Congratulations! I think Hintze wrote this as satire.

Heike Bödeker wrote:
At 22:04 02.08.03 -0400, H.M. Hubey fwd'ed an:
Article from Fritz Hintze on Turkic, Uralic, Meroitic, Nilo-Saharan

To finally come up with a few comments rather than letting it all end with a clarification re how to proceed with uploadings files instead of sending attchments directly to the list:

One nowadays often has the opportunity to simply do some proto-form matching, which also gives more security that items indeed are to be reconstructed for proto-languages and don't just pop up as in the best case ghost words, in the worst chance resemblances. E.g. for Nilo-Saharan case suffixes (actually stemming from prepositions as in the Koman subbranch, which was the first split-off from PNS) one might refer to Ehret (A historical-comparative reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan. Köln: Köppe 2001, here pp. 202-209). The case of Uralic and Turkic is similar. What we, alas, do not yet have is a comprehensive account of Comparative Mongolian, and that's the problem:

(2) one might have added the ("non-classical", Poppe, Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz ³1974, p. 75 § 287 — more precisely it's a 13-14th cent. thing) dative-locative -da/-de/-ta/-te.

(3) the suffix in Uiguro Mongolian is -Gcin (whereby G denotes an uvular voiced plosive) denoting "colors and names of female animals" (op.cit..: 41 §120). Also note the morphonology of this type of suffix, which drops any final consonant. There is, however, a suffix -jin < *-din / -cin < *-tin which designates female beings (op.cit..: 42 §124), a variant of which we obvioulsy also have in qa-(Ga)-tun and (a)ma-tun. So sorry, no feminine -k- here.

(5) -(yi)gi pops up as late as in 17-18th cent. UM texts only, the source from which it was grammaticalized being unknown AFAIK.

(7) UM -yin is the allomorph for vowel stems, maybe Hintze had in mind the Xalxa form which is written -iyn in the Cyrillica.

(8) UM has a -ra/-re suffix which probably is a detransitivizer. It might be a match, though, if we were dealing with some underlying recessive/accessive polysemy. As so often, further research needed here.

(11) -r-a/-r-e probably derives from a deverbal noun -r + -a/-e locative.

(12) UM has -Gsan/-gsen here, the Xalxa form is eroded.

(18) UM has a -ki suffix which, like the Turkish equivalent, might be an Iranian loan.

(19) "what?" is denoted by yaGu. I don't have any slightest whether a lexeme men occurs in any Mongolian language, and if so, what it means :-)

As in all, I (without regretting the effort I put into checking the above stuff :-)) think it's pretty much the amount of chance resemblances a tour de force through any morphosyntax (especially when abstracting from systemic aspects, i.e. trying to reconstruct a functionally coherent system at each p-stage) would yield, not a convincing proof that — widely believed in but barely proven — Niger-Saharan (into which we probably could stuff back problematic stuff like Meroitic, Shabo, Krongo...) and Nostratic were related.

On this note,

Heike

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nostratica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- 
Mark Hubey
hubeyh@...
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey