REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS / BESPRECHUNGEN

Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis, By Allan Bomhard. (= Studia

Nostratica, 1.) Charleston, S.C.: Signum Desktop Publishing, 1996. Pp. 265.
Reviewed by PAUL J. SIDWELL, University of Melbourne*
The present volume is essentially an abridged and budget-priced version
(US$30) of the rather more expensive (US$195) Bomhard & Kerns (1994;
henceforth: B&K). The chapter by Kerns has been largely deleted, as has the
semantic index of reconstructions. The individual surveys of daughter lan-
guage families have been cropped, especially those dealing with Indo-Euro-
pean and Afroasiatic, and the "Comparative Vocabulary of the Nostratic Lan-
guages". The latter was 523 pages in B&K, and has been reduced to only 63
under the title "Common Nostratic Roots" by removing all attested reflexes and
just listing the reconstructed proto-forms for each branch. This follows the
style of Illich-Svitych (1965). In addition to this the text has been augmented
by some 30 pages of "New Etymologies" and "corrections" to previously pub-
lished etymologies.
It is well known that the Bomhard version of Nostratic contrasts markedly
with the famous Muscovite version, so called because it emerged as a coherent
hypothesis from the work of Illich-Svitych and Dolgopol'skij at Moscow State
University in the 1960s. The most substantive difference between the models
is that Bomhard posits a set of correspondences among the oral stops which is
different from that suggested by the Moscovites, and this has the consequence
that many etymologies proposed by one side must be rejected by the other, and
vica versa. Since the appearance of Bomhard (1984) there have appeared vari-
ous critiques (i.e., Helimskij 1984, Starostin 1989) which have presented em-
pirical evidence and well argued reasoning for rejecting Bomhard's approach to
Nostratics. The present reviewer accepts these criticisms as valid and believes
that it is for good linguistic reasons that he has even heard B&K characterised
as "The dictionary (of Illich-Svitych 1971,1976,1984), plus mistakes!".

* I wish to express my appreciation for useful comments and advice on the above text offered
by Neile Kirk (University of Melbourne) and the ongoing encouragement of my colleagues
among the Parkville Circle.

Diachronica 15:2 (1998), 341–348. DOI 10.1075/dia.15.2.09sid

ISSN 0176–4225 / E-ISSN 1569–9714 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
342 PAUL SIDWELL: REVIEW O F BOMHARD(1996)

In the present review I do not want to rehash all of the arguments over the
technical details of the reconstruction, and instead refer readers to the recent
review of B&K (Sidwell 1996) for some discussion on these issues. The pre-
sent volume is an interesting and affordable text which contains some useful
reference information, and may find a niche in that function. Therefore I con-
centrate on critically discussing this aspect of the book.
The introductory chapter provides some general remarks about the com-
parative method and its application to investigating distant genetic relation-
ships, illustrated with some of the putative etymological materials that appear
later in the book. Also there is a brief "Critique of Muscovite Views on Nos-
tratic". The chapter is an eclectic mix of uncontroversial fact, opinions and un-
fortunate errors of logic, and we should not take it too seriously. Importantly
one should consider Bomhard's assertion that chance resemblances between
languages "[...] seldom add up to more than a handful of examples" (p. 17)
This is plainly mistaken, and one who doubts this can examine refutations such
as Trask's (1994/95:5-7) Basque-Hungarian comparison list. Trask explains
that it was very easy to assemble, especially as "I do not suffer from the incon-
venient handicap of knowing anything about the history of Hungarian". Bom-
hard has the further problem that the sources of his comparisons are from many
languages, giving him enormous scope to assemble chance resemblances into
false correspondences, the possibility of which he so easily discounts.
Chapter 2, "A Survey of the Nostratic Languages", is very brief, devoting
about a page to general remarks, mainly typological, about the various lan-
guage families. In addition to the families included in the work of Illich-Svi-
tych, namely Indo-European, Kartvelian, Afroasiatic (Semito-Hamitic), Uralic,
Dravidian and Altaic, Bomhard includes Sumerian, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Gil-
yak and Eskimo-Aleut. The inclusion of the last three reflects the influence of
Greenberg's 'Eurasiatic' hypothesis, the publication of which has been prom-
ised for some considerable time. This hypothesis groups Indo-European with
Uralic, Altaic and the bulk of the remaining languages of Northeast Asia. Bom-
hard reconciles this with Nostratic by taking Eurasiatic to be a sub-grouping of
Nostratic, with Afroasiatic, Sumerian, Dravidian and Kartvelian as basically
independent branches. Interestingly Bomhard accepts the grouping of Yuka-
ghir with Uralic, an idea that is nowadays widely accepted as likely although
not proved. Furthermore, Bomhard endorses the grouping of Elamite with
Dravidian, proposed by McAlpin (1981), referring to "the closely-related Ela-
mite (though there is some room for interpretation here)" (p.77) — plenty of
room actually, as McAlpin discussed a very modest number of comparisons,
 REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS / BESPRECHUNGEN 343

many of them shaky at best. The approach of Illich-Svitych in working only

with well established languages families inspires more confidence.
Chapter 3, "A Brief History of the Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean Phonological System", is fairly substantial at 31 pages, and in fact more
attention is given to Indo-European phonology in this book than to all the other
language families combined. What we are presented with is an excellent sum-
mary from Schleicher to Gamkrelidze & Ivanov of how views on the recon-
struction have evolved, with Bomhard adopting a view sympathetic to the lat-
ter. The development of each Indo-European family from the proto-system is
discussed, with particular attention drawn to the explanatory power of the
glottalic model, which is subsequently used throughout. The glottalic model
can be treated as a notational variant of the traditional transcription of Proto-
Indo-European phonemes such as used in Pokorny's (1959) comparative dic-
tionary and still generally used as the citation convention for Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean reconstructions. The main differences are that Bomhard presents 4 laryn-
geals instead of the 3 that are worshipped by conservatives, and admirably
Bomhard rejects the dogma that Proto-Indo-European had only one vowel,
namely *e, which is based on a far too narrow application of the principle of
complementary distribution. However, it is apparent that Bomhard is influ-
enced to a degree in his judgments by the extent to which various reconstruc-
tions seem to make different language families appear more similar than they
would otherwise be. For example, he makes much of the perceived similarity
in the forms and distribution of the laryngeals reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Eu-
ropean and for Proto-Afroasiatic. Although it has appeared since the publica-
tion of the volume under review, it is of interest to note the recent paper by
Scheer (1997) which demonstrates that the behaviour of Indo-European laryn-
geals in blocking ablaut is matched in Semitic, an observation which both con-
firms the post-velar articulation of the reconstructed laryngeals and a non-trivial
correspondence with Semitic. Also, after discussing and largely endorsing the
reconstruction of Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1972, 1984 et passim), Bomhard
remarks "It is not surprising that the new look of Proto-Indo-European conso-
nantism proposed by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov has a distinctly Caucasian appear-
ance about it" (p.50). This is an interesting remark indeed, given that Cau-
casian languages are famous for having between 20 and 50 affricates and spi-
rants, and total consonant inventories of up to 80. This contrasts with the three
spirants proposed for Proto-Indo-European by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, and the
single *s of Pokorny's reconstruction. For an excellent discussion of Nostratic
affricates and spirants one should consult Manaster Ramer (1995). Despite
these little quibbles, it should be said that the summary of the development of
344 PAUL SIDWELL: REVIEW OF BOMHARD (1996)

