This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Allan R. Bomhard Charleston, SC, USA 1. Historical Background In 1903, the Danish linguist Holger Pedersen was the first to observe that certain languages/language families of Europe, Northern and Eastern Africa, the ancient Near East (including the Caucasus Mountains), Northern Eurasia, and India might be genetically related. Though he never published a systematic account of his views, he did make the following remarks (1931:335—338):
The question of the relationship among the Indo-European and foreign families of languages came up in the first period of comparative linguistics. Relationship between Semitic and Indo-European was asserted by Rudolf von Raumer, beginning in 1863, and by Ascoli from 1864 on. But convincing proof could not be expected at that time. Resemblances in the morphology of the two families are extremely few, and proof by means of vocabulary and the laws of sounds was not then understood. Schleicher denied most positively any relationship between the two, pointing to the great dissimilarity in the forms of the roots: in Semitic the roots consist of three syllables of very simple and uniform structure, as in Arabic "atala (root form and preterite of the verb ‘to kill’), while in Indo-European the roots are monosyllabic and of widely varying — partly heavily compounded — form, as in Latin ī-re ‘to go,’ stā-re ‘to stand,’ lub-et ‘it pleases,’ vert-ō ‘I turn,’ ed-ō ‘I eat,’ and so on. At that time nobody could weaken this argument. And it might have been added, although Schleicher did not do so, that the phonetic systems of the two language families are extremely different, as may be seen from a single example: in Semitic there is an abundance of gutturals, whereas in Indo-European there is not one, not even the (to us) ordinary h. With this in view, one might feel tempted to assent to Schleicher’s exclamation: “What weight have the few similarities in roots in the two language families against these sharp contrasts?” And one might well be disposed to neglect “the few similarities” which one could not help observing. Nothing was changed in the problem by the first step in a systematic examination of the vocabulary which Friedrich Delitzsch took in his Studien über indogermanisch-semitische Wurzelverwandtschaft (1873). But the development of IndoEuropean linguistics changed the problem greatly. The monosyllabic form of IndoEuropean roots turned out to be an entirely secondary phenomenon: in historical times the roots of the words for heaven, god, or heart may appear to be *diw- or *#erd-, but we have good reason to believe that in the period older than that of the Indo-European parent language these roots had forms like *däyäwä-, or *#ärädä- …, and that the phonological system in this older period had quite a different appearance from that which we attribute to the Indo-European language. With this background, there appeared in 1906 an extraordinarily important work by the Danish scholar Hermann Möller, Semitisch und Indogermanisch. This is a splendid attempt to discover the laws controlling the relationship between Indo-European and Semitic consonants — a successful attempt, although only the main lines of development are traced. Time alone will show how far we can advance by Möller’s
Allan R. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences
method. Certain it is, however, that the comparison of the two families can never be carried out so completely and in such detail as the comparison within the fields of the individual languages of one family. But Indo-European has been brought into connection with other families besides Semitic. Vilhelm Thomsen, as early as 1869, indicated the possibility of a relationship with Finno-Ugrian, but he did not pursue the subject very far. In 1879, the Estonian Nicolai Anderson published an extensive work on the subject, the value of which is considerably impaired by its many errors. Great interest was awakened when the English scholar Henry Sweet advocated the relationship somewhat passionately in a little popular book, The History of Language (1900). However, among the individual similarities which Sweet mentions, some are incorrect, and his space was too limited to permit of actual proof. Trustworthy studies of some length by K. B. Wiklund and H. Paasonen appeared in 1906 and 1908. After these works it seemed unnecessary to doubt the relationship further. Moreover, the inflectional systems show much greater relationships than in the case of Semitic. The original ending of the accusative case in Finno-Ugrian was -m, which in Finnish has changed to -n. The same ending is Indo-European: Finnish Nominative käsi hand Accusative käde-n Cheremissian kit kið-əm Latin Greek vespera evening hespérā vespera-m hespérā-n
The similarities in the personal endings of verbs are especially striking: Finnish 1st person sg. kuolen 1st person pl. kuole-mme 2nd person pl. kuole-tte Cheremissian I die kole-m we die you die Greek Sanskrit é-phero-n I carried a-bhara-m e-phéromen we carried e-phére-te you carried
Furthermore, there is an unmistakable similarity between the two families in a series of pronouns and in the negation ‘not’: Finnish minä I (Lappish mon) sinä thou (s from t; Lapp. don) tä-mä this jo-ka who, which (relative) ku-ka who? (interrogative) Hungarian ne not Latin mē me tē thee Sanskrit tayakaOld Norse ne not
It is impossible to regard all this as the result of accident. It is noteworthy, however, that the similarities hitherto pointed out in the more concrete part of the vocabulary are very few, although some of them are as striking as Finish nimi ‘name,’ and Latin nōmen. Consideration of the problem whether sound-laws still unknown to us, or morphological developments not yet understood, have obliterated the originally more numerous points of similarity, or whether the vocabulary in one of the families was largely renewed after the period in common, we must postpone until later. But to deny relationship between the families would be overbold. If we accept relationship, we are led yet further afield, not only to Samoyed, which cannot be separated from Finno-Ugrian, but throughout all of Northern Asia and
Allan R. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences
across the Bering Strait, because similar, though fainter, resemblances like those here cited are found also in Turkish, Mongolian and Manchu, in Yukaghir, and even in Eskimo. If, on the other hand, we agree in the matter of relationship with Semitic, then we must also accept relationship with the far-flung Hamitic family, and perhaps with Basque. And squarely in the midst between our supposed Northern and Southern relatives stand the Caucasian languages, which we cannot ignore, and various extinct languages in Asia Minor and thereabout. It is not impossible that some of the non-IndoEuropean languages of antiquity in Asia Minor were once most closely related of all to the Indo-European family. As a comprehensive designation for the families of languages which are related to Indo-European, we may employ the expression Nostratian Languages (from Latin nostrās ‘our countryman’). The boundaries for the Nostratian world of languages cannot yet be determined, but the area is enormous, and includes such widely divergent races that one becomes almost dizzy at the thought.
