relation with die Etyma / η μ-α. Another matter having basic significance, which Assadian presented for the first time in the history of scientific linguistics, concerns the “essence of language” in post-metaphysical thinking. He sees the whole history of philosophy and metaphysics as being the history of forgetfulness of the essence and truth of language. His questions in this field also are fundamental questions. To sum up his thinking in a few words, philosophical thinking began with ι ο ον or “what is (are) being(s)”, and “what (is it that) is?” ι ο εσ ι, and from Socrates and Plato to Hegel and Nietzsche and through its development up until our times, it has retained its absolute hegemony. He sees the history of philosophical and metaphysical thinking from Socrates to Nietzsche as being essentially the history of nihilism, and in order to surmount and pass over philosophy and metaphysics in the dimension of the questioning on “the essence of language”, he poses the negational question in the horizon of post-metaphysical thinking in opposition to the affirmational question of the history of philosophy and metaphysics. His negational question is thus: “Who is language?” He knows the fundamental question on the essence of language, “Who is”, to be in opposition to the “What is” of metaphysical thinking, because with ι ο εσ ι (“What is”) of the metaphysics and philosophy of Greece, the whole as whole is reduced and falls to the station and dignity of whatness, to the dignity of a thing and thingness, and in this way chosification (treating as a thing) appears with metaphysics in history. Throughout the 2500 year history of philosophy and metaphysics, language and its essence also have fallen to the station and dignity of a thing (thingness). Any answer given to the philosophical question “What is language?” a priori has considered language as “a thing”. River, mountain, tree, and the galaxies, etc. are matters which have become realised in the external world and their being is originarily not dependent upon the being of humans. Language, however, is not a matter such as river, mountain, etc. Humans have named all things with regard to relation, within the forms and modes of multilateral production relations they bear in the processes of their lives, and based on this naming, they would delve and penetrate to the truth they attributed to the world (total). In this way, the truth of each name, in each mode of social relations, is the etymos of that name. It is therefore that in Assadian’s doctrine, etymology consists in the discovery and finding of the truth of names in the cycles and phases of history of humans.

113

Archaic Grammar

Grammar in the old world and in the depths of history is one of the basic problems of long-range linguistic studies. Trombetti, in 1908, in the Saggi di Glottologia Comparata Generale, I Pronomi Personali, revealed and made clear the common grammatical forms of all the languages of the world. After Trombetti, Vladimir Dybo derived and published the common grammar of the Nostratic languages of Illich-Svitych in the introduction to the first volume of Illich-Svitych’s book, Опыт сравнения ностратических языков / An Attempt at a Comparison of the Nostratic Languages, which was published in 1971. After this, Dolgopolsky published his Nostratic Grammar. [1984 On personal pronouns in the Nostratic languages / 2005 Nostratic Grammar: Synthetic or Analytic?] In 1994, Bomhard and Kerns, in the introduction to the book, Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship, published their Nostratic grammar. In 2000, Greenberg published the common grammar of the Eurasiatic languages in the first volume of Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. In 2011, Assadian finalised the common grammar for all the languages of the world based on historical comparative linguistics and human molecular biology (mtDNA / NRY) under the title, Ge-mein-wesentliche Archeo-genetic Grammar. Below are some samples:

Migration of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa to the rest of the world

114

Archeogenetic Phonogenes of Personal Pronouns and Negative Forms

in das Gemeinwesen on the Basis of NRY and mtDNA

Pronoun: “I, my, me” 1st person pronoun singular mtDNA L0 L1, L2 (L3) L3 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NRY M 91 M 60 M 168 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Meaning Khoisan Congo-Saharan Borean Koinoetyma Late Proto-Phonogene Early Proto-Phonogene _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I, me *m *m *mV *mV *mV *mV ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I, me *ŋ ~ *n *nV,*VnV *nV *nV *nV *nV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I, me *Ti *tV *tV *tV *tV _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I, me *sV *cV *cV *cV *cV *cV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Pronoun: “we, our, us” 1st person pronoun plural mtDNA L0 L1, L2 (L3) L3 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NRY M 91 M 60 M 168 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Meaning Khoisan Congo-Saharan Borean Koinoetyma Late Proto-Phonogene Early Proto-Phonogene _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ we, our *sV *sV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ we, our *m *mV, *VmV *mV *m,*mV,*VmV *m ,*mV, *VmV *m,*mV, *VmV __________________________________________________________________________________________ we *Vn ,*VnV *nV,*Vn,*VnV *nV *nV,*Vn,*VnV *nV ,*Vn,*VnV *nV ,*Vn, *VnV __________________________________________________________________________________________ we, us *wV *wV ,*VwV *wV *wV ,*VwV *wV ,*VwV *wV ,*VwV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ we, us *bV ,*VbV *bV *pV *bV , *VbV *bV , *VbV *bV ,*VbV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ we, us *tV *tV *tV *tV *tV *tV _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

115

Negative mtDNA L0 L1, L2 (L3) L3 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NRY M 91 M 60 M 168 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Meaning Khoisan Congo-Saharan Borean Koinoetyma Late Proto-Phonogene Early Proto-Phonogene _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ “no, not” */ nV *nV *nV ,*VnV */V ;*/nV */V ;*//V ;*/nV ;*//nV */V ;*//V *nV ;*ŋV *!nV ;*/ŋV ;*≠nV,*VnV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ “no, not” *mV ,*VmV *mV *mV *mV ; *VmV *mV ;*VmV *mV ;*VmV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ negative *bV *bV *PV *bV *bV *bV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ “no, not” */ kV,*// kV, *kV *kV *kV *kV *kV */ kV, *// kV ,*kV _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ negative *tV *tV *tV *tV ; *Vt *tV ; *Vt *tV ; *Vt

1. negative ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene : ****mV ; ****VmV negative “no, not” Late Proto-Phonogene : ***mV ; ***VmV negative “no, not” Koinoetyma: **mV ; **VmV negative “no, not” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91 : KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *mV , *VmV negative II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60 : CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *mV negative 1. Proto-Niger-Congo: *ma “no” 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *ma negative prefix of verbs: III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168:

116

BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *mV prohibitive / negative particle 1. Proto- Indo-European: *mē part. prohibit. 2. Proto-Altaic: *ma a negative particle 3. Proto-Kartvelian: *ma - “not” (prohibitive) 4. Proto-Dravidian: *ma - l- [negative morpheme] 5. Proto-Afroasiatic: *mV negative particle 6. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *ma ( ~ - ǝ ) “not”, prohibitive particle 7. Proto-Austric: *mV negative particle 8. Amerind: Algonquian: Blackfoot: mii-n negative (used only in imperatives) References: Biberstein-Kazimirski, 1860, II, 1O52, 1163 / Zaxarov, 1875, 163 / Grierson, 1899-1928, 487 / Brugmann, 19O4, 111, 612-614 / Prellwitz, 1905, 292 / Ramstedt, JSFOu XXIII, 19O6, 24 / Brockelmann, 19O8-13, I 5OO § 253e / Marr, 191O, 168 /Möller , 1911, 158 / Foulkes, 1915 / Erman-Grapow, 1921, 59 / Ramstedt, 1924, MSFOu LII, 198-199, 21O-211 / Erman-Grapow, 1926-1963, II, 3-4 / Poppe, 1927, II, IANS,1266 / Walde- Pokorny, 1927-1932, II, 236-237 /Bleek, 1929, 132, 13 / Poppe, 1938, 87, 169 / Mostaert, 1941-1944, 88 / Sharaᶚeniᶚe, 1946, 289-327 / Ramstedt, 1949-1953, 150 /Boisacq, 1950, 631 / Hauer, 1952-1955, 960 / Frisk, 1954-1972, 222, 274 / Poppe, 1955, 29O / Bleek, 1956 / Mayrhofer, 1956-1980, II, 614 / Gardiner, 1957, 567 / Whiteley, 1958, 47 / Pokorny, 1959, 703 / Krause-Thomas, 196O-1964, 399-4OO, 172 /Solta, 196O, 399-4OO /Abraham, 1962, 168, 271-2 / Faulkner, 1962, 100 / Ligeti, 1962, AOH XIV, 22 /Ligeti, 1963, AOH XVI, 135 / Hoffmann, 1963, 22, 178-8O, 233 / Dolgopolsky, 1964 / Klimov, 1964, 124-125 / Hofmann, 1966, 199 / Tucker-Bryan, 1966, 548 / Martin-Lee-Chang, 1967, 635, 647 /Chantraine, 1968-1980, II, 692 / Menges, 1968, 144 /Frisk, 1970-1973, II, 222 / Hava, 197O, 737 / Illich-Svitych, 1971-1984, II, 56-7, no. 290 / Weiers, 1972, 143 / Pfeiffer, 1972 / Levitskaja, 1976, 53 / Cheremisov, 1973, 119-120 / Reutt-Kogan, 1973, BMJA, 123 / Van Windekens, 1976-1982, I, 282-283 /Kiyose, 1977, 123, no. 472 / Heine, 198O, 19O-195, 232-236 / Haltod-Hangin-Kassatkin-Lessing, 1982, 141, 153 / Heine, 1982, 55 / Vycichl, 1983, 118-119 /Burrow-Emeneau, 1984, no. 4743 / Hayward, 1984, 261-265 / Huld, 1984, 94-95 / Mann, 1984-1987, 738 / Gudjedjiani-Palmaitis, 1985, 2O9, 221 / Parker-Hayward, 1985, 258-78 / Adams, 1988, 19 / Diakonoff, 1988, 83, §4.4.3 / Jungraithmayr, 1991, 61 / Mayrhofer, 1992-1996, II, 343 / Mous, 1993, 151-152 / Bomhard-Kerns, 1994, 644, no. 523 / Ehret, 1995, 301, no. 572 / Fähnrich-Sardshweladse 1995, 227 / Hannig, 1995, 312 / Mallory-Adams, 1997, 395 / Johanson-Csató, 1998 / Klimov, 1998, 113 / Orël, 1998, 274 / Pillinger-Galboran, 1999, 214 / Adams, 1999, 445-446 / Greenberg, 2000-2, 213-14, no. 57 / Hakola, 2000, no. 437 / Starostin, 2001, no. 631 / Fleming, 2002, 40 / Blench, 2003, p. 13, no. 238 / Starostin-Dybo-Mudrak, 2003, 893 / Assadian-Hakola, 2003, no. 266 / Fähnrich, 2007, 277 / Dolgopolsky, 2008, no. 1353 /Assadian, H., 2011 / Dolgopolsky, 2012, no. 1353 / Militarëv, 2012, 80-81 / Tavakoli, 2014 .

