Alexander to Piotr:
>[...] I hoped that we could list the shared properties (grammatical >and
>phonetic, without lexical correspondences yet on this stage) of >Uralic and
>IE versus Uralic and Dravidian (like once we compared >Germanic &
>Balto-Slavic versus Germanic & West IE, if you remember) >[...] Is it
>possible?
I think most would agree that Uralic is probably closer to IE than it is to
Dravidian. For me, Dravidian represents a more archaic stage than those of
the Steppe languages (IE, Etruscan, Uralic, Altaic, EskAleut), where
different forms for a nominative/absolutive case than for an
accusative/ergative case still existed seperate from the verb. I believe
this is why Dravidian appears at odds with the current understanding of
Nostratic rather than being a usefool tool. (I think Nostraticists have
something to learn from Dravidian's "oddness".)
Grammatical commonalities between IE and Uralic could include:
- IE stative/active vs. Uralic subjective/objective
- common accusative *-m
- underlyingly unmarked nominative
- traces of common interrorelatives in
*kW- (animate) and *m- (inanimate)
- SOV order
Usually, the more malevolent of the anti-Nostraticists, upon seeing such a
list, are tempted to pick it apart in order to derail the subject and to
appear to have undermined a pro arguement for IndoUralic relationship. This
is often done by taken only one point such as "SOV word order" and saying
that this in itself does not prove relationship. This is of course correct,
if you wish to be underhanded about it. However, we are not talking about
_one_ point but rather a multitude of points taken _together_. Any point
like those I've listed above may be dismissed as coincidence individually.
It is their combined weight however that strengthens the likelihood of
relationship over coincidence and areal influence.
Phonetic correspondances between the stops and laryngeals (in my
Bomhardian-like view) might be as follows:
IE Uralic
--- ------
*k, *g, *gh *k, -N-
*kW, *gW, *ghW *k, -k-
*t, *d, *dh *t
*p, *bh *p
*? (H1) NULL
*x (H2) NULL, -w-
*xW (H3) NULL, -w-
Guillaume:
>(comme *teke 'installer', si je me souviens bien, apparente a >*dheh2)
>[...] Les trois laryngales correspondent a k en ouralique >dans la couche
>la plus profonde
Je reste firmement oppose a cette opinion et a plusieurs des opinions de
Miguel apropos les etages plus anciens de l'indoeuropeen. J'ai cru que *teke
n'est qu'un mot de l'etage finnoougrien, et non un mot ouralique. Le mot
*teke semble bien emprunte d'un dialecte indoeuropeen. A mon avis, la
plupart des laryngeales nostratiques ne sont pas survecus en ouralique, sauf
en position mediale comme *w.
Piotr:
>As regards Indo-Uralic, the earliest shared vocabulary (assuming the
>validity of at least some of Koivulehto's "laryngeal" >etymologies) has a
>skewed geographical distribution within Uralic, >the cognates in question
>being Finno-Ugric, Finno-Permic or even >Finno-Mordvinic much more often
>than common Uralic.
Well, I would call myself "pro-Nostratic" in that I think that it is
promising. However, I do think that Nostraticists so far have not worked
hard enough yet to arrive at a sensible common theory. I find myself picking
what I like from all of the words one may find from Bomhard, Kerns, IS, and
hell, even Greenberg! I don't think any one of these people has it right
just yet but I am so far most satisfied with Bomhard (minus his views on
ablaut).
I think the biggest flaw with Nostraticists is that they often take such an
unbalanced view. They believe that ANY grammatical, phonetic or semantic
similarity must be genuine proof of relationship. They often fail to take
areal influences and borrowings into account, ignoring all the possible
linguistic contacts that these languages have had during 15,000 years of
existence.
One cruel example of a wildly unbalanced view can be found amongst Bomhard's
reconstructions where we find cognate #194 *sWak[h]sW-/*sW@...[h]sW- "six"
with only two languages to support it (IE and Kartvelian). The fact that
AfroAsiatic's Semitic is not to be seen here should disturb most sensible
scholars and it is terribly clear that the corresponding numerals found in
both IE and Kartvelian could only have been brought about by borrowing from
a Semitoid language at a very late date (most likely during the Neolithic).
To be clear, I _do_ have faith in a Nostratic family, including AfroAsiatic
as a most ancient branch, but I am personally looking for deeper analyses
than what has been offered at present like many anti-Nostraticists. The fact
that there are contraversies within the Altaic or AfroAsiatic fields should
not greatly affect the Nostratic hypothesis as a whole. What should be more
important to Nostraticists is to establish a more defined theory that better
takes into account realities such as borrowing. (And we might slice the
phonological system in two as it now stands but more on that later.)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com