Indo-European presented by Bomhard is well set out and substantiated with

numerous references. Bomhard's speculative asides have some merit and do
add to the readability and interest, in stark contrast to some of the more conser-
vative handbooks on the subject.
The fourth chapter, "A Sketch of the Phonological Systems of the Remain-
ing Nostratic Daughter Languages", is a short summary of the proto-systems
of the daughter families, according to the various reconstructions that Bomhard
has chosen to use. Readers are also given references to alternative reconstruc-
tions and occasionally some discussion on them. For example we are presented
with Diakonoff's (1992) Proto-Afroasiatic phonology, which includes the dis-
tinctly West-Caucasian-looking vertical vowel system. To his credit Bomhard
also presents the more elaborate six-vowel system proposed by Orel & Stol-
bova (1995) and the five vowels plus short/long of Ehret (1995). Bomhard is
most familiar with Indo-European and Afroasiatic, so he is even more reliant
upon the works of other scholars for his information on other language fami-
lies, and this leaves him open to repeating others' mistakes, or not recognising
mistakes in his transcription of their work. This shows up in various places,
and highlights one of the many dangers in attempting long-range reconstruc-
tion. For example, on pages 78 and 79, Bomhard contrasts the Altaic recon-
structions of Poppe (1960) with Starostin (1991). While Poppe reconstructed a
full series of nasals, the velar nasal was restricted to medial positions only. On
the other hand, Starostin reconstructs an initial velar nasal (as does Vovin
1994). Unfortunately Bomhard shows Starostin's system having the defective
velar nasal of Poppe, which is an unacceptable error. The chapter concludes
with tables of Nostratic sound correspondences, the same tables which have
appeared elsewhere (Bomhard 1992, Bomhard & Kerns 1994).
The fifth chapter, "Indo-European and Nostratic" briefly discusses the
Indo-European verbal and nominal morphology, presenting some well-known
parallels between Indo-European other families, particularly Uralic, and vari-
ous typological similarities between Indo-European and other Nostratic mem-
bers. Some of this repeats material which appears in earlier chapters, and
overall it reads as if it was awkwardly cut-and-pasted together. It is interesting
for the summaries of Indo-European morphology, but they are all too brief,
and do not have the attention to detail of the phonology in Chapter 4.
Although some would consider that the subject has already been done to
death, many readers will be keen to follow Bomhard's discussion of linguistic
homelands in Chapter 6 "The Nostratic Homeland and the Dispersal of the
Nostratic Languages". The two major schools of thought on this question,
namely Steppe versus Anatolian homelands, are discussed. Bomhard tends to
 REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS / BESPRECHUNGEN 345

the former, listing three objections to the Anatolian model: 1) the lack of writ-
ten records of Indo-Europeans in Anatolia before 2000 BCE, 2) the alleged dif-
ficulty in explaining ancient contact with Uralic, and 3) the correlation of horse
and chariot in the Indo-European lexicon and archeological evidence for their
Steppe origin. These objections are handled by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov and other
proponents of the Anatolian homeland, but the counterarguments are not given
by Bomhard, and it is worth mentioning some of them briefly here. The first
point is entirely negative evidence, and can prove nothing — there is no written
evidence of Indo-Europeans being anywhere more than four thousand years
ago, but we know that they must have been somewhere. By this logic we
would not place the pre-literate Chinese in China. Both the second and the third
points are explained by positing a migration around the Caspian Sea to the
Steppe, which neatly accounts for not only the linguistic contact that Bomhard
mentions, but also the excellent evidence for very ancient contact with Semitic
presented at various times by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov and overlooked by Bom-
hard and others. Strikingly, Bomhard presents evidence of Caucasian-Indo-
European contact (13 comparisons on pp.106-107) and concludes that this is
strong evidence for the Steppe homeland argument. It is possible to suggest
that this contrasts with his statement on page 104 that "it appears that the ear-
liest inhabitants of Anatolia were speakers of Caucasian languages". Actually
Bomhard goes even further and supports the unpublished proposal by Johanna
Nichols that earlier Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Central Asia. This
reviewer was fortunate enough to hear an oral presentation of this idea by
Nichols in 1992, and at the time it was received with as much enthusiasm as
her controversial book of the same year (Nichols 1992).
The Proto-Afroasiatic homeland is subject to perhaps even more contro-
versy than Indo-European, although Bomhard is probably on safe ground ac-
cepting the views of Miltarëv and Shnirelman (reported in Diakonoff 1988:32
n.14) that the "Proto-Afrasian speakers were the Natufians of the well-known
early Neolithic culture of the Palestinian-Syrian area." The other families for
which homelands are discussed are Kartvelian, Uralic-Yukaghir, Elamo-Dra-
vidian, Altaic, Sumerian, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Gilyak and Eskimo-Aleut, It
is pleasing to see the Pejros-Shnirelman (1988) model of Dravidian spreading
eastward from the Iranian Plateau discussed in some detail. This was based on
cultural reconstruction from linguistic evidence, and it is consistent with the
suggested Elamite connection of McAlpin (1983). There is nothing particularly
controversial in the brief remarks made about the other homelands, although
the remarks on Sumerian do not actually discuss homeland, just distribution.
346 PAUL SIDWELL: REVIEW OF BOMHARD (1996)