As can be seen from the above remarks, Pedersen had a good sense of which languages/language families might be related, though Basque should not be included among these. Pedersen’s insightful remarks notwithstanding, relatively little work was done during the first half of the twentieth century on distant linguistic relationship, and the little work that was done was not of high quality and did more to discredit the endeavor than to help. Gradually, the intellectual climate, especially in the United States, became hostile to long-range comparison. Beginning in the mid-1960’s, the intellectual climate slowly began to turn around, and a growing number of linguists, especially in the former Soviet Union, began to turn attention toward investigating distant linguistic relationship. The revived interest was sparked by the work of Vladislav M. Illič-Svityč [Иллич-Свитыч] and Aaron B. Dolgopolsky [Долгополский], who first started working independently and, at a later date, through the efforts of their mutual friend Vladimir Dybo [Дыбо], cooperatively. Their work, though not without its own shortcomings, was the first successful demonstration that certain language phyla of northern and central Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, and the ancient Near East might be genetically related. Following the proposal made in 1903 by Holger Pedersen, they employed the name “Nostratic” to designate this grouping of languages. In particular, Illič-Svityč, in the course of several publications, culminating in his posthumous comparative Nostratic dictionary included Indo-European, Kartvelian, Afrasian (also called Afroasiatic [Afro-Asiatic], HamitoSemitic, or Semito-Hamitic), Uralic, Dravidian, and Altaic in his version of the Nostratic macrofamily. From his very earliest writings, Dolgopolsky also included ChukchiKamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut. Before his tragic death in an automobile accident on 21 August 1966, Illič-Svityč had planned to prepare a comparative Nostratic dictionary listing over 600 Nostratic roots and tracing their development in detail in each of the daughter languages in which they were attested. He had published a preliminary report on his work in 1965 entitled “Материалы к сравнительному словарю ностратических языков (индоевропейский, алтайский, уральский, дравидский, картвельский, семитохамитский)” [Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages (Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Dravidian, Kartvelian, Hamito-Semitic)]. Working diligently, literally devoting all of his
he had managed to prepare the entries for approximately 350 roots. with the result that the first volume of the dictionary appeared in 1971. Ainu. ChukchiKamchatkan. Chuvash-Turkic. 1600-page work entitled Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology. none of which was prepared by Illič-Svityč — it represents the collective efforts of a team of scholars. I published several studies. and another 21 etymologies were proposed in my 1996 book entitled Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Illič-Svityč’s work was prepared for publication by the dedicated efforts of Rimma Bulatova. Gilyak. I have continued to work on these issues and have just completed the manuscript for a two volume. . deals with grammar. In the meantime. and Vocabulary. Morphology. Kerns entitled The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. which was published at the beginning of 2002. Dolgopolsky was in the process of emigrating to Israel). Dolgopolsky. containing 245 entries. The first volume. which. This book supplies a great deal of lexical evidence from the Nostratic daughter languages to support the reconstruction of 601 Proto-Nostratic roots. Unfortunately. Altaic (Mongolian. deals with lexicon.000 Nostratic roots. and Eskimo-Aleut in his Eurasiatic language family. the first fascicle of volume three appeared in 1984. and myself. and the second. As I see the situation. only a small amount of this material has been published to date. I supplied material to support an additional 29 Proto-Nostratic roots. This resulted in the publication in April 1994 of a joint monograph by myself and John C. he does not include Kartvelian. Beginning with an article that appeared in Orbis in 1975. Reviews of this book as well as discussions with colleagues prompted me to expand the scope of my research to include other language families. The manuscript is finished and is in the hands of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at Cambridge University. and Japanese-Ryukyuan). Greenberg includes Indo-European.4 Allan R. After his death. but because he believes that these three language phyla are more distantly related to Indo-European than are the others. In an article published in Orbis in 1995. which was published at the beginning of 2000. especially a 1984 paper on Nostratic pronouns and a 1998 book entitled The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. listing entries 246 through 353 and ending with an index — this completed all of the material prepared by Illič-Svityč himself (by the time this volume appeared. Japanese-Korean (Korean. Unlike Illič-Svityč. culminating in a 1984 book entitled Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afrasian. and currently has material to support the reconstruction of approximately 3. and Aaron Dolgopolsky. Nostratic includes Afrasian. It was Kerns who prepared the chapter dealing with Nostratic morphology. Dolgopolsky has continued to make important contributions to Nostratic studies. though it is hoped that his Nostratic Dictionary will soon appear in print. nor Elamo-Dravidian — not because he believes that they are unrelated. along with Indo-European. and ManchuTungus). in which I tried to show that Indo-European and Semitic (later expanded to include all of Afrasian) might be distantly related. smaller volume appeared in 1976. Finally. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences energy to the project. The late Joseph Greenberg has prepared a two-volume work entitled IndoEuropean and its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Vladimir Dybo. Uralic-Yukaghir. containing entries 354 through 378. My own opinion is close to that of Greenberg. A second. Afrasian. form a natural taxonomic subgrouping.
Chukchi-Kamchatkan.1 — the pages are not numbered): . Опыт сравнения ностратических языков (семитохамитский. Kartvelian. картвельский.~ -vt-t(t)t-t(t)t-s(s)k-k(k)k-k(k)k-:ØAltaic p‘-p. дравидийский.~ v-) -pp.~ -pp-ppwt-tt.~ -vp-?. The Nostratic Sound Correspondences of Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky Illič-Svityč did not prepare a table of Nostratic sound correspondences himself. Kartvelian. The following table is taken from p.~ -kk-kk -γDravidian p-pp. Altaic. and Elamo-Dravidian as well as Eurasiatic. 2. kß ĝ. k. pronominal stems. g. and EskimoAleut are more closely related as a group than any one of them is to Afrasian. Altaic)] (3 volumes. gh. gßh Uralic p-pp. and Elamo-Dravidian. Uralic-Yukaghir. Moscow: Nauka [1971— ]).~ -tt-tt-δk-kk.Allan R. Indo-European. kß $. алтайский) [An Attempt at a Comparison of the Nostratic Languages (Hamito-Semitic. independent branch — it was the first branch of Nostratic to separate from the rest of the Nostratic speech community. Dravidian. уральский.(p. Younger are Kartvelian and Elamo-Dravidian. ³ p p1 (p ~ b) p1 (p ~ b) b b s s t t d d " " k k g g IndoEuropean p p p~b p~b bh bh t t d d dh dh $. in other words. gßh ĝh. Dolgopolsky proposes the following Nostratic sound correspondences for the stops (§2.~ -pp1. Afrasian stands apart as an extremely ancient. 147 of this dictionary and includes only the stops: Nostratic Initial Medial p‘-p‘p-pb-bs-st-td-d"-"k-kg-gAfrasian (Afrasian) p p p1 p1 b b s (t) s (t) t t d d q (k) q k k g g Kartvelian p. k. gh. and morphological systems that Indo-European. g. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 5 Kartvelian. I view Nostratic as a higher-level taxonomic entity. Gilyak. gß ĝh. but the work was done for him by his friend Vladimir Dybo and included at the beginning of volume 1 (pp.~ -bp-bb -bt‘-tt-dd-dk‘-k. Uralic.~ -gk-gg-g- In his forthcoming Nostratic Dictionary. 147—171) of Illič-Svityč’s posthumous Nostratic Dictionary. gß ĝ. and this is the reason that I follow Greenberg in setting up a distinct Eurasiatic subgroup within Nostratic. It is clear from an analysis of their vocabulary. индоевропейский.