2. Negative “No, Not” ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: ****/ V negative “no, not” Late Proto-Phonogene: ***/ V ; *** / nV ; *** / ŋV , *** nV negative “no, not” Koinoetyma: **/V ; ** / nV ; ** nV ; **ŋV ; **VnV negative “no, not” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: */V ;* / nV ; * nV ; *ŋV ; *Vn , *Vŋ

117

II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60 : CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *nV “no” negative 1. Niger-Congo: Proto-Volta-Congo: *na “no” 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *na : ; * (a )na : negative particle III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *nV , *VnV negative 1. Elamite: ani , inni “no, not” 2. Proto-Kartvelian: *nu - “not (prohibitive particle)” 3. Proto-Indo-European: *nē , *ne , *nei negative particle ; *ne , *n negative prefix [Persian: na “no, not”; Persian colloquial: / ; / V ; / nV “no, not” 4. Proto-Uralic: *nV “not / nicht” Yukaghir: ńe , ńo - , ń , ne 5. Proto-Altaic: *ā ni “not, negative verb” 6. Proto-Eskimo: *nV - “no” (negation); *- ǝnʁi - ʁ - , *- ǝnʁi - t negat. affix: “to stop doing, not (imperat.)”; *- (ŋ )i - negative affix (no, without, have no more, to lack etc.);*VŋV (r ) “don’t do it, stop” 7. Afroasiatic: Egyptian: n , nn , nw , ny “not” ; ỉn negative adverb Proto-Cushitic: *nV Proto-Semitic: *ʔayin “non-existence; not” 8. Caucasian: Sumerian: na “not”, nu “not”, nu - negative prefix Basque: nehola “not at all, in no way” 9. Austric: Proto-Miao Yao: *n - negative Proto-Austronesian: *ini “no, not” References: Planta, 1892-1897, I, 319-32O, 369-37O, 563-4& II, 469-47O, 676, 726 /Bartholomae, 19O4, 1O3O-1035 / Buck, 19O4, 32O, 339 / Erman-Grapow, 1921, 76 / Erman-Grapow, 1926-1963, 2, 195 / Walde- Pokorny, 1927-1932, II, 319-320 / Bleek,1929, 62 / Feist, 1939, 373, 374, 374-375, 375,516 /Endzelins, 1943, 214 / Boisacq, 1950, 1, 667-668 / Haenisch, 1952, 3OO- 301 / Frisk, 1954-1972, I, 1 & II, 314-315 / Lewis-Pedersen, 1954, § 8 / Collinder, 1955, 38 / Fraenkel, 1955-1965, 48-49, 488-489, 491 / Mayrhofer, 1956-1980, I, 13; II, 120 / de Vries, 1957-1961, 415 / Gardiner 1957, 572 & 574 / Pokorny 1959, 756-758 / Faulkner, 1962, 125 & 134 / Dolgopolsky, 1964, no. 3 / Klimov, 1964, 148-149 / Klimov, 1964, 148-149 / Vasmer (Fasmer), l964-1973, III, 52, 71-22 /Walde-Hofmann, 1965-1972, I, 686-687; II, 150-151, 152 / Hofmann, 1966, 1, 217 / Onions, 1966, 604, 612, 615, 616,956-957 / Tereshchenko, 1966, 389, 452, 431-432 / Kluge-Mitzka, 1967, 510, 803 / Topuria, 1967, 90 / Chantraine 1968-1980, I, 1-2; II, 732 /Schade, 1969, 647-648, 1OO1 / Frisk, 1970-1973, I, 1; II, 313 / Lytkin-Guljajev, 197O, 196-197 / Klein, 1971, 489, 498, 795 / Illič-Svityč, 1971-1984, II, 56-57, no. 290 / Klimov, 1971(1973), 173 / Burrow, 1973, 283 / Holthausen, 1974, 376 / Trubachev-Zhuravlev, 1974-2OO7, XXIV, 91-93 & XXV,

118

96-7 / Kluge-Mitzka, 1975, 813 / Černý, 1976, 113 / Van Windekens, 1976-1982, I, 282-283 / De Vries, 1977, 406 / Ernout-Meillet, 1979, 432-433 / Elsie, 1979, 116 / Evans-Thomas, 1981, 1 344 / Tischler, 1982, 56 / Walde-Hofmann, 1982, I, 686-687 & II, 15O-151, 166 / Chantraine, 1983, 1-2, 336, 75O-751 / Vycichl, 1983 , 135 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1984, I, 225 / Mann, 1984-1987, 829, 831, 855 / Gudjedjiani-Palmaitis, 1985, 237 / Hemon, 1985, 593 / Kobler, 1985, 742 / Watkins, 1985, 43-44 / Rédei, 1986-1988, 301 / Lehmann, 1986, 265-266 / Martin, 1987, 835 / Kluge-Seebold, 1989, 503, 504, 749 / Penrixi-Sarjvelaᶚe, 199O, 243 / Gluhak, 1993, 435-436 / Fortescue-Jacobson-Kaplan, 1994, 204 / Beekes, 1995, 222 / Fahnrich-Sardshweladse, 1995, 267 / Hannig, 1995, 387-389 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1995, I, 194 / Mallory-Adams, 1997, 395 / Klimov, 1998, 144 / Adams, 1999, 83 / Bender, 2000, 218-219 / Greenberg, 2000, 212-213 / Topuria-Kaldani, 2OOO, 635 / Watkins, 2000, 57 / Dybo-Mudrak-Starostin, 2OO1, no. 74 , 56 / Ehret, 2001, p. 220-221 / Blench, 2003, p. 13, no.263 / Orël, 2003, 283 / Fähnrich, 2007, 323 / Smoczyński, 2117 , 1, 418, 419 / De Vaan, 2118, 413 / H. Assadian, 2009 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Vuosaly, 2015, no. 208 & 82.

3. negative “No, Not” ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: *bV negative “no, not” Late Proto-Phonogene: *bV negative “no, not” Koinoetyma:*bV negative “no, not” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *bV negative II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *bV negative: 1. Proto-Niger-Congo: *bV negative 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *ɓà “not (be) here / there” non-verb negative III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *PV negative particle 1. Afroasiatic: Proto-Cushitic: *bV negative Proto-Chadic: *bV negative 2. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *bV “not” negative particle 3. Proto-Austric: *pV , *bV “not” Proto-Austroasiatic: pV negative marker Proto-Austronesian: *ba negative marker 4. Amerind: Algonquian: Blackfoot: pinn negative

119

References: Trombetti, 1908 / Möller, 1911, 158 / Trombetti, 1923 / Bleek, 1929, p. 62 / Bleek, 1956, p. 13, 738 / Franz-Russell, 1989, 405 / Ehret, 2001, p. 220 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, no. 416 / G. Starostin, 2009, Starling.

4. negative “No, Not”

‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: ****/ kV , ****// kV , **** kV negative “no, not” Late Proto-Phonogene: *** kV negative “no, not” Koinoetyma: ** kV negative “no, not” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: */ kV , *// kV “no, not” II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *kV negative “no, not” 1. Niger-Congo: Proto-Atlantic-Congo: *ka “no” 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *k hɔ “not be” non-verb negative III. mtDNA, haplogroup L3 / NRY - M 168 BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *kV negative “no, not” 1. Proto-Amerind: *kua negative References: Trombetti, 1908 / Trombetti, 1923 / Bleek, 1929, p. 62 / Bleek, 1956, p. 738, 739 / Miller-Davis, 1963, 310-330 / Miller, 1967, No. 306 / Ehret, 2001, p. 219 / Blench, 2003, p. 8, no. 118 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, no. 520 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Tavakoli, 2014 .

5. Negative, “No, Not” ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene : ****tV ; ****Vt negative “no, not” Late Proto-Phonogene : ***tV ; ***Vt negative “no, not” Koinoetyma: **tV ; **Vt negative “no, not”

111

I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan : *tV negative morpheme II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: * tV negative 1. Niger-Congo: Proto-Mande-Congo: *ta “no” 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: * - to negative III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *tV , *VtV prohibitive particle 1. Nivkh (Gilyak): ta - “prohibitive particle” 2. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *dV prohibitive particle 3. Proto-Austric: *tV negative marker Proto-Austro-Asiatic: *tV negative marker Proto-Katuic: *tǝ / *de “not” Proto-Bahnaric: *ta negative Proto-Vietic: *dV Proto-Austronesian: *ati negative marker, *edaʔ prohibitive marker 4. Proto-Amerind: *tV negative References: Archibald-Margaret-James, 1977, 301 /Алексеев, 1985, 100-101 / Kagaya, 1993, 128 / Vossen, 1997, 214, 226, 231 / Starostin S. A.; 1991, 21 / Ehret, 2001, vol. 1, 222 / Blench, 2003, p. 18, no. 351 / S. Starostin, Starling, 2006 / G. Starostin, 2007, Starling / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, no. 316 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Tavakoli, 2014 / Werner 1, 72.

111

Pronoun: “i” 1. I, my ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** mV "I, me" Late Proto-Phonogene: *** mV "I, me" Koinoetyma: ** mV "I, me" I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91 Proto-Khoisan: *m 1st person singular pronoun II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: Congo-Saharan: 1. Proto-Niger-Congo: * m 1st person singular pronoun 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *ma III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *mV "I, me, my, self" 1. Afroasiatic: a. Proto-Highland East Cushitic: *- mi suffix of 1st person singular b. Proto-Chadic: *mi , *mi - , *ami "I" 2. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *mi , *minV "self" 3. Proto-Kartvelian: *me - , *men "I", *m - "me, to me", *- m - "my" 5. Proto-Indo-European: *mV , *mVnV "I, my" 6. Proto-Altaic: *bi , *mi "I" 7. Proto-Uralic: *mi , *mVn ,*mVnV "I", *- mi "my", *-m ~ *- mi verbal ending of 1st sing.subj. 8. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan: *- m suffix; in the 1. person sing. independent personal pronoun *kəm - m (*γəmə ) "my" 9. Proto-Eskimo-Aleut: *vi "I" / Proto-Eskimo: *- ma (rel.) 10. Austric: Proto-Miao-Yao: *wa - ŋ "I" / Andaman: Onge: mi "I" 11. Proto-Amerind: *ma "I" References: Wiklund, 1896, 278-286 / Brugmann, 1904, 407-413, 589 / Trombetti, 1905 / Ramstedt, 1906, 24, 56-57 / Trombetti, 1908 / Trombetti, 1923 / Cohen, 1927 / Walde- Pokorny, 1927-1932. II, 236 / Deeters, 193O, 28 / Buck, 1933, 216-221 / Cerulli, 1936-195O, II, 228-229, 237-238 / Kotwicz, 1936, 4-6 / Moreno, 1938, 269-279 / Feist, 1939, 352, 357-358 / Sanzhejev, 194O, 57, 83-85 / Dmitrijev, 1948, 51-57, 14O-157 / Cincius, 1949, 27O-271 / von