The Nostratic homeland is rather unsurprisingly located in the Levant, con-

sistent with Muscovite tradition.
The final chapter before the dictionary of "Common Nostratic Roots" is an
interesting discussion of "Problem Areas and Future Prospects". The long-
running dispute of the reality of Altaic is discussed in an objective and fair
manner, although Bomhard falls into the all-too-common trap of crediting the
recognition of Altaic to Strahlenberg (1730) even though that pioneering work
actually rejected a connection between Turkic, Mongolic and Tunguisic (see
Manaster Ramer & Sidwell 1997). Etruscan is discussed, and Bomhard finds
that "it is clear that it contains unmistakable Nostratic elements" (p.131), and
goes on to list pronouns, demonstratives and a handful of lexical and gram-
matical elements. A similar quality of evidence is presented for Sumerian, and
a proposed relationship emerges between Sumerian and Elamo-Dravidian.
These are very interesting ideas which are supported by some rather thin but
tantalising evidence. A point Bomhard repeatedly makes is that these areas of-
fer prospects for further research.
The list of references is fairly extensive at 28 pages, and all foreign titles
are translated into English. We do note that Vennemann's (1984) "Hochger-
manisch und Niedergermanisch" is translated as "High German and Low Ger-
man" by Bomhard, who appears to have missed the point of why Vennemann
chose the title he did instead of simply "Hochdeutsch und Niederdeutsch".
On the whole Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis has much of
interest, although it must be approached with extreme caution. There is some
handy reference material, and some of the lexical comparisons presented can
serve as possible sources of Nostratic etymologies. Bomhard is to be congratu-
lated for making this available in a more accessible form than its previous in-
carnation, although the overall quality of the work is mixed, as will become
apparent to scholars using this text.

Reviewer's address:
Paul J. Sidwell
Department of Linguistics & Applied Linguistics
University of Melbourne
PARKVILLE, Victoria
A u s t r a l i a 3052
e-mail: s_pjs@eduserv.its.unimelb.edu.au
 REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS / BESPRECHUNGEN 347