*b *p. *s. *kw *x. _i/*ć *t *g. *k ̮ *" *Ÿ 3. *Ÿ *k. *³ *p. *¦. *" as “emphatics”. _i/*¶ *d *t. *b *b *p *b *p *b *d *d *d *d *t *t *g Drav. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Nost. Egyptian. *q *Ø *g *: *k*-k*"*-"- *k *k *". *¦. _i/*¶ *d *d. [*x̑?] Uralic *p *w. Emphatics of the type found in Arabic and Berber. ?*g *k *k *k *Ø *Ÿ. are unlikely to have yielded the reflexes in the Nostratic daughter languages proposed by Dolgopolsky (for one thing. *—. *xw. *Ÿ *k. emphatics are . *b*-b*p*-p*³*-³*d*-d*t*-t*s*-s*g- Sem. It is the reconstructed Proto-Afrasian phonemes that should have been compared instead. *gw *k. *b *p *p *dh *dh *d *d *t *t *gh. Dolgopolsky interprets the Proto-Nostratic sounds reconstructed as *³. ?*b *φ > *Ÿ *φ *p. μ *g *g *¦ *g *g. is highly questionable. *b *b *p *p *p *p *d *d *t *t *s. This interpretation. *b *b *φ. “. *— Tung. “. *t *g Eg. *p *Ø *h > *Ø *pp *Å *δ *t *t *t‘ *t‘ *k Mong. *b *d. These are merely three branches of Afrasian. t g. *k *" k. *—. *k *k‘. however. and Berber are given separate treatment in the above table. *gwh *gh. *b *b *b. *gwh *g. *t *s. μ Berber *b *b. Chadic) are not listed. Comments on Dolgopolsky’s Treatment of Phonology and Methodology It is not clear why Semitic. *“h. ⊥_/*p *p *p. ?*w *p *p *t *δ *t *t *t *tt *k Turk. *gw *g. *k *Ø *k *g *x *Ø. *³ *d *d *t *t *s *s *g IE *bh *bh *p. *g? *k *k *k *k *k *Ø *k *g. ?*b *p. Omotic. *t *g Kart. for example. *q *g. The other branches (Cushitic.6 Allan R. c q ‛? *k. *β *f *f *f *f *d *d *t *t *d̮ *d̮. *“h. b b f f p p d d t t d d. *p *v *p *p *pp *t s/ss *t *s *t *tt/t *k *-g- *g g. c k. *b *b *p *p. %.
and Paul J. or their development in the Indo-European daughter languages. Far more probable is the interpretation of this series as glottalics (ejectives). are far from being fully understood. There are many other such missed opportunities from the other Nostratic daughter languages as well. and Turkic (the core Altaic languages) as three independent branches of . for that matter. voiced members. There is still no consensus concerning major parts of the reconstruction of the Proto-Afrasian consonant system. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 7 notoriously prone to have assimilatory effects on adjacent vowels. Anna Dybo. velars.Allan R.) propose a three-way contrast of plain voiceless vs. Greenberg entitled “Some Methods of Dynamic Comparison in Linguistics”. The vast majority of Indo-Europeanists posit either three or four laryngeals for the Indo-European parent language. the ability to offer credible solutions to hitherto intractable problems within each branch. Gamkrelidze. and their probable phonetic make-up. is based exclusively upon Neogrammarian views with the addition of laryngeals. Older views of Altaic phonology (Ramstedt.) held that the Proto-Altaic consonant system was characterized by a two-way contrast of voiceless (aspirated) vs. Dolgopolsky has missed a critical opportunity to show that the Nostratic Hypothesis can offer explanations that are not available on the basis of Indo-European data alone. their vowel-coloring or lengthening effects. This is one area where the other Nostratic languages can clarify the question of the number of laryngeals to be reconstructed. voiceless aspirated vs. and fricative laterals. and no such effects are observable in the Nostratic reconstructions proposed by Dolgopolsky or. affricates. A good model is the 1969 paper by Joseph H. Ivanov. Recent scholarship is entirely ignored. without further explanation as to their phonetic make-up. that will lend credibility to the Nostratic Hypothesis. Vjačeslav V. Though some series (labials. More recent views (Illič-Svityč. while Dolgopolsky posits a multitude of controversial phonemes here. Oleg Mudrak. in any of the data from the daughter languages). and the reconstruction of labiovelars and postvelars is hotly contested. their prehistoric development within the Indo-European parent language. as originally proposed by Illič-Svityč and supported by Dolgopolsky (1989:90) himself until recently. the sibilants. parts are based upon outdated or questionable scholarship within each branch — the Proto-Indo-European phonological system. to cite one example. The entire section on phonology in Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary gives the impression that it was hastily thrown together. etc. Thus. in particular. voiced members. The evidence for such an interpretation comes from Afrasian and Kartvelian. It is just this sort of thing. Moreover. etc. namely. most conveniently subsumed under cover symbols. Even though Dolgopolsky prefers to treat Mongolian. dentals. Poppe. in which Greenberg examines the development of similar sounds in Coptic and then draws upon his findings to explain developments in Indo-European. At least passing mention should have been made concerning the Glottalic Theory of Proto-Indo-European consonantism (see below) proposed by Thomas V. Sergej Starostin. and that evidence is fairly solid. Manchu-Tungus. etc. Hopper and why Dolgopolsky rejects their views. Dolgopolsky’s failure to lay out his own views here greatly diminishes the viability of the Nostratic etymologies he proposes based upon the sounds in question.) are fairly well established. The evidence of Afrasian plus the judicious use of linguistic typology provide useful tools for a more accurate specification of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals and their probable development. any assumptions made by those using Afrasian data are going to be controversial. Street.