112

Gabain, 195O, 9O-99, 112-113 / Imnaishvili, 1952, 324 / Jegorov, 1954, 314- 317 / Steinitz, 1955 / Wickman, 1955, 19 / Baskakov, 1956 / Benzing, 1956, 1O8-11O, 129-141 / Dmitrijev, 1956 / Isxakov, 1956, 2O8-235 / Kononov, 1956, 222- 251, 387- 388 / Liebert, 1957 / Rasanen, 1957, 9-26 / Ramstedt, 1957 (I), 1952-1956 (II, III), I, 79 / Balandin-Vaxrusheva, 1958, 2O8-221 / Schlachter, 1958, 554 / Avrorin, 1959-1961, I, 145, 248-25O / Bazin, 1959, 313 / Gamq’reliᶚe, 1959, 44 / Pokorny, 1959, 702 / Collinder, 196O, 299-3O2, 3O8-31O / Itkonen, 196O, 46-49, 144 / Lytkin, 1961, 61-62 / Todajeva, 1961, 28, 112 /Meriggi, 1962, 18-22 / Sanzhejev, 1962, 139 / Schmidt, 1962, 123 /Greenberg, 1963, 70-74 / Tenishev, 1963, 127-128 / Meillet, 1964, 227-235, 332-336 / Klimov, 1964, 132 / Todajeva, 1964, 43, 79, 135 / Meeussen, 1965 / Collinder, 1965, 134-135, 141 / Feoktistov, 1966, JN III, 181-185, 2O8 / Kovedjajeva, 1966, JN III, 227, 23O / Levitskaja, 1966, 14, 29-3O, 57- 58 / Lytkin, 1966, JN III, 3O8 / Tereshchenko, 1966, JN II, 333-334 / Tepljashina, 1966, JN III, 265, 324-327, 447 Diakonov, 1967, 62 / Guthrie, 1967-1971, IV: 226-240 / Lako-Redei, 1967-1978 / Topuria, 1967, 83 / Tereshchenko, 1969, 96-1O2, 161 / Beacham, 1968, 93 / Diakonov, 1968, 62 / Kert, 1971, 156-16O, 173 / Miller, 1971, 158 / Illič-Svityč, 1971-1984, II, 56-57, 65, 7O-71, no. 290 / Clauson, 1972, 346 / Dolgopolsky, 1972 / Weiers, 1972, 121-137 / Burrow, 1973, 263-269 / Rombandejeva, 1973, 115-144 / Todajeva, 1973, 319, 347 / Prost, 1974, 646 / Adrados, 1975, II, 784-813 / Cincius, 1975-1977, I, 79 / Tenishev, 1976, 76 / Collinder, 1977:53, 54 / Janhunen, 1977, 86 / Zvelebil, 1977, 40-52 / Rosenkranz, 1978, 66-72 / Shimizu, 1978, 41 / Elsie, 1979, 1O5 / Haudry, 1979, 61-63 / Kuznecova-Xelimskij-Grushkina, 198O, 288-289 / Meriggi, 198O, 316-321 / Evans-Thomas, 1981, I, 332 / Hasselbrink, 1981-1985, 118-12O, 141-156 / McAlpin, 1981, 112-117 / Haltod-Hangin - Kassatkin-Lessing, 1982, 1O1, 539 / Helimsky, 1982 / Laanest, 1982, 181-183, 191-194 / Dolgopolsky, 1984, 73, 77 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1984, I, 254-255 / Honti, 1984, 1O7-14O / Mann, 1984-1987, 240, 738-739, 747, 786 / Schmidt, 1984, 48-57 / Starostin, 1984 / Hemon, 1985, 554 / Watkins, 1985, 39 / Xaidu, 1985, 225, 234 / Bergsland, 1986 / Gudjedjiani-Palmaitis, 1986, 45 / Rédei, 1986-1988, 294-295 / Todajeva, 1986, 53, 63-68 / Thomsen, 1987, 148 /Casimir, 1988, 57 / Nikolaeva, 1988, 234-235, 31O, 329 / Sim, 1988, 434-435 / Sinor, 1988, 726 / Bender-Samuel-Olsen-White, 1989, 176 / Boyd, 1989, 207 / Mudrak, 1989, 109 / Ruhlen, 1989, 1, 870, 402 / Aksenova-Toporova, 1990, 146-150 / Décsy, 1990, 103 / Penrixi-Sarjvelaᶚe, 199O, 2O3-204, 212-213 / Bereczki, 1992, 37 / Honti, 1993, 124 / Kjunnap, 1993, 383-387 / Tereshchenko, 1993, 324 / Xelimskij, 1993, 365-369, 377-378 / Cejtlin-Večerka-Blagova, 1994, 67, 212-215 / Fahnrich, 1994, 8O-81 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1995, I, 222, 254-260 / Fähnrich-Sardshweladse, 1995, 223-224, 233-234 / Moniño, 1995 / Beekes, 1995, 207-211, 232-237 / Sihler, 1995, 369-382 / Adrados-Bernabé-Mendoza, 1995-1998, III, 27-68 / Szemerényi, 1996, 211-218, 233-242, 327-331 / Helimski, 1997, 141, 164-5, 298, no. 627 / Lipiński, 1997, 297-311 / Nikolaev-Helimsky, 1997, 166 / Menovshchikov, 1997 / Tuite, 1997, 23 / Appleyard, 1998, 10 / Itabashi, 1998, 130-135 / Klimov, 1998, 119, 255 / Kormushin, 1998, 90 / Schmitt-Brandt, 1998, 228-231 / Watkins, 1998, 60, 67 / Abondolo, 1998, 24-25 / Steever, 1998, 21-23 / Gruzdeva, 1998, 25-26 / Greenberg, 2000, 77-78, 213-214 / Mudrak, 2000, 39-40, 97, 145-146 / Rennison, 2000 / Topuria-Kaldani, 2OOO, 57O-571 / Watkins, 2000:51 / Hakola, 2000, no. 450 / Dybo-Mudrak-Starostin, 2OO1, no. 126 / Ehret, 2001, I, p. 233, 235, 238, 239 / Segerer, 2002-2007 / Blench, 2003, no. 24, no. 246 / Assadian-Hakola, 2003, no. 274 / G. Starostin, 2003, 83-128 / Krishnamurti, 2003, 244-253 / Nichols, 2003, 293 / Nurse-Philippson, 2003 /Orël, 2003, 83 / Meier-Brügger, 2003, 178-179, 225-227 / Starostin-Dybo-Mudrak, 2003, 225, 341-342, 1237 / Fortson, 2004, 84-86, 127-129 / Pozdniakov-Segerer, 2004,151-152 / S. Starostin, 2005, Starling / Güldemann, 2005 / Fortescue, 2005:146-147 / Kaneva, 2006, 59-61 / Nikolaeva, 2OO6, 265, 267 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Vydrin, 2006, 327-413 / G. Starostin, 2007, Starling / Fähnrich, 2007, 273, 284 / Clackson, 2007, 123-125 / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, no. 402, 870 / Babaev, 2008, P. 164-167 / Dolgopolsky, 2008 & 2012, no. 1354, 1353 / Babaev, 2009 / Matasovic, 2OO9, 27O / Assadian, H., 2011 / Bomhard, 2014, no. 880 / Tavakoli, 2015.

2. I, my ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene : *nV "I, me, my (body)" Late Proto-Phonogene : *nV "I, me, my (body)" Koinoetyma: *nV "I, me, my (body)" I.mtDNA, haplogroup L0d, L0k/ NRY-M 91 Proto-Khoisan: *ŋ ~ *n 1st person pronoun sg. II. mtDNA, haplogroup L1, L2 /NRY-M 60 Congo-Saharan: *nV , *VnV "I, me" 1. Proto-Niger-Congo: *nV (*VnV ) "I, me"

113

2. Pre-Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *ánā "I" III. mtDNA, haplogroup L3/ NRY-M 168 BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *nV 1st p. pron. 1. Proto-Indo-European: *n - i - "I" (cf. Tocharian AB) 2. Proto-Altaic: *ŋa 1st person pronoun 3. Elamo-Dravidian: *nV ; *VnV "I" Proto-Dravidian:*nyā - "I",* n ā - n- 1st person singular stem, *- n 1 person sing. suffix, * -V n 1st person sing. suffix in finite verbs Elamite: un (obl.) 4. Gilyak (Nivkh): ńi "I" first person singular personal pronoun 5. Proto-Afro-Asiatic: *ʔan - / *ʔin - ; *an - / *in - "I" 6. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *ŋV "I" 7. Proto-Austric: *nV "I" 8. Proto-Amerind: *na (ʔ ) "I" References: Cabaton,1905, 336-337 / Trombetti, 1905 / Trombetti, 1908 / Möller, 1911,158 / Erman-Grapow, 1921, 15 / Trombetti, 1923 / Erman-Grapow, 1926-1963, I, 101 / Mostaert, 1941-1944, 479 /Shafer, 1941, 363 / Poppe, 1955, 209-212 / Gardiner, 1957, 53§64, 554 / Nam Kwang, 196O, 85 / faulkner, 1962, 24 / Greenberg, 1963, 70-74 / Moscati, 1964, 106 / Meeussen, 1965 / Pinnow, 1966, 166-167, 184, 189 / Diakonov, 1967, 62, 218-227 / Guthrie, 1967-1971, IV, 226-240 / Diakonov, 1968, 62 / Brunner, 1969 / Benedict, 1972, 93 / Cheremisov, 1973, 320 / Černý, 1976, 9 / Munijev, 1977, 367 / Blake, 1979, 31-69 / Diakonov, 1979 / Steele, 1979, 447 /Ehret, 1980, 283 / Schudeberg, 1981, 182-184 / Haltod-Hangin-Kassatkin-Lessing, 1982, 556, 562 / Sasse, 1982, 26 / Vycichl, 1983, 12 / Schmidt, 1984, 48-57 / S. Starostin, 1984 / Burrow-Emenau, 1984, 468, no. 5160 / Proulx, 1985, 84-87 / Bergsland, 1986 /Blake, 1988, 7 / Evans, 1988, 103 / Hudson, 1989, 83 / Bender-Samuel-Olsen-White, 1989, 176 / Aksenoba-Toporova, 1990, 146-150 / Blažek, 1991, 37 / S. Starostin, 1991, no. 44 & 559 / Hayes, 1992, 161, 168 / Assadian, 1992, Sum. Dict. / Honti, 1993, 124 / Vovin, 1993, 106, 144 / Burrow-Emenau, 1994, 5160 / Ruhlen, 1994, 252-260 / Ruhlen, 1995, Mother Tongue, 24, 60-61 / Hannig, 1995, 79-80 / Ehret, 1995, 362, 363 / Lipiński, 1997, 298-299 / Menovshchekov, 1997 / Nikoleva-Xelemskee, 1997, 166 / Trask, 1997, 218 / Gruzdeva, 1998, 25 / Itabashi, 1998, 130-135 / Peiros, 1998 / Stempel, 1999, 82 / Adams, 1999, 265-266 / Foley, 2000, 357-404 / Greenberg, 2000, 70 / Mudrak, 2000, 39-40, 97, 145-146 / Ehret, 2001, 231, 225, 235, 238, 239, 245, 236 / S. Starostin, 2OO1, no. 44 / Fleming, 2002, 50 / Segerer, 2002-2007 / Evans, 2003, 19 / Harvey, 2003, 475-513 / Krishnamurti, 2003, 244-245, 308-312 / Nichols, 2003, 293 / Nurse-Philippson, 2003 / Starostin-Dybo-Mudrak, 2003, 1024 / G. Starostin, 2003, 83-128 / Pozdniakov-Segerer, 2004,151-152 / Güldemann-Elderkin, 2005 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Kaneva, 2006, 59-61 / Shorto, 2006, 69 / Vydrin, 2006, 327-413 / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, 121-124, 229-230, 397 / G. Starostin, 2007, Starling / Babaev, 2008, p. 163-167 / Bomhard, 2008, I, 274-275 / Dolgopolsky, 2008 & 2012 no. 1353, 1526 / Babaev, 2009, 40-43 / Babaev, 2013 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Bomhard, 2014, no. 834, 899 / Tavakoli, 2014 .

