The theory has evolved. Take note that I now consider Altaic, Gilyak and
Korean as three distinct branches of an AltaicGilyak grouping. Thus Gilyak
is on a par with Korean since Gilyak shows the characteristic lenition of
voiceless stops. As well, Altaic I is to be considered AltaicGilyak and
Altaic II is to be considered Altaic proper.
Also, there are improved reconstructions now for the Steppe words for "six",
"seven", "eight" and "nine":
6 *ru
7 *rara
8 *munra
9 *nura/nukura
Now on to the discussion:
-------------------------
Piotr:
>But if you compare, say, the numerals of PIE and Proto-Quechua, you'll
> >find even more spectacularly similar words for '5' and '6'; and if you
> >take Proto-Austronesian and PIE, you'll find the correspondence >between
>the words for '2' and '3' in both families quite literally too >good to be
>true.
This is such a deceptive arguement. The geographical proximity between
Uralic and Mongolic can hardly be compared to the other pairs you mention -
this only serves to make their relationship seem more likely. This combined
with common grammatical particles, vocabulary and grammar shared between
Uralic and Mongolic that show regular sound correspondances, besides just
"three" and "four", makes the link even more persuasive. Many sources even
admit to the probability that Altaic and Uralic are related (unlike your IE
and Quechua/Austronesian pseudohypothesis that only serves to confuse the
issue here)
Thus, when we have a pair of numerals that correlate perfectly between two
language groups already suspected of being related, we have to sit up and
take note.
Piotr:
>Your explanation of the relation between '3' and '9' in Japanese in
> >ingenious and I have no difficulty accepting it.
It's not my idea. I nicked it from something I read a while back on
Classical Japanese. :)
Piotr:
>However, some problems remain: what you gain by solving this problem >is a
>rough match between Japanese, Mongolic and Uralic, with >Samoyedic, Turkic,
>Tungusic, Korean, Nivkh, Yukaghir, Chukchi->Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut
>showing apparently unrelated forms and the >alleged Indo-Tyrrhenian cognate
>giving you headaches, as you yourself >admit. As the Proto-Japanese numeral
>is somewhat conjectural, >everything really hangs on the agreement between
>Mongolic gur- and >Uralic kol(me) -- this is in fact the REAL basis for
>your kWul(mu).
In fact, the Mongolic word would be *qur- or *kur- since Middle Mongolian
seems to have a variant /qurban/. I've seen *gur- reconstructed before,
based of course on Mongolian and Japanese (and possibly other languages that
I forget) but Japanese can't tell us anything about the voicing of the
initial stop and no doubt Modern Khalkha /gu"rav/ was relied upon.
>By "reaching down", i.e. using forms not from proto-languages but from
> >their arbitrarily chosen daughters you depart from the normal
>procedure of the comparative method and greatly increase the >probability
>of a chance match, as in Greenberg's mass comparison (especially when you
>work with very short roots such as *ra or *na).
The theory has evolved. Only "six" can now be said to be a "short" root.
Secondly, I don't arbitrarily choose daughters and "reach down" - you're
creating myths. The attestations that I select are ones that show up in more
than one language family (hence its hardly arbitrary). They also show
regular sound changes which I'm beginning to understand more and more.
The Steppe word *rara is a product of *ra- "seven" plus the suffix *-ra used
in higher numerals. It was already mistaken as a reduplicative form when
AltaicGilyak changed it to *NaNa (N = velar nasal) since it should have
become **Nara. This change of *r- to *N- occured via a uvular *R which
appears to be a product of areal influence with other SinoDene languages,
but I digress. According to zompist.com, the Nivkh word for "seven" is
/ngamg-/ but I suspect strongly that this is a typo for an actual /ngang-/.
From AltaicGilyak *NaNa, we get Altaic *nana (Japanese nanatsu, Tungus
nadan). Afterall, Altaic has no velar nasals (despite Starostin's far
loonier reconstructions of numerals like his *Nu "three" based on Khalkha
gu"rav, Japanese mi- and Turkic *otur???).
The fact that Gilyak, Tungus, Japanese (and possibly Mongolic Khalkha
/doluun/) are the only ones preserving "seven" is hardly a shocker either.
FinnoUgric languages as well as Turkic languages manage to overwrite their
numeral with the ubiquitous Semitoid borrowings. Of course, we know that IE
*septm is an early loanword as is Etruscan /semph/ which, too, has this
pesky omnivorous numeral.
Steppe *rara and the daughter languages that represent it are conscious and
deliberate choices. One would be hard pressed to find any other numeral form
with as wide an attestation and regularity as *rara.
>Frankly, I still can't see why Samoyedic should be less likely than
>Finno-Ugric to have retained Proto-Uralic forms. [...] To give a >concrete
>example, Tungusic is your only witness for '6' (with some
>feeble support from Japanese).
I'll retract the statement and rethink this. Mind you, aside from Tungusic,
*ru is retained in Gilyak /ngax-/ and Korean yo-sot.
>Your admission that there is NO ATTESTATION AT ALL for the >reconstructed
>numeral '8' is staggering. [...] As a matter of fact, >you abandon the
>comparative method entirely in this case and simply >project your Nostratic
>form onto Proto-Steppe by "inverted >reconstruction". [...] as far as I can
>see, the corresponding >Sumerian, Dravidian and Afroasiatic numerals (if
>reconstructable at
>all) can hardly be cognates. From what evidence and by what esoteric
> >method did you distil your Nostratic reconstruction then? The answer >is
>the same as before: you project a still more ancient (Dene->Caucasian) form
>onto Nostratic -- ALL THE TIME WITHOUT A SHADOW OF >EVIDENCE.