Allan R. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences
Nostratic, an explanation of the prehistoric development of their phonology is an absolute necessity, inasmuch as these languages are among the most contentious areas in Nostratic studies (not to mention Altaic studies). In general, Dolgopolsky’s methodology appears to be rather lax. This is not to say that there are not some brilliant etymologies in his Nostratic Dictionary — there are. However, there are simply too many unexplained violations of the sound laws, there are too many dubious reconstructed forms, and there is too wide a latitude in the semantics of many of the supporting forms from the daughter languages. Dolgopolsky even includes entries that he calls “doubtful”, “highly doubtful”, “questionable”, “ambiguous”, etc. Such entries should not have been included — they severely weaken the case. Moreover, there are far too many forms that have more than one possible Nostratic etymology. A fair number of these forms require ad hoc explanations to make them “fit in”, no matter where they are placed — only the best of the best of such forms should have been included. Any endeavor to establish a higher-level linguistic taxon such as ProtoNostratic is going to be controversial from the start. Consequently, in order to be even moderately credible, it is imperative that the highest methodological standards be observed in the choice of the material being compared, in the meanings assigned to reconstructed forms, in only assigning meanings that take into consideration the cultural, environmental, and social setting at the time that the proto-language is alleged to have been spoken, in the strict adherence to sound laws, in providing clear, convincing explanations for any exceptions to the established sound laws, in eliminating borrowings and/or Wanderwörter, in respecting and staying within the bounds of the established scholarship within each of the languages/language families being compared, etc. Methodological rigor will go a long way to quelling the misgivings of skeptics, while methodological laxity will only bring condemnation. And when the condemnation occurs, the positive attributes tend to get lost in the process, if they are even mentioned at all. A major shortcoming of Dolgopolsky’s work concerns his treatement of the Proto-Nostratic vowels. It is troublesome, to say the least, when there are irreconcilable differences in the supporting forms cited from those languages (Dravidian, Uralic, and Altaic) in which the vowels of the initial syllable are alleged to be particularly well preserved. In fairness, Dolgopolsky does attempt to explain exceptions to the established correspondences. However, many of his explanations are purely ad hoc. “Ad hoc” does not constitute a law. Dolgopolsky simply needs to offer better explanations when there are wide discrepancies in the forms cited, or these forms need to be abandoned. In his effort to reconstruct the greatest number of forms possible for the Nostratic parent language, Dolgopolsky fails to identify underlying stems. For example, it is clear that all of the entries given below are related (assuming here, for the sake of argument, that each is a valid etymology in its own right) — they are all derivatives of an underlying *PaL[ó] ‘to split, to divide’, to which various extensions have been added: 1716. 1717. 1718. 1720. ¯ *pal UÁü ‘axe, hammer’. *Pä[ļ]ó"ó ‘to split lengthwise, to divide’. ¯ *pal [ó]só ‘to split’, ‘axe’. *PóLhE[¸]ó and/or *PóLhE[@|C]ó ‘to split, to separate’.
Allan R. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences
In this case, it is the underlying stem *PaL[ó] ‘to split, to divide’ that should have been reconstructed as entry no. 1716. The remaining entries should then have been identified as derivatives of this stem and numbered 1716a, 1716b, 1716c, and 1716d. 4. Critique of Moscovite Views Let me begin by stating unequivocally that I have the highest admiration for what Moscovite scholarship (especially the work of V. M. Illič-Svityč and A. B. Dolgopolsky — some of the work done by other Russian scholars is not on the same level) on Nostratic has achieved. Their research has opened up new and exciting possibilities and given Nostratic studies new respectability. However, this does not mean that I agree with everything they say. I regard their work as a pioneering effort and, as such, subject to modification in light of advances in linguistic theory, in light of new data from the Nostratic daughter languages, and in light of findings from typological studies that give us a better understanding of the kind of patterning that is found in natural languages as well as a better understanding of what is characteristic of language in general, including language change. Now, in 1972 and 1973, the Georgian scholar Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and the Russian scholar Vjačeslav V. Ivanov jointly proposed a radical reinterpretation of the Proto-Indo-European stop system. According to their reinterpretation, the Proto-IndoEuropean stop system was characterized by the three-way contrast glottalized ~ voiced (aspirated) ~ voiceless (aspirated), as follows (this is taken from Gamkrelidze 1976:403; the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European stop system proposed by Winfred P. Lehmann [1952:99] is given for comparison): Lehmann b d g g¦ bº dº gº g¦º p t k k¦ = = = = Gamkrelidze(—Ivanov) p’ t’ k’ k’ß bh/b dh/d gh/g gßh/gß ph/p th/t kh/k kßh/kß
In this revised interpretation, aspiration is viewed as a redundant feature, and the phonemes in question could also be realized as allophonic variants without aspiration. Paul J. Hopper made a similar proposal at about the same time (Hopper 1973). I should point out here that, even though I support the revisions proposed by Gamkrelidze, Hopper, and Ivanov, my views are not dependent upon any particular reconstruction of the Indo-European stop system — the sound correspondences I have proposed can be maintained using the traditional reconstruction as well. What the new views of IndoEuropean consonantism did was bring into light the implausibility of certain Nostratic sound correspondences established by Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky (see below for details). Moreover, this new interpretation opened new possibilities for comparing ProtoIndo-European with the other Nostratic daughter languages, especially Proto-Kartvelian
Allan R. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences
and Proto-Afrasian, each of which had a similar three-way contrast. The most straightforward assumption would be that the glottalized stops posited by Gamkrelidze, Hopper, and Ivanov for Proto-Indo-European would correspond to glottalized stops in Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian, while the voiceless stops would correspond to voiceless stops and voiced stops to voiced stops. This, however, is quite different from the correspondences proposed by Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky. They see the glottalized stops of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian as corresponding to the traditional plain voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-European, while the voiceless stops in the former two branches are seen as corresponding to the traditional plain voiced stops of Proto-IndoEuropean, and, finally, the voiced stops to the traditional voiced aspirates of Proto-IndoEuropean. Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky then reconstruct the Proto-Nostratic phonological system on the model of Kartvelian and Afrasian, with the three-way contrast glottalized ~ voiceless ~ voiced in the series of stops and affricates. The mistake that Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky made was in trying to equate the glottalized stops of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian with the traditional plain voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-European. Their reconstruction would make the glottalized stops the least marked members in the Proto-Nostratic labial series and the most marked in the velar series. Such a reconstruction is thus in contradiction to typological evidence, according to which glottalized stops uniformly have the opposite frequency distribution (most marked in the labial series and least marked in the velar series [for details, cf. Gamkrelidze 1978]). The reason that Illič-Svityč’s and Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction contradicts the typological evidence is as follows: Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky posit glottalics for Proto-Nostratic on the basis of a small number of seemingly solid examples in which glottalics in Proto-Afrasian and/or Proto-Kartvelian appear to correspond to traditional plain voiceless stops in Proto-Indo-European. On the basis of these examples, they assume that, whenever there is a voiceless stop in the Proto-Indo-European examples they cite, a glottalic is to be reconstructed for Proto-Nostratic, even when there are no glottalics in the corresponding Kartvelian and Afrasian forms! This means that the Proto-Nostratic glottalics have the same frequency distribution as the Proto-IndoEuropean plain voiceless stops (Alexis Manaster Ramer 1997:94—95 makes the same observation [see below]). Clearly, this cannot be correct. The main consequence of the mistaken comparison of the glottalized stops of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian with the traditional plain voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-European is that Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky are led to posit forms for Proto-Nostratic on the basis of theoretical considerations but for which there is absolutely no evidence in any of the Nostratic daughter languages. Let us look at one or two examples to illustrate the ad hoc nature of these reconstructions: 1. Dolgopolsky (1998:17 and forthcoming, no. 2312) reconstructs a second singular personal pronoun *sü > *si ‘thou’, with an initial glottalized dental, on the basis of data from Indo-European, Afrasian, Uralic, and Mongolian. When one looks at the attested forms in the daughter languages, one cannot find a single form anywhere that begins with a glottalized consonant. Indeed, in natural languages having glottalized consonants, these sounds tend to be underrepresented in pronoun stems and
As in the preceding example. and. 2. 232. and the Proto-Uralic (ca. However. while in Proto-Indo-European. The Uralic phylum. I would reconstruct Proto-Nostratic *k¦ºa-. What. I would reconstruct Proto-Nostratic *tºi. is the basis for the reconstruction *sü? — nothing more than an ad hoc rule set up by Illič-Svityč. No doubt. compared to the massive counterevidence (see Appendix for examples) in which glottalized stops in Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian correspond to similar sounds (the traditional plain voiced stops) in ProtoIndo-European. It simply stretches credibility beyond reasonable bounds to assume that the Proto-Nostratic vowel system could have been preserved unchanged in Finnish. Another major problem area is Illič-Svityč’s reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic vowel system. 12000 BCE). Therefore. but the Proto-Nostratic reconstructions are wrong. which appears to be the oldest branch of the Nostratic macrofamily. according to him. appears to be an improvement over that proposed by Illič-Svityč (but note the comments at the end of §3 above about Dolgopolsky’s treatment of the vowels). there are even some examples where the comparison of glottalized stops in Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian with plain voiceless stops in Proto-Indo-European is correct. the etymologies are correct. of which Finnish is a member. Now. Proto-Afrasian must play a key role in the reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic vowel system. Dolgopolsky (1998:17 and forthcoming. even these residual examples become suspect (they may be borrowings or simply false cognates). no. then. 9000 BCE) is several millennia younger than Afrasian (ca. while still others are questionable from a semantic point of view and should be abandoned. in place of *"o‘who?’. Finally. there is an extremely small number (no more than a handful) left over that appear to support their position. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 11 inflectional affixes. Eurasiatic (ca.> *CVC’-. except for *ä and . no. not exactly — it is not quite that simple.‘who?’ (see also Illič-Svityč 1971— . In some cases. Once the questionable examples are removed. especially considering the many millennia that must have passed between the dissolution of the Nostratic parent language and the emergence of Finnish. 981) also reconstructs an interrogative stem *"o. This applies to the examples cited above — for the second person personal pronoun. 4000 BCE) vowel system must be considered a later development that cannot possibly represent the original state of affairs. belongs to the Eurasiatic branch of Nostratic.Allan R. on the other hand. Do these criticisms completely invalidate the cognate sets proposed by IlličSvityč and Dolgopolsky in which glottalics in Kartvelian and Afrasian appear to correspond to plain voiceless stops in Indo-European? Well. they have been subject to a rule of regressive deglottalization: *C’VC’. *Áo ‘who’). This occurs in the cases where two glottalics originally appeared in a Proto-Nostratic root: *C’VC’-. Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic vowels. there is not a shred of evidence in any of the Nostratic daughter languages to support the reconstruction of an initial glottalized velar in this stem. Other examples adduced by IlličSvityč and Dolgopolsky admit alternative explanations. which. no. Such roots are preserved without change in Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afrasian. this erroneous reconstruction came about as a result of Illič-Svityč’s failure to deal with the question of subgrouping.I:355—356. is essentially that of modern Finnish.
notions of what Proto-Afrasian vocalism might have been like based upon the Semitic model are likely to be wrong. in spite of its wide acceptance. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences *ü. The system of ablaut found in Semitic. As noted by Dolgopolsky. However. consequently. Brugmann 1904:52). The inherited vowel system underwent a thorough restructuring in both ProtoIndo-European and Proto-Kartvelian as a result of a complicated series of changes initiated by the phonemicization of a strong stress accent in the early prehistory of these branches. This system is extremely close to the phonological system of Old Indic. has an important role to play in the reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic vocalism. Once established. especially in Semitic. these developments diminish the importance of Kartvelian and Indo-European for ascertaining the Proto-Nostratic vowel system. the Neogrammarian reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European phonological system was widely accepted as being an accurate representation of what was thought to have existed in the Indo-European parent language. The Neogrammarian reconstruction. questioned the validity of the Neogrammarian reconstruction. from time to time. It turns out that Afrasian vocalism was highly archaic and. a small group of scholars has. while the vowel systems found in Semitic. Egyptian. Within Afrasian. it may be noted. at least in part. they appear to have been originally preserved in Proto-Afrasian as well. 5.12 Allan R. which are highly speculative. and (B) the French system (cf. Meillet 1964:82—145). As pointed out by Dolgopolsky. which was phonologically based. It appeared quite early in verbal stems and derivative nominal stems. initially arose through morphological processes. Basis for the Glottalic Reinterpretation of Proto-Indo-European Consonantism At the beginning of the 20th century. and Berber exhibit a wholesale reduction of the inherited system. It must be pointed out that. was notable for its large inventory of stops and its extremely small inventory of fricatives. which was phonetically based. though primary root nouns continued to maintain stable vocalism right up to the emergence of the individual daughter languages. the system of ablaut was greatly expanded. and Altaic. which was arrived at through strict adherence to the principle that sound laws admit no exceptions. and Berber. The stop system consists of a four-way contrast of (A) plain voiceless stops ~ (B) voiceless aspirated stops ~ (C) plain voiced stops ~ (D) voiced aspirated stops. Brugmann’s (1904:52) reconstruction is as follows: Monophthongs: e ē oÔ ōÔ o ō aÔ āÔ a ā əÔ i ī e„ ē„ u ū o„ ō„ ə Diphthongs: eÔ ēÔ a„ ā„ ə„ . Thus. Actually. Cushitic and Omotic are particularly conservative in their vocalism. at least in the latest stages of its development. there were two competing versions of the Proto-Indo-European phonological system at this time: (A) the German system (cf. Dravidian. Egyptian. the Proto-Nostratic vowels were at least partially preserved in initial syllables in Uralic.