3. I, me ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** tV 1st person pronoun sg. Late Proto-Phonogene: *** tV 1st person pronoun sg. Koinoetyma: ** tV 1st person pronoun sg.

114

I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *Ti 1st person pronoun sg. (emphatic form?) II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: CONGO-SAHARAN: 1. Niger-Congo: Bantoid: Gweno: θi - “I” (subject); Komoro: tsi - “I” (subject); Venda: - thi - “I” (subject) 2. Nilo-Saharan: Pre-Proto-Gumuz: *aɗa “I” III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: Proto-Borean: *tV “I, my” 1. Afroasiatic: Proto-Omotic: *ta “I” 2. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: Proto-Basque: * - da - (verb trans.) 3. Austric: Austronesian: Proto-West-Papuan: *tV “I” Proto-Papuan: *tV / *dV “I” Andaman: do (l ) - / tu “I” Kusunda: tsi “I” 4. Proto-Amerind: *tV “I, my” References: Portman, 1887, 5 / Trombetti, 1905 / Trombetti, 1908 / Dempwolff, 1916, 52 / Doman, 1917, 90 / Wuras, 1920-1969, 28 / Trombetti, 1923 / Bleek, 1929, 49 / Meinhof, 1930, 149 / Kimmenade, 1954, 57 / Bleek, 1956, 229 / Greenberg, 1963, 70-74 / Burenhult, 1966, 5-24 / Capell, 1975, 678 / Wurm, 1975, 191 / Archibald-Margaret-James, 1977, 303 / Honken, 1977, 156 / Гигинейшвили 1977, 70 / Tanaka, 1978, 50 / Erderkin, 1983, 505 /Barnard, 1985, 18 / Starostin S. A., 1991, 20 / Blažek, 1991, 37 / Bengtson, 1992 / Kagaya, 1993, 83 / Trail, 1994, 158 / Trask, 1997, 218 / Haacke-Eliphas, 1998, 41 / Ehret, 2001, no.189, 186, 829 / G. Starostin, 2003, 83-128 / Güldemann-Elderkin, 2005 / Watters, 2006, 44 / Blevins, 2007, 167 / Greenberg-Rulen, 2007, no. 401 / Babaev, 2008, 163-167 / Babaev, 2009, 40-43 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Rust, 358 / Vossen, 234, 238, 239 / Werner 1, 72.

4. I, me ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** cV 1st person pronoun sg. Late Proto-Phonogene: *** cV 1st person pronoun sg. Koinoetyma: ** cV 1st person pronoun sg.

115

I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: 1. KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: Central Khoisan: Naron: tʃa , tʃi , tʃira “I”; Tati: tʃi “I, me, my”, tʃira “I” II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *sV 1. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *a first person subordinate exclusive pronominal: III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *cV “I, me” [1st p. pronoun 1. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *zV “I” 2. Proto-Austric: Proto-Austro-Asiatic: *cVj “I” (only Viet.) 3. Proto-Amerind: *ʔis ⁓ *s - “me”

References: Dempwolff, 1916, 52 / Dornan, 1917, 90 / Wuras, 1920-1969, 28 / Bleek, 1929, 49 / Meinhof, 1930, 149 / Trubetzkoy, 1930, 273 / Kimmenade, 1954, 57, 59 / Bleek, 1956, 229, 726 / Лексика 1971, 228 / Honken, 1977, 156 / Archibald-Margaret-James, 1977, 306, 303 / Гигинейшвили 1977, 71 / Tanaka, 1978, 50 / Abdokov, 1983, 137 / Elderkin, 1983, 505 / S. Starostin, 1984 / Barnard, 1985, 18 / Diakonov-Starostin, 1986, 81-82 / S. Starostin,1991, 20 / Bengtson, 1992 / Kagaya, 1993, 48, 83 / Traill, 1994, 158 / Haacke-Eliphas, 1998, 41 / Ehret, 2001, no. 1122 / Nichols, 2003, 293 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, no. 869 /Babaev, 2009, 40-43 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Rust 358 / Vossen 234, 238, 239.

116

Pronoun: “we”

1. we

‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** cV (**** tV ) 1st person pronoun pl. Late Proto-Phonogene: ***cV (*** tV ) 1st person pronoun pl. Koinoetyma: ** cV (** tV ) 1st person pronoun pl.. I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *sV “we” II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: CONGO-SAHARAN: 1. Proto-Niger-Congo: *sV “we” 2. 1. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *ti first person plural inclusive subordinate pronoun: 2.2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *a first person subordinate plural exclusive pronominal: III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *cV “we” [1st p. pronoun 1. Altaic: Proto-Ainu: *ci - “we” 2. Proto-Sino-Caucasian: *zV “we” 3. Austric: Proto-Austro-Asiatic: *ʒʔi “we, us” 4. Proto-Amerind: *ʔis ⁓ *seʔ “we” References: Trombetti, 1908 / Bleek, 1929, 90 / Trubetzkoy, 1930, 273 / Bleek, 1959, 769 / Гигинейшвили, 1977, 71 / Abdokov, 1983, 137 / Ehret, 2001, no. 780 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, no. 869 / G. Staroston, 2007, Starling / Babaev, 2008, Benue-Congo, p. 157-158 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Tavakoli, 2014 / Werner 1, 72.

117

2. we ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** m , **** mV , **** VmV “we” Late Proto-Phonogene: *** m , *** mV , *** VmV “we” Koinoetyma: ** m , ** mV , ** VmV “we” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0, NRY – M 91: KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan : *m 1st person pronoun pl. II. mtDNA Haplogroup L1, L2, NRY – M 60: CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *mV , *VmV “we” 1. Proto-Niger-Congo: *mV , *VmV “we” 2. 1. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *ám “we” exclusive 2. 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *m , *mV , *Vma “we” III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *mV “we” [1st p. pronoun 1. Proto-Indo-European: *me - “we” 2. Proto-Altaic: *ba / *bu “we”, *ma - n - ⁓ *mu - n - (obl.) 3. Proto-Uralic: *mE “wir / we” 4. Proto-Kartvelian: *m 5. Proto-Dravidian: *m - in 1st p. plur. (later analogically reinterpreted as plural for other persons) 6. Proto-Eskimo: *va (ŋ )- 1pl. "we" 7. Nivkh (Gilyak): (A) mer ⁓ mir "we" incl., (ES) miRn ⁓ meRn "we" incl. (r and R are reg. reflexes of *t and *ṭ ) 8. Proto-Chukchee-Kamchatkan: *mur , *muri "we" 9. Afroasiatic: Proto-Cushitic: *- mV suff. of 1p. pl.; *muni "we" Proto-Chadic: *muni 1p. pl. incl.

