From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 56237
Date: 2008-03-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "arbomhard" <arbomhard@...>
To: <Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:36 AM
Subject: [Nostratic-L] Nostratic Phonology
In several postings to this list, including a long one between Pat
Ryan and Ray Cote from March 1, 2008, there have been discussions of
my reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic phonological system. Ray
has been particularly skeptical. I find these discussions of great
interest, and I would like to hear more. What is the basis for the
skepticism? What alternative reconstructions are being proposed?
What are the data used to back up the alternative reconstructions?
What sound laws are being proposed to account for the more
complicated phonological systems found in Proto-Afroasiatic and Proto-
Kartvelian? What are the revised correspondence sets?
***
I would be glad to take up any point made but it would be so helpful to have
a reading copy of your book when I do so that I have a complete overview of
the adjustments you have made.
Shameless, I know!
***
One of the assumptions underlying my proposals is that Proto-
Afroasiatic is the oldest surviving branch of Nostratic. Afroasiatic
scholars generally place the parent language somewhere in the 12,000
BCE time-frame (though opinions do differ), and a rather complicated
phonological system is typically reconstructed (see especially the
works of Ehret, David Cohen, Orel-Stolbova, and Diakonoff). I
further assume that, given the great antiquity of Afroasiatic, the
Proto-Nostratic phonological system most likely was similar, though
not quite identical, to what is reconstructed for Proto-Afroasiatic.
This is not at all an unreasonable position. Moreover, I support
this assumption with nearly a thousand pages worth of examples, and I
conclude the presentation with a short discussion of possible
language contact between Proto-Nostratic and Proto-North-Caucasian,
showing how the shared vocabulary items support my reconstruction.
***
I certainly agree. Proto-Nostratic phonology is quite similar to PAA (or
Proto-Afrasian).
***
Another point that is worth mentioning is the question of whether the
cited forms I use are the same as or differ in any respect from what
has appeared in my previous work. Each of the etymologies that
appeared in my 1994 joint monograph with John C. Kerns have been re-
examined. The documentation has been expanded (more cited forms --
many more), a handful of etymologies have been removed (including two
that have been identified by Alexis Manaster Ramer and others as
possible borrowings), about 200 new etymologies have been added, and
copious references are given to the standard etymological (and non-
etymological) dictionaries in each branch. This is important since
new etymological dictionaries (not to mention numerous articles) have
appeared for Afroasiatic (3), for Kartvelian (2), for Altaic (1), for
Chukchi-Kamchatkan (2), and for Eskimo (1) since the publication of
my 1994 book.
The reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic vowels has also been
refined. Here, I owe a note of thanks to Pat Ryan for bringing my
attention to possible shortcomings with my previous views (I thank
him in print in the Preface to my new book). Though I do not
necessarily agree with all of his counter-proposals and/or
criticisms, he did make some good points, and, on that basis, I did
re-examine the evidence presented by the daughter languages and make
some important changes.
***
Thank you. Your kind words are most gracious.
My criticisms were meant to be constructive.
***
The new book also devotes several long chapters to comparative
morphology.
One final comment: The approach that I take is positivistic, that
is, data-oriented. I give primarily importance to the actual attested
data from the daughter languages rather than trying to fit the data
to match a preconceived set of assumptions or theories. I let the
data drive the conclusions and not the other way around.
***
Here, I believe a theoretical framework, deduced from the data and general
typological considerations, needs to be set up within which the data can be
organized.
The 90 monosyllables of my Proto-Language have served that purpose well for
me.
Again, thank you for your acknowledgment of the small part I played in your
new formulation.
Patrick (like that better than 'Pat')
***