Brugmann posited a separate series of voiceless aspirates for Proto-IndoEuropean on the basis of an extremely small. Armenian. Meillet’s reconstruction differs from that of Brugmann in several important respects. set of correspondences from Indo-Iranian. They were nonsyllabic (A) when between vowels or initially before vowels. a series of plain and aspirated spirants. The syllabic forms arose in early Proto-Indo-European when the stress-conditioned loss of former contiguous vowels left them between two nonsyllabics. and reduced-grade and/or zero-grade vowels (for details. Finally. First. the so-called “schwa indogermanicum” (also called “schwa primum”). Meillet (1964:91—95) reconstructs only two guttural series. these examples are better explained as borrowings from Iranian rather than as due to regular developments in Slavic. Fortson 2004:73—76). namely. As early as 1891. and Greek. These vowel alternations served to indicate different types of grammatical formations. Brugmann 1904:138—150. and the liquids *l and *r. palatals and labiovelars — he does not recognize a separate pure velar series. depending upon their environment. and somewhat controversial. which alternated with so-called “original” long vowels. written *ə. several nasals. and (C) when preceded by a consonant and followed by a vowel. In the other daughter languages. except that *kh appears to have became x in a small number of examples in Slavic — however. It should be noted here that the Proto-Indo-European vowels were subject to various alternations that were partially correlated with the positioning of the accent within a word. in a paper read before the . cf. The nasals and liquids were unique in their ability to function as syllabics or nonsyllabics. the system contained the semivowels *Ô and *„. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 13 Semivowels: Liquids and Nasals: Ô „ l (j ?) r 3 5 bh dh “h œh œßh zh m i k n ‚ „ ‹ Œ ’ • ™ › Syllabic Liquids and Nasals: C E Occlusives: p t % q qß s ph th %h qh qßh sh b d “ œ œß z (labial) (dental) (palatal) (pure velar) (labiovelar) þ þh ð ðh Spirants: Brugmann reconstructed five short vowels and five long vowels plus a reduced vowel. the voiceless aspirates and plain voiceless stops have the same treatment. There was also an alternation among lengthened-grade vowels. normal-grade vowels.Allan R. (B) when preceded by a vowel and followed by a consonant. The most common alternation was the interchange between the vowels *e and *o in a given syllable. A full set of diphthongs was posited as well.
noting in particular that the dental voiceless aspirate *th often appears to be the result of aspiration of a plain voiceless dental by a following *‹: *t + *‹ > *th. The overwhelming majority of scholars currently accept some form of this theory.14 Allan R. who has argued for the reinstatement of the voiceless aspirates and. thus: *i/*y. for a return to Brugmann’s four-stop system (plain voiceless ~ voiceless aspirated ~ plain voiced ~ voiced aspirated). Meillet’s (1964:82—145) reconstruction may be represented as follows: Vowels: e ē i/y p t k÷ k¦ s o ō u/w ph th k÷h k¦h a ā i/m b d g÷ g¦ ‚/n bh dh g÷h g¦h 3/r C/l ə Resonants: Occlusives: (labial) (dental) (palatal) (labiovelar) Sibilant: In 1878. in particular. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Société de Linguistique de Paris. *š. Here. In 1927. *œ. On this basis. Current thinking on the part of a great many linguists is that the series of voiceless aspirates reconstructed by Brugmann for the Indo-European parent language should be removed. which he writes *™. the following phonetic values may be assigned to the laryngeals (for details on my views on the laryngeals. set up four laryngeals. cf. the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure suggested that the voiceless aspirates might have had a secondary origin. The diphthongs are analyzed by Meillet as clusters of (A) vowel plus nonsyllabic resonant and (B) nonsyllabic resonant plus vowel. though there is still no general agreement on the number of laryngeals to be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European or on their probable phonetic values. *u/*w. a series of consonantal phonemes. *‚/*n. The main opponent of this view is Oswald Szemerényi. Bomhard 2004): . Particularly noteworthy is Meillet’s (1964:105—126) treatment of the resonants. being secondarily derived in the individual daughter languages. *›. that is to say that he does not consider *i and *u to be independent phonemic entities. *i/*m. On the basis of comparison with other Nostratic languages as well as internal considerations within Indo-European. he considers *i and *u to be the syllabic allophones of *y (Brugmann’s *Ô) and *w (Brugmann’s *„) respectively and classes them with the resonants. the young Ferdinand de Saussure attempted to show that so-called “original” long vowels were to be derived from earlier sequences of short vowel plus a following “coefficient sonantique”. *C/*l. arising from earlier clusters of plain voiceless stop plus a following “coefficient sonantique”. Jerzy Kury³owicz demonstrated that reflexes of de Saussure’s “coefficients sonantiques” were preserved in Hittite. Kury³owicz. at least in Sanskrit. was then posited for Proto-Indo-European. who pointed out the great rarity of the voiceless aspirates. *3/*r. accordingly. commonly called “laryngeals”. This idea was taken up by Meillet (1964:90—91).