118

10. Sino-Caucasian: Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *miH possessive pronoun, “own” Proto-Yeneseian: *mit “we” Sumerian: - me “our” first plural possessive suffix; "we" Burushaski: mi "we" 11. Proto-Austric: Proto-Austronesian: *a - mi“we”, *ka - mi“we” Andaman: mu (l ) “we” Proto-Papuan: *mV “we” Proto-Torricelli: *m “we” 12. Proto-Amerind: *ma “we” References: Zaxarov, 1875, 903 / Brugmann-Delbruck, 1897-193O, II-3, 616-623 / Brugmann, 1904, 407-413, 591, 596 / Trombetti, 1908 / Kipshidze, 1914, 80 / Trombetti, 1923 / Endzelin, 1923, 377-378 / Krupnik-Silbermann, 1927, 97 / Walde-Pokorny, 1927-1932, II, 236 / Buck, 1933, 216-221 / de Smedt-Mostaert, 1933, 36-38 / Poppe, 1933, 118 / Meillet, 1934, §§ 339-341, 516 / Ramstedt, 1935, 44 / Meillet, 1936, § 59 / Endzelin, 1944, 133 / Tereshchenko, 1948, 342-357, 364-365, 371-379 / Cincius, 1949, 27O-271 / Fraenkel, 1955-1965, 441-442 / Poppe, 1955, 215-218, 22O, 261-262 / Bleek, 1956, 62, 138 / Benzing, 1956, 107, 108, 1057 / Liebert, 1957 / Krejnovich, 1958, 72-8O / Pokorny, 1959, 702 / Lytkin, 1961, 61 / Schmidt, 1962, 123 / Panfilov, 1962-1965, I, 231-24O / Greenberg, 1963, 70-74 / Klimov, 1964, 123, 132 / Meillet, 1964, 332-336 / Andronov, 1965, table 1O / Kovedjajeva, 1966, Lvmj, 227, 23O-233, Gj, 244-249 / Lytkin, 1966, 287-292, 3O5-309 / Tereshchenko, 1966, Nj, 381, 386-388, 423-431, Ej, 444-451 / Tepljashina, 1966, 265-272 / Krejnovich, 1968, 44O-441 /Greenberg, 1970, 113 / Lytkin-Guljajev, 197O, 171-172 / Snyman, 1970, 86, 54 / Szemerenyi, 197O, 7O, 216-217 / Endzelin, 1971, § 3O5 / Ikuko, 1971 / Illič-Svityč, 1971-1984, II, no. 299, 290 / Syromjatnikov, 1972, 90-91 / Burrow, 1973, 263-269 /Berger, 1974, 24 / Kraft, 1974, 69-94 / Adrados, 1975, II, 784-813 / Benedict, 1975, 203-209 / Cincius, 1975-1977, I, 98, 539 / Laycock, 1975, 768-770 / Wurm, 1975, 191 / Honken, 1977, 157 / Janhunen, 1977, 91-92 / Haudry, 1979, 61-63 / Krejnovich, 1979, 354 / Tereshchenko, 1979, 96-97, 161, 185 / Kuznecova-Xelimskij-Grushkina, 198O, 184-187, 258-264, 288-293 / Onenko, 198O, 83 / Hasselbrink, 1981-1985 / Haltod-Hangin-Kassatkin-Lessing, 1982, 102 / Ruhlen, 1983, 75-83 / Burrow-Emeneau, 1984, no. 5154 & 3647 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1984, I, 254-255 / Mann, 1984-1987, 240, 738-739, 747, 786 / Watkins, 1985, 39 / Burquest, 1986, 71-101 / Redei, 1986-1991, 294-295 / Martin, 1987, 569 /Thomsen, 1987, 148/ Dolgopolsky, 1988, 2O1-2O / Bender-Samuel-Olsen-White, 1989, 176 / Mudrak, 1989 b, 112 / Ruhlen, 1989, no. 1 / Kurilov, 1991, 144/ Blažek, 1991, 1-4, 36-57 / Starostin, 1991, 57, 276 (no. 36) ,266 (no. 38) / Bereczki, 1992, 36-37 / Gluhak, 1993, 4O7-408 / Kjunnap, 1993, 383-386 / Manaster Ramer, 1993, 64-67 / Cejtlin-Večerka-Blagova, 1994, 337 / Adrados-Bernabé-Mendoza, 1995-1998, III, 27-68 / Beekes, 1995, 2O7-209 / Fähnrich-Sardshweladse, 1995, 223-224, 233-234 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1995, I, 222 / Sihler, 1995, 369-382 / Zorg, 1995, 1169, 1191 / Szemerényi, 1996, 211-220 / Helimski, 1997, 144, 3O3(no. 655) / Nikolaeva-Xelemsky, 1997, 166 / Snyman, 1997, 56 / Vossen, 1997, 234-235, 234-250 / Gruzdeva, 1998, 25-26 / Itabashi, 1998, 130-135 / Klimov, 1998, 119 / Kormushin, 1998, 91 / Schmitt-Brandt, 1998, 228-231 / Watkins, 1998, 67 / Greenberg, 2000, I, 61-7 / Mudrak, 2000, 39-40, 97, 145-146 / Watkins, 2000, 51 / Hakola, 2000, no. 445 / Ehret, 2001, no. 161, no. 160 / Starostin, 2001, (DQA ), no. 38&126 / Krishnamurti, 2003, 246-248, 308-312 / Meier-Brügger, 2003, 225-227 / Orël, 2003, 83 / G. Starostin, 2003, 83-128 / Starostin-Dybo-Mudrak, 2OO3, 341-342 / Fortson, 2004, 127-129 / Fortescue, 2005, 179 / Güldemann-Elderkin, 2005 /Nikolaeva, 2OO6, 269-27O / S. Starostin, 2006, starling / Fähnrich, 2007, 273, 284 / Ruhlen, 2007, no. 870 & 402 / Dolgopolsky, 2008, 2012, no. 1345a, 1345b / Babaev, 2009, 40-43 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Babaev, 2013 / Bomhard, 2014, no. 880 / Tavakoli, 2014 / Tavakoli, 2015.

3. we ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** nV , **** Vn , **** VnV “we” Late Proto-Phonogene: *** nV , ***Vn , *** VnV “we” Koinoetyma: ** nV , ** Vn , ** VnV “we”

119

I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0 (L0d, L0k) / NRY - M 91 KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *Vn , *VnV “we” II. mtDNA, haplogroup L1, L2 / NRY - M 60 CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *nV , *Vn , *VnV “we” 1. Niger-Congo: *nV , *Vn “we” 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: * ānà “we” (incl.) (subject) III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *nV 1st p. pron. 1. Proto-Indo-European: *ne - / *no - / *n - s - “we, us” (pers. pron. of the first person dual, plural) 2. Proto-Kartvelian: *naj “we” 3. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: *nV - “we” first person plural (inclusive) 4. Proto-Eskimo: *vi , *va (ŋ )- 1pl. “we” 5. Gilyak (Nivkh): (Amur) ńɜŋ , (ES) niŋ “we” excl. 6. Altaic: Ainu: ’un (exclus. obj. ) 7. Proto-Afro-Asiatic: *na - ~ *ni - ~ *nu - “we” first person plural personal pronoun stem 8. Proto-Dene-Caucasian: *nV “we” Sumerian: - (e) nden “we, us” pronominal suffix Proto-Na-Dene: *na , *nu “we” 9. Austric: Austronesian: Kusunda: nu “we” Proto-Papuan: *ni “we” Proto-Trans New Guinean: *ni “we” Proto-Australian: *ŋay (excl.), ŋali (incl.) “we” 10. Proto-Amerind: *na (ʔ ) , *Vn “we” References: Smith, 1879-1897, 25O / Brugmann-Delbruck, 1897-193O (Reprint1967), BD, II, 2, 412 / Stumme, 1899, 52 / Falk-Torp, 1903-1906, II, 39-40 / Brugmann, 19O4, 41O-413 / Trombetti 1905 / Trombetti, 1908 / Möller 1911:169 / Erman-Grapow, 1921, 14, 76 / Trombetti, 1923 / Erman-Grapow, 1926-1963, I, 97, II, 194-195, 200 / Walde- Pokorny, 1927-1932, II, 320-321 / Roper, 1929, 197-198 / Deeters, 193O, 34 / Moreno, 1938, 33 / Feist, 1939, 523 / Boisacq, 1950, 675 / Sturtevant, 1951, 104, §170g /Erichsen, 1954, 35 / L'juis-Pedersen, 1954, §§ 337-357 / Edel, 1955-1964, 7O-79 / Bleek, 1956, 37, 154, 141, 542, 568 / Mayrhofer, 1956-1980, II, 148, 167, 181 / Gardiner, 1957, 39, §34; 45, §43, 53, 554, 572 / Vendryes, 1959-1987, 15O-151 / Pokorny, 1959, 758 / Kovalev-Sharbatov, 196O, 163-164 / Moscati, 196O, 137-138, 14O / Faulkner, 1962, 23, 124 / Greenberg, 1963, 70-74 /

121

Meillet, 1964, 335-336 / Moscati, 1964, 105, §13.10, 14 / Cowgill, 1965, 169-17O / Walde-Hofmann, 1965-1972, II, 175-176 / Hofmann, 1966, 220 / Loprieno, 1966, 64-67 / Onions, 1966, 965 / D'jakonov, 1967, 221, 218-227, 291, 4O2 / Kluge-Mitzka, 1967, 805 / Topuria, 1967, 83-84 / Chantraine, 1968-1980, II, 761 / Brunner, 1969, no. 585 / Hetzron, 1969, 12-1 / von Soden, 1969, 41-6 / Frisk, 1970-1973, II, 330 / Fedry, 1971, 217 / Klein, 1971, 798 / Illič-Svityč, 1971-1984, I, 7 / Prasse, 1972-1974, I-III, 164, 167, 17O-173; VI-VII, 11, 16 / Meyer-Bahlburg, 1972, 1O6 / Black, 1973, 42 / Black-Shako, 1973, 46 / Burrow, 1973, 263-269 / Dolgopol'skij, 1973, 174 / Hetzron, 1973-1974, 35-4O / Heine, 1975, II 39, 42-5O / Wurm, 1975, 191 / Allan, 1976, 377-392 / Černý, 1976, 9, 113 / Elderkin, 1976, 289 / Hetzron, 1976, 49-5O/ Hudson, 1976, 111-112, 119-122 / Sasse, 1976, 2O7 / De Vries, 1977, 421 / Johnstone. 1977, 95 / Zvelebil, 1977, 37-38, 47 / Andronov, 1978, 251-255 / Hayward, 1978, 553-66 / Heine, 1978, 30 / Tourneux, 1978, 183 / Blake, 1979, 31-69 / Diakonov, 1979 / Ebobisse, 1979, 3O-34 / Elsie, 1979, 144 / Hayward, 1979, 11O / Ernout-Meillet, 1979, 444-445 / Ehret, 1980, 65, 184 / Amborn-Minker-Sasse, 198O, 97-98, 28O / Schadeberg, 1981, 182-184 / Wolff, 1981, 85 / Gragg, 1982, 178 / Hayward, 1982, 229 / Sasse, 1982, 151 / Vycichl, 1983, 13 / Burrow-Emeneau, 1984, no. 3647 / Dolgopolsky, 1984, 90-91 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1984, I, 218 / Hayward, 1984, 215, 22O-221 / Mann, 1984-1987, 853, 858-859 / Schmidt, 1984 / Gudjedjiani-Palmaitis, 1985, 229, 237 / Owens, 1985, 98 / Parker-Hayward, 1985, 234-238, 259-283 / Proulx, 1985, 84-87 / Watkins, 1985, 44 / Lehmann, 1986, 378 / Tourneux-Seignobos-Lafarge, 1986, 166 / Johnstone, 1987, 29O / Stroomer, 1987, 119-12O / Blake, 1988, 7 / Dolgopolsky, 1988, 2O1-22O / Evans, 1988, 103 /Haberland-Lamberti, 1988, 132 / Boyd, 1989, 207 / Ehret-Elderkin-Nurse, 1989, 40 / Hudson, 1989, 256-259 / Yilma, 1989, 3, 7-8 / Alio-Jungraithmayr, 1989, 35-39 / Hudson, 1989, 161, 165 / Kluge-Seebold, 1989, 751 / Breeze, 199O, 11-14 / Hayward, 199O, 266-269 / Hompo, 199O, 371 / Rottland, 199O, 196 / Shibatani, 1990, 25-31, 45-51 / Blažek, 1991, 37 / Ajxenval'd-Militarev, 1991, 216-217, 221-222 / Satzinger, 1991, 53-54 / Tosco, 1991, 37 / Bengtson, 1992 / Mayrhofer, 1992-1996, I, 176 / Lamberti, 1993, 365 / Melchert, 1993, 20 / Ralph Siebert-Kati Siebert-Wedekind, 1993, 17 / Vovin, 1993, 79, 84, 106, 144 / Bomhard-Kerns, 1994, no. 564, 644 / Cejtlin, R.; Večerka, R. & E. Blagova, E.; 1994, 164, 337, 358, 823 / Garbini-Durand, 1994, 114, 117 / Ruhlen, 1994 / Siebert, 1994, 22 / Yilma, 1994, 6-7 / Blažek, 1995, 4O-53 / Beekes, 1995, 2O7-211 / Hannig, 1995, 77, 387 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1995, I, 222 / Ruhlen, 1995 / Siebert, 1995, 11 / Sihler, 1995, 372-373 / Yigezu-Yehualashet, 1995, 105 / Szemerényi, 1996, 211-220 / Mallory-Adams, 1997, 454-455 / Tuite, 1997, 18-19, 22 / Lipinski, 1997, 298-306, 36O-361, 37O-371, 378-83 / Tuite, 1997, 18-26 / Hayward, 1998, 21-38 / Gruzdeva, 1998 / Klimov, 1998 / Hayward, 1999, s.v. “we” / Pillinger-Galboran, 1999, 4O-52 / Stempel, 1999, 80 / Takacs, 1999-2OO8, I, 125-126 / Bender, 2000, 196 / Foley, 2000 / Greenbreg, 2000, 70 / Topuria-Kaldani, 2OOO, 626 / Watkins, 2000, 58 / Ehret, 2001, 225-231, 320, no. 279 / Tosco, 2OO1, 211-214 / Segerer, 2002-2007 / Sokoloff, 2OO2, 144-145 / Edzard, 2003, 55 / Evans, 2003, 19 / Harvey, 2003, 475-513 / Krishnamurti, 2003, 247-248 / Orël, 2003, 435 / G. Starostin, 2003, 83-128 / Fortson, 2004, 127 / Güldemann-Elderkin, 2005 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Watters, 2006, 44 / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, no. 397 / G. Starostin, 2007, Starling / Babaev, 2008, 175-180 / Bomhard, 2008 & 2014, no. 900 / De Vaan, 2008, 413 / Dolgopolsky, 2008 & 2012, no. 1526 / Kloekhorst, 2008, 115-116, 1004 / Babaev, 2009, 40-43 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Tavakoli, 2014 / Tavakoli, 2015 .