Du calme, monsieur. I knew that this numeral would ire you. First the
logical assumption is that there must have been some word for "eight" in
ProtoSteppe if so many of the others appear to be reconstructable. Thus I
provided the likeliest reconstruction that I could come up with at the time.
Given that you haven't even asked for the "shadow of evidence" but rather
simply went straight for an emotional conclusion makes it appear that you
are more interested in biased sentiment rather than rational thought. :(
There is lots of evidence regarding DeneCaucasian *mnrit in both of its
large branches:
NostratoDene (s-Group):
Nostratic *munri
SinoDene *bRy@:t (via heavy stress on second syllable)
SinoTibetan *bryat (Cantonese baat).
VascoCaucasic (t-Group):
Basque bederatzi "nine" (semantic shift due to Semitoid loanwords)
NEC *bunLi (Chechen baarx)
Hurrian miri-
Along with *sulrit "seven" (Nostratic *(u)ra), it's clear that these two
words were counting away from ten, since DC *sul is also attested and means
"three" (Nostratic *hul). It all even shows the regular disappearance of DC
*s in Nostratic that I love so much (also *u "I (abs)", ultimately from
DeneCaucasian *si).
Finally, in Nostratic itself, outside of Steppe, *munri might be attested in
Semitic, Egyptian and Dravidian. And yes, you're right, Nivkh /minr/ is an
attestation of Steppe *munra. I lost track of the Nivkh numerals in my head.
Thanx!
>If you relax it ad hoc (as you do for the numerals '3' and '4' in your
> >response), you sabotage your own project. In the case at hand you make
> >things far worse by relaxing semantic constraints at the same time, as
> >when you allow the '5' word for to mean '4' or '6' (even with so much
> >latitude you can't get an unambiguos reconstruction for '5' and have >to
>be content with two different forms in free variation).
The theory has adapted. The term for five is now securely *kit:u which
regularly changes to Altaic *�t� through vowel harmony rules and softening
of the voiceless stop *k. The Uralic phonetic deviation is caused by an
early association between the pairs "one"/"two" and "five"/"six".
IndoTyrrhenian *kWetWe (expected **ketWe) would naturally have been affected
by the surrounding labiovelar enriched numerals *kWel "three" (Etr. ci) and
*penkWe "five", as well as "four"'s own final labial *tW. Why, it would be a
miracle if it ever came out **ketWe under these circumstances!
Piotr:
>Your protoword for '5' (*kit:u/*kWut:u) develops the meaning '4' in >one
>branch (Indo-Tyrrhenian) and '6' in another (Uralic). Oritur
>quaestio, dominus Glen: is there a Steppe branch in which it means >just
>what it's supposed to mean? Your answer is "Altaic" -- but in >actual fact
>you only mention Old Japanese. Let's look at the words >for '5' elsewhere
>in Altaic: Mongolic *tabun, Tunguzic *tuNga, Korean >tas�t, Old Turkic beS.
>No good.
What are you talking about Piotr?? The words are indeed attested in Middle
Mongolian ta-bun (cf. qur-ban, do"r-ban, etc!!). It is also present in
Tungusic! Korean has /ta-sot/ for *i"ti" just as it has /yo-sot/ for *ru,
both with the -sot termination! Of course, Turkic has nothing to do with
this.
And if you think I'm lying about "five", Gilyak ALSO shows this numeral
along with surrounding correlations in one long four-numeral streak!
AltaicGilyak
4 n@- *nil
5 tho- *�t�
6 ngax- *Nu
7 ngang- *NaN
8 minr *munro
Let's shake our heads a little and succumb to the reality of genetic
relationship, 'kay?
>How about extending the search? If we look farther afield (and I've
> >checked Nivkh, Samoyed, Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleutian and
>Chukchi->Kamchatkan, lest you should think I'm lazy),
Apparently, you're lazy cuz Nivkh slipped from under you :)
>I understand your private methodology well enough to see that it's
> >self-defeating. By saying that it's better to reconstruct ANYTHING
> >rather than nothing at all you ignore the distinction between a >serious
>proposal and unfounded speculation.
Piotr, aside from being highly bias in favor of the mainstream status quo of
complete ignorance and agnostism regarding prehistoric stages of
reconstruction which only works against advancing knowledge, you also
misunderstand that this theory isn't the end of things but a tentative
proposal, as I keep saying. It will adapt as it already has and because of
this, your statements are only founded for the current stage of this theory
which has already changed somewhat... so keep arguing :)
It truely IS better to reconstruct anything rather than crying "Impossible!"
everytime someone attempts to address a question that needs to be answered.
Here is an answer. If it is not to your satisfaction then by all means,
alter it.
Piotr:
>This is a misunderstanding of scientific methodology. The null >hypothesis
>must always be as conservative as possible in order to
>exclude unwarranted inferences. Thus, you can't start by ASSUMING that >the
>Steppe families are related and what remains to discovered is just >HOW
>they are related.
The Steppe hypothesis is not much of an assumption. I validly judge
relatedness based on the commonalities of grammatical systems. The Steppe
languages all exhibit certain specific characteristics that distinguish them
from other languages of the Old/New World.
Piotr:
>Such a proposition could never be falsified, for it cannot be proved >that
>two languages are unrelated: the evidence of their genetic >relationship
>may have been obliterated by historical change. The >initial null
>hypothesis must assume their NON-relatedness --only then >can we hope to
>make some progress by trying to falsify it.
...but how do we falsify NON-relatedness, Piotr? That seems frankly like a
fruitless game in itself.
>You can replace it with a new null hypothesis only if you manage to
>demonstrate that all or some of the languages being compared show
> >systematic resemblances which exceed non-genetic "background >similarity"
>(due to borrowing, chance, etc.).
This already has been provided time and time again by many others before me
via commonalities in grammar and vocabulary as well as set sound
correspondances.
God, I hope I responded to all the major points, phew...
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com