>You speak in axioms: [the
>tree model] "is sufficient to explain comparative
>linguistics", as if it required no proof. [...]
Yes, it requires no proof. It's simple reasoning. Without using a tree
model, whether this is an imposed structure or not (kinda like wave-particle
duality which is equally imposed but produces results), we cannot
reconstruct the simplest language - including IE - because everything goes
haywire. Should we throw away IE knowledge then? Of course not!
IE studies are proof enough that the tree model _is_ sufficient to explain
comparative linguistics and sufficient to be used in comparative
linguistics.
>Actually thare has been a lot of debate between "arborealists" and
>"diffusionists" over the last 150 years, and the consensus
>between comparative linguists at present is that NEITHER of
>the the two models is sufficient in itself and they must be
>regarded as complementary. This complementarity imposes
>certain limitations on the applicability of the comparative
>method.
I don't recall scientists thinking of things in terms of both waves and
particles AT THE SAME TIME - that would _really_ make for a tangled bush. In
order to reconstruct languages (like IE!!!) we have to impose some order,
otherwise nothing can be accomplished. I find it ironic that you talk about
this complementary scenario as if this is the foundation of IE yet if this
idea were in place before the birth of IE studies, nothing would have arisen
as a result and we would find ourselves in the linguistic dark ages. It's
crossword puzzle time.
About Nivkh, I said:
>I await further information to adapt my hypothesis. Do you
>have some extra info that could help me?
Piotr in response:
>In other words, you DON'T know enough even to begin to
>analyse the correspondences. Yet you glance at a few forms
>and determine the place of Nivkh among the world's languages
>(not unlike Joseph Greenberg).
>
>On geographical grouds, Hungarian or Basque "could only be"
>Indo-European.
Actually no, Piotr. You're going overboard again and using only a piece of
what I say as a source for a new essay. I didn't base my views of Nivkh on
ONLY geographical evidence. I meant that it comes into play in combination
with everything else that must also be disputed _together_ with the
geography.
Hungarian is already known to be related to Finnish and other Uralic
languages so it's crazy to confuse the issue with this arguement. Even so,
we can first check the pronominal system and pronominal affixes and find
ourselves immediately at a loss as to how to explain the system in IE terms.
How should we explain -n/-d versus -k/-l conjugation? Although it has a
vague similarity to the mi-class/hi-class thing, it doesn't explain its
definite/indefinite function in Hungarian. The declension although skewed a
bit is still more relatable to Uralic than to IE. All the familiar
vocabulary terms reconstructed for IE aren't present in Hungarian. Instead,
there is a large amount of vocabulary shared with Uralic languages with
regular sound correspondances.
All this would seem to make Hungarian a Uralic language but I guess with
that dang battle going on between arborealists and confusionists (erh, I
mean diffusionists) I guess Piotr would say that Hungarian's relationship is
unknown.
As for Basque, just taking a look at its pronominal system (1ps ni, 2ps hi,
1pp gu, 2pp zue, etc) shows us that comparing it to IE or even Nostratic is
futile. In fact, the plural pronouns /gu/ and /zue/ can't be explained in
Nostratic linguistics since Nostratic lacks seperate plural pronominal
stems. When delving back further in DeneCaucasian studies we find *tLu and
*Lu in the plural because DC does have seperate plural stems. These also
seem to match (certainly far better than IE). Nothing else in Basque grammar
or vocabulary warrants this connection to IE either.
Once again, Piotr has led us down the wrong path. :)
>As for further info, at the moment, I can only quote from
>
>http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/nivkhs.shtml
Thanx alot. Hmm, modifier-modified? Intriguing. I find this quote
particularly interesting:
There are only a few loans from the Manchu-Tungus
or Paleo-Asian languages. However, vocabulary
connected with newer occupations (e.g. agriculture,
cattle-breeding, horticulture), is pervaded with
loans from the Russian language.
If there are so few loans between it and Altaic languages like
Manchu-Tungus, why does it have similar pronominal stems? Hmmm..... Maybe
because it's related in some way to Altaic? Although we might want to jump
up and assume then that the numeral system is borrowed from Manchu-Tungus,
I'm afraid that there is the matter of /n@-/ (cf. Korean net) which prevents
us from automatically doing so.
Another quote is interesting to help clear the mystery:
The Nivkh language belongs to the Paleo-Asian languages
as a separate unit, unconnected to any other group or
subgroup. It is connected to the Chukchi-Kamchatkan
and Altai languages by typological similarities and,
in the opinion of several academics, also to
North American Indian languages.
They mention the usual probability of connection with Altaic languages and
Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages (both Steppe languages) based on typological
(and I would argue also vocabulary and grammatical) similarities. I presume
the "typological similarities" mentioned here involve vowel harmony
constraints. They also go so far as to mention a possible connection with
"North American Indian" languages. The only North American Indian language
that could possibly have contact with Nivkh would be Na-Dene languages
before their migration into North America some zillion years ago. If I had
my way, Na-Dene would be part of a larger SinoDene subgroup of the
DeneCaucasian macrofamily.
This mention combined with some evidence for IndoTyrrhenian-PreNWC contact
makes it strongly appear as though both Steppe languages and SinoDene
languages were interacting with each other: PreNWC to the west (interacting
with IndoTyrrhenian), PreNaDene to the northeast (possibly interacting in
some way with AltaicGilyak or Nivkh itself). Getting cool.
>(where you can also find a few Nivkh words -- just four or
>five random items, but they will significantly increase you
>Nivkh vocabulary)
Yummy! Specifically the website has increased my vocabulary by a whopping
140%, but I don't feel whoozy at all! :)
>Other recent publications mentioned there are all in
>Russian, but you should consider learning Russian anyway if
>you're going to study the languages of the region.
Oy veh, ain't that the pravda. With all these publications how come nobody
has set some of it loose on the net, even in Russian? Nivkh conspiracy
perhaps? Are the Nivkh part of some secret organisation like those
suspicious Masons? You be the judge. :)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com