4. we

‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** wV , **** VwV “we, us, our” Late Proto-Phonogene: *** wV , *** VwV “we, us, our” Koinoetyma: ** wV , ** VwV “we, us, our” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0 (L0d, L0k) / NRY - M 91 KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *wV “we, us” II. mtDNA, haplogroup L1, L2 /NRY - M 60 CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *wV , *VwV “we” 1. Niger-Congo: Proto-Bantu: *wV , *wV- , *VwV “we” 2. Nilo-Saharan: *wV , *wV- “we”

121

III. mtDNA Haplogroup L3, NRY – M 168: BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *wV “we, us; our” 1. Proto-Afro-Asitic: *wa - 1st person personal pronoun stem: 2. Proto-Kartvelian: *č - we - n - i “we, our” 3. Proto-Indo-European: *we - / *wo - , *wey - 1st person plural &dual personal pronoun stem References: W.H.I. Bleek, 1862-1869 / Torrend, 1891 / Falk-Torp, 1903-1906, II, 441 / Brugmann, 1904, 407, 41O-413, 593 / Cabaton,1905, 336-337 / Meinhof, 1906 / Walde - Pokorny, 1927-1932, I, 220 / Feist, 1939, 560, 568-569 / Shafer, 1941, 363 / Bleek, 1956 , 767, 251 / Mayrhofer, 1956-1980, III, 147 / Pokorny, 1959, 1114 / Schmidt, 1962, 147 / Serebrjakov, 1962, 194 / Klimov, 1964, 219, 219-220,220 / Meeussen, 1965 / Onions, 1966, 995-996 / Jahukyan, 1967, 96 / Kluge-Mitzka, 1967, 862 / Meeussen, 1967, 79-121 / Williamson, & Shimizu, 1968, vol. 1 / Klein, 1971, 822 / Benedict, 1972, 93 / Burrow, 1973, 266, 313 / Williamson, 1973, vol. 2 / Wurm, 1975, 191 / Lydall, 1976, 414-415 / Van Windekens, 1976-1982, I, 547 / De Vries, 1977, 654 / Greenberg, 1977 / Blake, 1979, 31-69 / Diakonov, 1979 / Steele, 1979, 447 / Greenberg, 1963, 70-74 / Meeussen, 1965 / Pinnow, 1966, 184, 189 / Guthrie, 1967-1971, IV, 226-240 / Diakonov, 1967, 218-227 / Diakonov, 1968, 62 / Schuh, 1981,170 / Schadeberg, 1981, 182-184 / Gamkrelidze-Mačavariani, 1982, 87 / Dolgopolsky, 1984, 73 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1984, I, 254, 292-293 / Mann, 1984-1987, 15O5, 1524, 1527 / Schmidt, 1984, 48-57 / Starostin, 1984 / Proulx, 1985, 84-87 / Watkins, 1985, 73 / Bergsland, 1986 / Gudjedjiani-Palmaitis, 1986, 45 / Lehmann, 1986, 400 / Blake, 1988, 7 / Evans, 1988, 103 / Hetzron, 1988, 11O-112 / Bender-Samuel-Olsen-White, 1989, 176 / Boyd, 1989,207 / Kluge-Seebold, 1989, 795 / Aksenoba-Toporova, 1990, 146-150 / Hayward, 199O, 448-452 / Fleming, 199O, 521-525 / Shibatani, 1990, 25-31, 45-50 / Parker & Durrant, 1990 / Penrixi(Fähnrich)-Sarjvelaᶚe, 199O, 388-389 / Blažek, 1991, 37 / Bengtson, 1992 / Hayes, 1992, 161, 168 / Mayrhofer, 1992-1996, II, 5O8 / Honti, 1993, 124 / Vovin, 1993, 79, 84, 106, 144 / Bender, 1994, 161 / Bomhard-Kerns, 1994, no. 475 / Cejtlin, R.; Večerka, R. & E. Blagova, E.; 1994, 164 / Fahnrich, 1994, 72 / Beekes, 1995, 207-211 / Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, 1995, I, 221, 254 / Fähnrich-Sardshweladse, 1995, 434-435, 436-437 / Szemerényi, 1996, 217 / Mallory-Adams, 1997, 454-455 / Menovshchekov, 1997 / Nikoleva-Xelemskee, 1997, 166 / Trask, 1997, 218 / Tuite, 1997, 18-26 / Klimov, 1998: 255, 256, 256-257 / Gruzdeva, 1998 / Itabashi, 1998, 130-135 / Peiros, 1998 / Adams, 1999, 265-266 / Taylor, 1999 / Bender, 2000, 196 / Foley, 2000, 357-404 / Topuria-Kaldani, 2OOO / Mudrak, 2000, 39-40, 97, 145-146 / Watkins, 2000, 95 / Ehret, 2001, I, 225, 236, 246, 244, 231, 238, 239, 245, 246, 248 /Segerer, 2002-2007 / Evans, 2003, 19 / G. Starostin, 2003, 83-128 / Harvey, 2003, 475-513 / Nichols, 2003, 293 / Orël, 2003, 460 / Fortson, 2004, 127 / Nurse-Philippson, 2003 / Miehe, 2004, 151-162 / Pozdniakov-Segerer, 2004,151-152 / Boutkan-Siebinga, 2005, 446-447 / Güldemann-Elderkin, 2005 / Kaneva, 2006, 59-61 / Shorto, 2006, 69 / Выдрин (Vydrin), 2006, 327-413 / G. Starostin, 2006 / Watters, 2006, 44 / Fähnrich, 2007, 539-540, 541542 / Babaev, 2008, 156-157 / Dolgopolsky, 2008 &2012, no. 2556 / Kloekhorst, 2008, 1004 / Babaev, 2009, 40-43 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Bomhard, 2014, no. 779.

5. we

‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** bV , **** VbV “we, us” Late Proto-Phonogene: *** bV , *** VbV “we, us” Koinoetyma: **bV , **VbV “we, us” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0 (L0d, L0k) / NRY - M 91 KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *bV , *VbV “we, us”

122

II. mtDNA, haplogroup L1, L2 /NRY - M 60 CONGO-SAHARAN: Proto-Congo-Saharan: *bV “we” Niger-Congo: Proto-Benue-Congo: *bV , *bV - “we, us” III. mtDNA, haplogroup L3/ NRY - M 168] BOREAN: Proto-Borean: *pV “we” 1. Proto-Eskimo: *pV - , *xpV - “we”: 2. Proto-Austric: *pV “we” Proto-Austroasiatic: *pVj “we, us (Mon.)” Proto-Miao-Yao: *pe Proto-Mon-Khmer: *bәn “we” incl. Proto-Munda: bɨ (n ) “we” incl. Proto-Papuan: *pV “we”: Proto-Torricelli: *p “we” 3. Proto-Amerind: *pi ~ *pa “we” References: Cabaton, 1905, 336-337 / Trombetti, 1908 / Trombetti, 1923 / Bleek, 1956 , 13, 767, 16, 153 / Pinnow, 1966, 184, 166-167 / Laycock, 1975, 768-770 / Wurm, 1975, 191 / Bergsland, 1986, 63-137 / Pieros, 1988 / Hayes, 1992, 161, 168 /Ehret, 2001, 225-248 / Starostin-Dybo-Mudrak, 2003, 225, 1237 / Starostin, 2005, Starling / Shorto, 2006, 69 / Ruhlen, 2007, no. 399 / Babaev, 2008, Congo: 157-158 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Tavakoli, 2014 / Tavakoli, 2015 .

6. we ‣ mtDNA Haplogroup L0; L1, L2; L3 / NRY – M 91; M60; M 168: Early Proto-Phonogene: **** tV “we” Late Proto-Phonogene: *** tV “we” Koinoetyma: ** tV “we” I. mtDNA Haplogroup L0 (L0d, L0k) / NRY - M 91 KHOISAN: Proto-Khoisan: *tV “we, us” II. mtDNA, haplogroup L1, L2 /NRY - M 60 CONGO-SAHARAN:

123

Proto-Congo-Saharan: *tV “we” 1. Proto-Niger-Congo: *tV “we” 2. Proto-Nilo-Saharan: *ti first person plural inclusive subordinate pronoun III. mtDNA, haplogroup L3/ NRY - M 168 Borean: *tV “we” 1. Proto-Eskimo: *- m - ta “we” rel. (- ma “I” rel.) 2. Proto-Dene-Caucasian : *tV “we” Proto-Na-Dene: *ta , *tu “we” Sino-Caucasian : Proto-West-Caucasisn: *t :V “we” 3. Proto-Austric: *tV “we” Proto-Austroasiatic: *tVŋ “we” Andaman: et “we” Proto-Austronesian: *ita “we (incl.)”, *iten “ours” (incl.) Proto-Thai: *tu “we” 5. Proto-Amerind: *ta “we” References: Portman, 1887, 5 / Trombetti, 1908 / Dempwolff, 1916, 52 / Dornan, 1917, 90 / Wuras, 1920-1969, 28 / Trombetti, 1923 / Meinhof, 1930, 149 / Bleek, 1956, 186, 194, 200,203, 70, 217, 229, 769, 767 / Meeussen, 1965 /Guthrie, 1967-1971, IV, 226-240 / Beacham, 1968, 93 /Prost, 1974, 646 / Benedict, 1975, 203-209 / Archibald-Margaret-James, 1977, 303 / Honken, 1977, 156 / Menovshchikov, 1977, 75-80 / Tanaka, 1978, 50 / Steele, 1979, 447 / Elderkin 1983, 505 /Barnard, 1985, 18 / Bergsland, 1986, 63-137 / Casimir, 1988, 57 / Aksinova-Toporova, 1990, 146-150 / Bengtson, 1992 / Kagaya, 1993, 83 /Traill,1994, 158 / Zorg, 1995, 1169, 1191 / Burenhult, 1996 / Vossen, 1997, 234, 238, 239, etc. / Haacke-Eliphas, 1998, 41 / Ehret, 2001, no. 780 / Pozdniakov -Segerer, 2004, 151-162 / S. Starostin, 2006, Starling / Greenberg-Ruhlen, 2007, 401 / G. Starostin, 2007, Starling / Blevins, 2007, 167 / Babaev, 2009, 40-43 / Assadian, H., 2011 / Tavakoli, 2014 / Tavakoli, 2015 / Rennison, 200 / Rust, 358.