Lehmann’s reconstruction is problematical from a typological point of view. Resonants: 3. this interpretation seems unlikely in view of the fact that the daughter languages are nearly unanimous in pointing to some sort of voicing in this series in the . Jerzy Kury³owicz (1964:13) tried to show that the voiced aspirates were not phonemically voiced. Several scholars have proposed various solutions in an attempt to eliminate the problems caused by the removal of the traditional voiceless aspirates. Vowels: 4. Laryngeals: e uÿ h " Now. the removal of the traditional voiceless aspirates. In these rare systems. the removal of the traditional voiceless aspirates creates a problem from a typological point of view. Obstruents: t d dº s m n w r l y e a o iÿ eÿ aÿ oÿ x ¦ p b bº k g gº k¦ g¦ g¦º 2. it presents an accurate analysis of Proto-Indo-European phonological patterning. in reality. there is a three-way contrast. and the addition of laryngeals. In order to rectify this imbalance. affecting the entire structure of the traditional reconstruction. However. in Javanese. For example. Series (C) in such systems is. we arrive at the system of Lehmann (1952:99): 1. voiceless with breathy release — something like /t»/ — and not “voiced aspirated” (cf. for example. this interpretation is based upon a lack of understanding of the phonetics involved. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 15 *™ *š *› *œ = = = = Glottal stop /#/ Voiceless and voiced multiply-articulated pharyngeal/laryngeal fricatives /¸/ and /°/ Voiceless and voiced multiply-articulated pharyngeal/laryngeal fricatives /¸/ and /°/ Voiceless glottal fricative /h/ With the reduction of the gutturals to two series. from a structural point of view. Maddieson 1984:207). Jakobson 1971:528). As we have seen from the preceding discussion. However. sometimes described as (A) plain (unaspirated) voiceless ~ (B) voiced ~ (C) “voiced aspirated”: /T/ ~ /D/ ~ /Dº/. Data collected from the study of a great number of the world’s languages have failed to turn up any systems in which voiced aspirates are added to the pair plain voiceless stop ~ plain voiced stop unless there are also corresponding voiceless aspirated stops in the system (cf. several scholars have sought typological parallels with systems such as those found. However. This is an important point. the reanalysis of the diphthongs as clusters of vowel plus nonsyllabic resonant and nonsyllabic resonant plus vowel.Allan R.
Oswald Szemerényi (1967:65—99) was one of the first to bring typological data to bear on the problem of reconstructing the Proto-Indo-European phonological system. the emphatics had been ejectives such as those found in the Modern South Arabian languages. In Proto-Indo-European.no language adds to the pair /t/ ~ /d/ a voiced aspirate /dº/ without having its voiceless counterpart /tº/. Urmian Nestorian NeoAramaic and Kurdistani Jewish Neo-Aramaic). *¦. there is the theory put forth by Louis Hammerich (1967:839—849) that the voiced aspirates may have been emphatics. the Semitic languages of Ethiopia. the emphatics have been described as either uvularized or pharyngealized. and this would be reflected in the daughter languages in some manner.. †. the voiced aspirates of traditional grammar were really the voiceless fricatives *φ. all vowels were found in the neighborhood of the voiced aspirates. Meillet 1964:86—88). Szemerényi reasoned that since Proto-Indo-European had voiced aspirates. this is not the case. it must also have had voiceless aspirates. 7. *¦w (= *bh. *χw (= *bh. *θ. *gh. *gh. the traditional voiced aspirates were devoiced. g¦º > pº. it is known that the voicing contrast was eliminated and that the reflexes found in these daughter languages do not represent the original state. on the other hand.. The main exceptions are Tocharian and possibly Hittite (at least according to some scholars). In each case. the daughter languages point to voicing in this series in Proto-Indo-European. it puts too much emphasis on the typological data and too little on the data from the Indo- . *g¦h respectively). Taking note of Jakobson’s (1971:528) remark that: . and (B) the daughter languages point to stops as the original mode of articulation and not fricatives. gº. The Greek and Italic developments are a little more complicated: in these daughter languages. *ð. however. Had the voiced aspirates been emphatics such as those found in Arabic.16 Allan R. Next. Italic. This interpretation seems unlikely for two reasons: (A) as noted above. If. in Arabic. Now. they would have caused backing of contiguous vowels. *dh. the resulting voiceless aspirates became voiceless fricatives: bº. in Italic. cf. the question arises as to how these sounds could have developed into the voiced aspirates needed to explain the developments in Indo-Iranian. *dh. Hammerich does not define what he means by the term “emphatics” but implies that they are to be equated with the emphatics of Semitic grammar. and several Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects (such as. on the other hand. Then. and Armenian. However. and there is no indication that any of these sounds had different allophones here than when contiguous with other sounds. tº. Though on the surface this reasoning appears sound. 7w According to Eduard Prokosch (1938:39—41). for instance.. Greek. *g¦h respectively). kº.. *χ. Such sounds are always accompanied by backing of adjacent vowels. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Indo-European parent language (for correspondences and examples. This latter objection may also be raised against the theory — advocated by Alois Walde (1897:491) and Johann Knobloch (1965:163) — that the voiced aspirates may have been the voiced fricatives *β. k¦º > f. thus becoming voiceless aspirates. dº.
and Hittite as relics. while the traditional plain voiceless stops are taken to have been tense and aspirated: Lehmann p b bº t d dº k g gº k¦ g¦ g¦º = = = ph p bh Emonds th t dh kh k gh kh¦ k¦ gh¦ Emonds regards the voicing of the lax stops as common to a Central innovating area and the appearance of voiceless stops in Germanic. In certain dialects of “Disintegrating Indo-European” (specifically. namely. Next. Szemerényi’s (1967:96— 97) reconstruction is as follows: p pº b bº t tº d dº l kÎ kÎº gÎ gÎº y r s a ā (also the sequences ah e ē eh o ō oh k kº g gº w m h i ī ih u ū uh) ə k¦ k¦º g¦ g¦º n Szemerényi does not include diphthongs in his reconstruction since their “phonemic status is disputed”. the voiceless glottal fricative /h/. there are very cogent reasons for removing the traditional voiceless aspirates from Proto-Indo-European. there are the proposals put forth by Joseph Emonds (1972). it may be added — is merely a projection backward in time of the Old Indic phonological system. According to Griffen. tenuis. and Pre-Italic). and he defended it strongly right up through his last major work (cf. such a system no doubt existed in point of fact. *[tº] (media. which he represents as (using the dentals for illustration) *[d].Allan R. in the early development of Pre-IndoIranian. aspirata). Szemerényi’s reconstruction is in fact typologically natural. Griffen (1988:162—189). and these reasons are not easily dismissed. According to Emonds. Szemerényi 1996:37—70). Similar proposals were put forth by Toby D. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 17 European daughter languages. the plain voiced stops of traditional Proto-Indo-European are to be reinterpreted as plain lax voiceless stops. Szemerényi also tried to show that Proto-Indo-European had only one laryngeal. As mentioned above. Proto-Indo-European had a three-member stop system. His system — as well as that of the Neogrammarians. *[t]. Pre-Greek. . Armenian.