REFERENCES
Bomhard, Allan R. 1984. Toward Proto-Nostratic: A new approach to the
comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. (= Current Is­
sues in Linguistic Theory, 27.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 1992. "The Nostratic Macrofamily (with special reference to Indo-
European)". Word 43:1.61-83.
& John Kerns. 1994. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Diakonoff, Igor. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Akad. Nauk SSSR.
. 1992. Proto-Afrasian and Old Akkadian: A study in historical pho­
netics. (= Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 4:1/2.) Princeton, N.J.: Institute
of Semitic Studies.
Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian):
Vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ.
of California Press.
Gamkrelidze, Tomaz V. & Vjaceslav Vs. Ivanov. 1972. "Lingvističeskaja tipo-
logija i rekonstrukcija sistemy indoevropejskix smyčnyx". Konferencija po
sravniteV no-istorideskoj grammatike indoevropejskix jazykov ed. by S. B.
Bernstejn et al., 15-18. Moscow: Izd. "Nauka".
. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. 2 vols. Tbilisi: Tbilisi
State Univ.
Helimski, Eugene A. 1987. "A 'New Approach' to Nostratic Comparison: Re-
view of Allan R. Bomhard, Toward Proto-Nostratic: A new approach to the
comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic [Bomhard 1984]".
Journal of the American Oriental Society 107:1.97-100.
Illich-Svitych, Vladislav M. 1965. "Materialy k sravnitel' nomu slovarju nos-
tratideskix jazykov (indoevropejskij, altajskij, ural'skij, dravidskij, kartvel'-
skij, semitoxamitskij)". Etimologija 1965.321-373.
. 1971. Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov (semito-xamitskij, kart-
vel' skij, indoevropejskij,ural'skij, dravidskij, altajskij). Slovar' b-K. Mos-
cow: Izd. "Nauka".
. 1976. Opyt sravnenija nostratideskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kart-
vel'skij,indoevropejskij, ural'skij, dravidskij, altajskij). Sravnitelnyj slovar'
l-z. Moscow: Izd. "Nauka".
. 1984. Opyt sravnenija nostratideskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kart-
vel'skij, indoevropejskij, ural'skij, dravidskij, altajskij). Sravnitelnyj slovar'
p-q. Moscow: Izd. "Nauka".
Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1994. "Clusters or Affricates in Kartvelian and Nos-
tratic". Diachronica 11:2.157-170.
& Paul J. Sidwell. 1997. "The Truth about Strahlenberg's Classifica-
tion of the Languages of Northeastern Eurasia". Journal de la Société Finno-
ougrienne 87.139-160.
McAlpin, David. 1981. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The evidence and its implica­
tions. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
348 PAUL SIDWELL: REVIEW OF BOMHARD (1996)

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago:

Univ. of Chicago Press.
Orel, Vladimir & Olga Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictio­
nary: Materials for a reconstruction. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern:
Francke.
Poppe, Nicholas. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen.
Teil 1: Vergleichende Lautlehre. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Pejros, Ilja & Viktor Shnirelman. 1989. "Toward an Understanding of Proto-
Dravidian Prehistory". Reconstructing Languages and Cultures ed. by Vitaly
Shevoroshkin, 70-71. Bochum: Norbert Brockmeyer.
Scheer, Tobias. 1997. "Des Ablauts gemeiner Gegner: Laryngale". Dhum-
badji! Journal for the History of Language 3:1.15-31.
Sidwell, Paul. 1996. Review of Bomhard & Kerns (1994). Word 47:3.456-
464.
Starostin, Sergej A. 1989. "Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian". Explorations in
Language Macrofamilies ed. by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, 42-66. Bochum: Nor-
bert Brockmeyer.
. 1991. Altajskaja problema i proisxozdenie japonskogo jazyka. Mos-
cow: Izd. "Nauka".
Strahlenberg, Philipp Johann von. 1730. Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von
Europa und Asia. In so weit solches Das ganze Russische Reich mit Sibirien
und das grossen Tatarey in sich begrijffet, In einer Historisch-Geographi-
schen Beschreibung der alten und neuern Zeiten, und vielen andern unbe-
kannten Nachrichten vorgestellet, Nebst einer noch niemals ans Licht ge-
gebenen Tabula Polyglotta von zwey und dreyssigerley Arten Tatarischer
Völcker Sprachen und einem Kalmuckischen Vocabulario. Sonder lich aber
Einer grossen richtigen Land-Charte von den benannten Landern und von
verschiedenen Kupfferstichen, so die Asiatische-Scythische Antiquitatbetref­
fen; Bey Gelegenheit der Schwedischen Kriegs-Gefangenschaft in Russland,
aus eigener sorgfaltigen Erkundingung, auf denen verstatteten weitten Reisen
zusammen gebracht und ausgefertiget. Stockholm: In Verlegung des Autoris.
(Repr., with an introduction and bibliography by John R. Krueger, Szeged,
1975, as No.8 of Studia Uralo-Altaica. [To be obtained through John Benja-
mins Publ. Co. of Amsterdam & Philadelphia].)
Trask, Lawrence. 1994/95. "Basque: The search for relatives". Dhumbadji!
Journal for the History of Language 2:1.3-54.
Vovin, Alexander. 1994. "Long-Distance Relationships, Reconstruction Meth-
odology, and the Origins of the Japanese". Diachronica 11:1.95-114.