124

PROTO-PHONOGENES of Homo sapiens sapiens based on mtDNA & NRY

[mtDNA Haplogroup L0, L1, L2, L3; NRY – M 91, 60, 168] (H. Assadian, Helsinki, 2000)

(mtDNA= mitochondrial DNA ; NRY= Non-Recombining portion of the Y chromosome)

1.1 *pV ; *bV "big, large, wide; high, tall; many, much, fat; hill, mountain" 1.2 *pV ;*bV "tree, to grow, to sprout, to bloom, to become, to be, to exist, to sit, to stay, to appear, to come into presence (being), to dwell" 1.3 *pV "to swell , to blow" 1.4 *pV ; *bV "child, blow ?" 2.1 *pV "head, back or forehead, face, eye; behind, side, turn, (to grow, to increase)" 2.2 *pV "hand, hand palm, arm, finger, five" 2.3 *pV "to fly, to jump ; wing, feather" 3. *pV ; *bV "dark, black, brown, red" 4. *pV "to hit, to kill, to die" 5. *bV "bend, bind; knee, bow"

1. * ʘV ; * ʘpV ; * ʘbV ;*pV ; *bV "big, large, wide; high, tall; many, much, fat; hill, mountain; tree, to grow, sprout, to bloom, to become, to be, to exist, to sit, to stay, to appear, to come into presence (being), to dwell; to swell , to blow to; a being that grows and gets bigger, baby, child, young child" 2. *pV , * ʘ pV , * pV "head, back or forehead, face, eye; behind, side, turn, (to grow, to increase); hand, hand palm, arm, finger, five; "to fly, to jump ; wing, feather; to fly, to jump ; wing, feather" 3. *pV ; *bV "dark, black, brown, red" 4. *pV "to hit, to kill, to die" 5. *bV "bend, bind; knee, bow"

1. *rV "go, going toward, come, coming toward, to run, running, to bring, to bear"

1. *rV "go, going toward, come, coming toward, to run, running, to bring, to bear"

125

2.1. *rV (*VrV ) "to hit, to strike, to beat, to push, to butt, to knock, to kill, to knock down; hit" 2.2. *rV , *VrV "cut, cut off, break, grind" 3. *rV ,*Vr ,*VrV "man, male, penis, member of one's clan

2. *rV (*VrV ) "to hit, to strike, to beat, to push, to butt, to knock, to kill, to knock down; hit; cut, cut off, break, grind" 3. *rV ,*Vr ,*VrV "man, male, penis, member of one's clan"

1. *cV "cover, hide, skin, bark, shell" 2.1 *cV "nose, smell, snuff, sniff, smoke, blow" 2.2 *cV "lip, mouth, tongue" 3. *cV "to wash, water, river, drink, rain, to press, to move"

1. *cV " cover, hide, skin, shell, bark" 2. *cV "nose, smell, snuff, sniff, smoke, blow, sneeze, inhale; lip, mouth, tongue" 3. *cV "to wash, water, river, drink, rain, to press, to move"

1.1 *tV ; *dV "place, dwelling; to do, to make, to build" 1.2 *tV ;*dV "to stay, silence, quiet, calm, rest" 1.3 *tV ; *dV "put, place, do, make, build" 2. *tV "cover, hide, skin, shell" 3. *dV ; *tV "see, look; light, bright, shine, sun; fire, burn; know" 4.1 *tV "to hold in the mouth, to bite, to eat, to drink, to suckle, to lick" 4.2 * tV "to beat, to hit, to stamp, to pound, to strike, to push, to knock, to encounter"

1. *tV ; *dV "place, working, doing, making, building, living, dwelling, to do, to make, to build, to live; to stay, silence, quiet, calm, rest" 2. *tV "cover, hide, skin, shell" 3. *dV ; *tV "see, look; light, bright, shine, sun; fire, burn; know" 4. *tV "to hold in the mouth, to eat , to drink, to suckle, to lick; to beat, to hit, to stamp, to pound, to strike, to push, to knock, to encounter"

1.1 *kV "bright, light, shine" 1.2 *kV , *V "know, bright, light, shine" 1.3 *kV "burn, hot, shine, fire, roast" 1.4 * kV “eye ; to look, to see” 1.5 * kV "to know, to think" 1.6 * kV "to burn, to hate; fire, shining, light, day" 2.1 *kV "water, rain, wet" 2.2 *kV "milk, breast, to milk, to suck" 3.1 *kV "cover, skin, bark" 3.2 *kV "close, hiddenness" 4.1 * kV , *VkV "female, woman, mother, girl; breast, female relation"

1. * kV, * kV , *! kV , *≠kV , *!V , *V , *!ʔ , *kV "bright, light, shine, sun; shining, light, day; burn, blaze, heat, roast; fire, hot, to burn, to hate; eye; to look, to see; know; to know, to think” 2. * kV , * kV , *!kV , *kV , * kV , * kV , *!kV , *≠kV ,* kV "water, rain, wet; to milk, to suck, milk, breast" 3. * kV , * kV ,*kV "skin, cover, bark, close, hiddenness" 4. * kV , * kV , !kV ,* kV ,*VkV "human, man, young man, female, male, person,

126

4.2 *kV "human, female" 4.3 * kV "man, male, human, person, young man" 5.1 *kV "to go, to come, to move, to stay" 5.2 * kV "to go, to go around, to turn, to turn around, to curve, to roll; circle, round, turn" 5.3 *kV "motion toward; stay in place" 5.4 *kV "to run, to go, foot, leg, shin" 6.1 *kV "to be angry; anger, fury" 6.2 *kV "angry, hate, fight, war" 6.3 *kV "bad, evil" 7.1 *kV "power, force, do, make, work, labor" 7.2 *kV "hand, arm, palm, sole, finger; to take, to grasp, to grip, to catch" 8.1 *kV "to cut, to cut off, to separate, to rip off, to split, to break, to chop, to tear" 8.2 * kV "to dig, to be hollow, to cut, to scratch; hole, quiver, grave, knife" 8.3 * kV "bone, rib, hard" 8.4 * kV "small, little, few, thin" 9.1 *kV "to eat, to feed, to swell, to chew, to jaw, to gnaw, to hold or take into the mouth; feed" 9.2 *kV "to lick; sweet, honey, food, sustenance" 9.3 * kV "internal organ, interior, inside, belly, stomach, heart, body" 10. * kV "to make a noise, to shout, to cry, to utter, say, speak, call, language" 11.1 * kV "back, tail, side, tip" 11.2 * kV "head, neck, top, summit" 11.3 * kV "head, horn, top, tip, peak, antler, upon, up 12. *kV "snake, worm, gnaw, maggot, insect,

woman, mother, girl; breast, female relation" 5. * kV , *kV , * !kV , * ≠kV , * qV , *kV "to go, to go around, to turn, to turn around, to curve, to run, to move, to leave, to stay; foot, leg, shin, motion toward, circle, round, turn; stay in place" 6. * kV ,*≠kV , *!kV , * kV ,* kV "to be angry, to fight, anger, fury, bad, evil; hate, fight, war; bad, evil" 7. * kV ,*kV "to take, to grasp, to grip, to catch, to do, to make; power, force, act, work, hand, arm, palm, sole, finger" 8. *V ,* V ,* kV ,* kV ,*≠kV ,*!kV ,*kV "to cut, to cut off, to break, to separate, to rip off , to split, to chop, to tear, to dig, to be hollow, to scratch; hole, quiver, grave, knife, bone, rib; hard, small, little, few, thin" 9. *kV , *kxV , * GV , * kV , * kV , *! kV, *! V, *kV , *qV "to eat, to feed, to swell, to chew, to jaw, to gnaw, to hold or take into the mouth, to lick; feed, food, sweet, honey, sustenance; internal organ, interior, inside, belly, stomach, heart, body" 10. * kV , *kV "to make a noise, to shout, to cry, to utter, say, speak, call, language; sound, noise, cry, shout" 11. * kV , * kV ,*! kV ,*≠ kV , *kV "head, neck, top, summit, horn, brain, tip, peak, antler, upon, up" 12. * kV ,*kV "snake, worm, gnaw, maggot,

127

grub" 13. *kV "cold, freeze, winter, frost" 14. * kV particle

insect, grub" 13. *! kV ,* kV ,*≠ kV , !qV "cold, freeze, winter, frost"

1.1 *nV "to say, to speak, to tell, to cry, to call out" 1.2 *nV "to curse, to sound, to speak, to say, to tell, to chat, to hum, to name; curse, sound, saying" 1.3 * nV , *V n "to know, to think, to understand, to find" 1.4 *nV "to know; to say, to speak" 1.5 *nV , *VnV "know, remember" 2.1 *nV "body, man, old man, father-in-law" 2.2 *nV "to bear a child, human being, body, self" 2.3 *nV "body, soma" 2.4 *nV "berry, egg" 2.5 * gV "egg" 3. *nV "to stay, to stand, to be, to dwell" 4. *nV "to water, to rain, to flow, to bath, to drink; water, rain, drink; wet, moist" 5. *nV "fear, awe, frightfulness, violence"

1. * nV ,* nV ,*nV ,*≠nV ,*≠Vn ,*≠VnV "to say, to speak, to tell, to cry, to call out, to curse, to sound, to chat, to hum, to name, to know, to think; curse, sound, saying, heart knowledge, think, understand, remember" 2. *!nV , * nV , * nV ,* nV ,* gV "body, self, soma, human being, man, old man, father-in-law, to bear a child; berry, egg" 3. * nV ,* Vn , *nV , *!nV , *nV "to stay, to stand, to be, to live, to dwell; hut" 4. * nV , *≠nV , * !nV , *nV "to water, to rain, to flow, to bath, to drink; water, rain, drink; wet, moist" 5. *nV "fear, awe, frightfulness, violence"

*hV - "to want, to love; lovely" *// V "to want, desire, long for"

*wV "wish, want" *wV "wish, want"

1.1 *V , *yV "water, rain, wet, flood, stream; to flow, to drink" 1.2 *V "water, liquid" 2. * V "vir, male, man" 3.1 *V "to say, to tell, to cry, to call out, to name" 3.2 *V "air, lung; blow, breathe"

1. *// V, *V , * // yV ,*// kV "water, rain, wet, flood, stream, liquid; to flow, to drink" 2. * V "vir, male, man" 3. */ V ,*// V , *V "to say, to tell, to cry, to call out, to name, to blow, to breathe; air, lung"

128

4. *V "go, come, run" 5. *V "who, which, what"

4. * // V , * / V , * V "go, come, run" 5. *V question

1.1 *mV "mother, female, mother's breast, suck, swallow, drink, eat" 1.2 *mV ,*Vm ,*VmV "milk, mother’s milk, female breast, liquid; to swallow, suck, drink" 1.3 *mV "to be sweet, to lap, to lick, to taste, to eat" 1.4 *mV ,*Vm ,*VmV "human, man, person, young man, young woman, father-in-law" 1.5 *mV "man, vir" 2.1 * mV,*VmV "water, rain, well, sea; wet" 2.2 *mV "water, rain, well, sea; wet" 2.3 *mV "water, fluid, liquid, rain, stream, drink, sea, river; to water, to be watery, to flow, to rain, to sprinkle, to drizzle; moist, wet " 3.1 *mV "to say, to speak, to speak out, to name, to talk; language, naming, saying, word, opinion" 3.2 *mV "to say" 3.3 * mV "mouth" 4. *mV "to smell, to sniff, bad smelling" 5. *mV , *VmV "stand, sit, be, dwell" 6. *mV "to go around, to turn, to twist, to go, to rope, to bend" 7.1 *mV , * Vm "to cut, break, grind" 7.2 * mV "to grind, to mill, to cut, to break" 8.1 *mV , *Vm , *VmV "I, me, my; we, we two, our" 8.2 *mV pronoun 9. *mV "no, not" 10. *mV direct object formative suffix

1. *mV ,*Vm ,*VmV, * VmV "to suck, to swallow, to be sweet, to lap, to lick, to taste, to drink, eat; mother, female, woman, girl, mother's milk, milk, mother's breast, female breast, liquid, man, vir, person, young man, mother-in- law, father-in- law" 2. *mV ,*Vm ,*VmV , * V mV "water, rain, fluid, well, liquid, stream, drink, sea, river; to water, to be watery, to flow, to rain, to sprinkle, to drizzle; moist, wet" 3. *mV "to say, to speak, to speak out, to name, to talk; language, naming, saying, word, mouth" 4. *mV "to smell, to sniff, bad smelling" 5. *mV , *VmV "stand, sit, be, dwell, hut" 6. *mV "to go around, to turn, to twist, to go, to rope, to bend" 7. *mV , * Vm "to cut, break, grind, to mill, to break" 8. *mV ,*Vm ,*VmV "(pronoun), I, me, my; we, we two, our" 9. *mV "sign of negation, no, not" 10. *mV

129

1. *lV "to place, to stay, to set, to reach, to carry" 2. *lV "abundance; many, much, abundantly" 3. *lV "to go, to come, to arrive, to walk, to leave, to be quick, to stir, to hurry" 4. *lV ,*VlV "to flow, to pour, to moisten, to flood, to overflow, to sprinkle, to seep, to wet, to drip; water, flood, overflow, rain, lake, river, choppy sea, sea, ocean, drink; wet, damp, moist" 5.1 *lV , *Vl , *VlV "under, low; deep, hollow; pit, ground" 5.2 *lV , *Vl , *VlV "down, under; ground, earth, land, place, soil, mud, clay" 6. *lV "to want, to wish, to love, to be thirsty; love, joy, desire, pleasure" 7.1 * lV "to lick, to lap, to taste, to drink, to eat, to jaw; jaw, licking, tasting" 7.2 *lV "to lick, to lap, to drink, to eat, to jaw, to blend, to stir" 7.3 *lV "jaw, licking, tasting; to lick, to lap, to taste, to drink" 7.4 *lV "lip, mouth; to lick, to lap" 8. *lV "skin, bark, hiddenness, cover" 9. *lV "antelope, cow, bull, cattle"

1. *lV "to stay, to set, to reach, to carry, to place" 2. *lV "abundance; many, much, abundantly" 3. *lV "to go, to come, to arrive, to walk, to leave, to be quick, to stir, to hurry" 4. *lV , *VlV "to flow, to pour, to moisten, to flood, to overflow, to sprinkle, to seep, to wet , to drip; water, flood, overflow, rain, lake, river, choppy sea, sea, ocean, drink; wet, damp, moist" 5. *lV , *Vl ,*VlV "under, down, low, deep, hollow; pit, ground, earth, land, place, soil, mud, clay" 6. *lV "to want, to wish, to love, to be thirsty; love, joy, desire, pleasure" 7. *lV "jaw, licking, tasting, lip, mouth; to lick, to lap, to taste, to drink, to jaw, to blend, to stir" 8. *lV "skin, bark, hiddenness, cover" 9. *lV "4-legged animal"

131

Table of Long-Range Development from Illič-Svityč to present (Borean worked on by S. Starostin)

Language Group Genetic Haplogroup USSR USA IRAN School: School: School: Illič-Svityč Greenberg Assadian 1. Khoisan mtDNA, haplogroup L0 + / NRY, M 91 2. Congo-Saharan mtDNA, haplogroup + L1, L2 (L3) / NRY, M 60 3. Borean mtDNA, haplogroup L3 / NRY, M 168 3. 1. Nostratic

3. 1. 1. Afro – Asiatic + +

3. 1. 2. Eurasiatic

3. 1. 2. 1. Indo-European + + +

3. 1. 2. 2. Uralic + + +

3. 1. 2. 3. Altaic + + +

3. 1. 2. 4. Kartvelian + +

3. 1. 2. 5. Elamo-Dravidian + + 3. 1. 2. 6. Etruscan + +

3. 1. 2. 7. Paleo-Siberian +

3. 1. 2. 7. 1. Eskimo –Aleut + +

3. 1. 2. 7. 2. Chukchi - Kamchatkan + +

3. 1. 2. 7. 3. Gilyak (Nivkh) + +

3. 1. 2. 7. 4. Yeneseian +

3. 1. 2. 7. 5. Yukaghir + +

3. 1. 2. 8. Amerind +

3. 2. Dene -Caucasian

3. 2. 1. Dene

3. 2. 2. Sumerian +

3. 2. 3. Basque +

3. 2. 4. Burushaski +

3. 2. 5. Sino-Caucasian +

3. 2. 5. 1. Sino-Tibetan +

3. 2. 5. 2. North-Caucasian +

3. 2. 5. 3. Yeneseian +

3. 3. Austric 3. 3. 1. Austrio-tai +

3. 3. 1. 1 Austronesian +

3. 3. 1. 2. Tai +

3. 3. 2. 1. Miao-Yao +

3. 3. 2. 2. Austroasiatic +

Total 6 8 28

131

Bibliography – Some of H. Assadian’s Linguistics Works: Assadian, H., 1992 : Urartian - Basque Koinoetymological Dictionary. Assadian, H., 1995 : Arabic Etymological Dictionary. Assadian, H., 1996 : Arabic - Tibetan Koinoetymological Dictionary. Ms. Assadian, H., 1998 : Proto-Sumerian Phonogenical Dictionary. Ms. Assadian, H., 2000 : Koinoetymology of *al, Argmedia. Assadian, H., 2001 : Proto-African Koinoetymology and Phonogene. From Lectures for the International Committee of Koinoetymology and the Post-Metaphysical Thinking. Assadian, H., 2002 : Saami - Sumerian Koinoetymological Dictionary. Assadian, H., 2003 : Sumerian Phonological Dictionary. Assadian, H., Hakola, H. P. A., 2003: Sumerian and Proto-Duraljan, A Lexical Comparison Concerning the Suduraljan Hypothesis, Kuopio, Finland. Assadian, H., 2005 : Basque - Sumerian Koinoetymological Dictionary. Assadian, H., 2006 : Sumerian-Afroasiatic Koinoetymological Dictionary.

Assadian, H., 2006 : Basque - Proto-DURALJAN Koinoetymological Dictionary. Ms. Assadian, H., 2007 : Amerind - Sumerian Koinoetymological Dictionary. Assadian, H., 2007 : Sumerian, Nostratic, Duraljan, Borean Phonogenical Koinoetymological Dictionary. Ms. Assadian, H., 2008 : Urartian -Sumerian – Basque (Caucasian) and Avestic (Indo-European) Koinoetymological Dictionary. International Committee of Koinoetymology and the Post-Metaphysical Thinking. Assadian, H., 2008 : Koinoetymological Dictionary (Koinoetymologisches Wörterbuch). Ms. Assadian, H., 2008 : Urartian Koinoetymological Dictionary. Assadian, H., 2009 : Sumerian-Khoisan and Nilo-Saharan Koinoetymological Dictionary. International Committee of Koinoetymology and the Post-Metaphysical Thinking. Assadian, H., 2010 : Dictionary of Indo-European Phonogenical Koinoetymology. International Committee of Koinoetymology and the Post- Metaphysical Thinking. Assadian, H., 2011: Ground Plan of the Proto-Phonogene and Koinoetyma in Molecular Biology. International Committee of Koinoetymology and the Post-Metaphysical Thinking. Assadian, H., 2011: Ge-mein-wesentliche Archeo-Genetic Grammar (Universal Grammar of the World) Assadian, H., 2012: DICTIONARY OF PHONOGENICAL KOINOETYMOLOGY, working through close genetic affinities between PRIMOGENIO, NOSTRATIC, NILAL, GLOBAL ETYMA, DURALJAN, EURASIATIC, BOREAN, SUMERIAN, AMERIND and NILO-SAHARAN, NIGER-CONGO, KHOISAN with reference to GENETIC MOLECULAR BIOLOGY of hunter-forager and agricultural communities in HISTORY and GESCHICHTE; International Committee of Koinoetymology and the Post-Metaphysical Thinking. Assadian, H., 2013: Khoisan-Amerind Koinoetymological Dictionary. International Committee of Koinoetymology and the Post-Metaphysical Thinking.

132

International Committee of Koinoetymology and Post-Metaphysical Thinking (ICKPT) New York 2016