is the statistically low frequency of occurrence — perhaps total absence — of the traditional voiced labial stop *b. the loss of a PreIndo-European *p followed by a musical-chairs [rearrangement] of mediae and tenues. We may cite Meillet’s (1964:89) comments on this matter: b is relatively rare. it does not occur in any important suffix nor in any ending. as did Pedersen. without labial representative. 1) objected to this “musical chairs” rearrangement: Since there are extremely few examples of the Common Indo-European phoneme reconstructed “analogically” as *b. a series of sound-shifts in the other Indo-European daughter languages completely restructured the inherited system. In a footnote in his 1953 BSL article entitled “Remarques sur le consonantisme sémitique”. it is /p/ that is missing and not /b/. píbāmi “I drink”. Lat. instead of assuming. pp. This observation led Pedersen to suggest that the traditional plain voiced stops might originally have been plain voiceless stops. each of . in natural languages having a voicing contrast in stops. Another problem. But. Lat. noted in most of the standard handbooks. Thus. Lat. OCS.18 Allan R. *g. This problem was investigated in 1951 by the Danish scholar Holger Pedersen.. if there is a missing member in the labial series. as the late Holger Pedersen did in Die gemeinindoeuropäischen und die vorindoeuropäischen Verschlusslaute. . fn. ðsèé.. Pedersen noted that. one should be able to see in the series *d. bibō (with initial b through assimilation) is an ancient reduplicated form in view of Skt. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences While this system was maintained in Germanic with only minor changes. it is secondary in some of the words where it is found.. *g¦ the result of evolution from an earlier series of glottalics. Skt. pāhi “drink”. Germanic emerges as the most conservative daughter language in its treatment of the Proto-Indo-European stop system. ibim “I drink”. OIr. balbus. âÜñâáñïò.other words are imitative. Martinet’s observation. 10-16. André Martinet (1975:251—252. This appears to be the first time that anyone had proposed reinterpreting the plain voiced stops of traditional Proto-Indo-European as glottalics. thus Gk. thus. still others are limited to a few languages and give the impression of being recent borrowings. while the traditional plain voiceless stops might have been plain voiced stops: Brugmann b p d t “ % œ q œß qß = = Ø b t d Pedersen % “ k g k¦ g¦ Later shifts would have changed the earlier plain voiced stops into the traditional plain voiceless stops and the earlier plain voiceless stops into the traditional plain voiced stops. however. seems to have influenced neither Gamkrelidze and Ivanov nor Hopper. pōculum “cup”. Gk. it is tempting to diagnose a gap there as well. etc. piti “to drink”. The marginal status of *b is difficult to understand from a typological viewpoint and is totally unexplainable within the traditional framework. There are other problems with the traditional reconstruction besides the typological difficulties caused by the removal of the voiceless aspirates.
Then. Ivanov. *g. Hopper hit upon the notion that Proto-Indo-European may have had a series of glottalized stops while he was a student at the University of Texas and taking a course in Kabardian from Aert Kuipers. Hopper (1973:141—166) proposed reinterpreting the plain voiced stops of traditional Proto-Indo-European — Lehmann’s *b.Allan R. because the traditional plain voiced stops show many of the typological characteristics of glottalized stops (ejectives). each working independently. It did not take Gamkrelidze long to realize the possibility that Proto-Indo-European might also have had glottalized stops. Hopper might have beat them into print had his paper on the subject not been rejected by the journal Language. Hopper also discusses possible trajectories of the new system in various Indo-European daughter languages. *g¦ — as glottalized stops (ejectives).g. waiting five years before putting his ideas into writing. On the other hand. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 19 whom arrived at the same conclusion independently of Martinet as well as independently of each other. They make no changes to the traditional voiced aspirates. they may not cooccur with another in the same root. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov published a German language version of their 1972 paper. and Ivanov has several clear advantages over the traditional reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European stop system: 1. *k’¦ respectively. They point out. He was then obliged to search for another journal willing to publish his views. was the first to make it into print (Gamkrelidze—Ivanov 1972). etc. *t’. (*p’). Discovery — perhaps “rediscovery” would be a better term since Martinet’s insightful remarks first appeared in 1953 — of what has come to be known as the “Glottalic Theory” came from two separate sources. Their reinterpretation of the traditional plain voiced stops as glottalics (ejectives) makes it easy to account for the fact that the phoneme traditionally reconstructed as *b was highly marked in the system. unlike Hopper. Gamkrelidze 1966 and 1967). Hopper 1973:158—161). Hopper. The system of Gamkrelidze. e. however. but. which finally happened in 1973. being characterized by an extremely low . in 1973. a native speaker of a language containing glottalics (Georgian). they reinterpret the traditional plain voiceless stops as voiceless aspirates. in a joint article with the Russian Indo-Europeanist Vjačeslav V. Gamkrelidze—Ivanov (1972:15—18 and 1973:150—156) also reinterpret the traditional plain voiced stops as ejectives. they are excluded from inflectional affixes. *k’. that is. Gamkrelidze. that the feature of aspiration is phonemically irrelevant in a system of this type. On the one-hand. Gamkrelidze. Hopper went on about other business after graduation. Hopper also reinterpreted the traditional voiced aspirates as murmured stops. the British-born American Germanist Paul J. *d. the Georgian Indo-Europeanist Thomas V. had been investigating the typological similarities between Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European (cf. Many of the points discussed above by Gamkrelidze were also noted by Hopper. in particular the root structure constraint laws (cf.
at an earlier stage of development. 4. Not only does the reinterpretation of the traditional voiced stops as ejectives easily account for the frequency distribution of these sounds. Hopper (1973:160) cites Hausa. 1. Yucatec Mayan.I:134 and 1995. For the first time. the root structure constraint laws can be credibly explained. Proto-Indo-European was an active language [strong support for these views is expressed by Lehmann 1995 and 2002. original proposals concerning the morphological structure of the Indo-European parent language (they propose that. Gamkrelidze—Ivanov also posit postvelars for Proto-Indo-European. Gamkrelidze—Ivanov 1984. The so-called Germanic and Armenian “consonant shifts” (in German. 3. Greenberg 1970:127). As is to be expected. since this type of patterning is characteristic of the way ejectives behave in natural languages having such sounds. these branches (along with the poorly-attested Phrygian as well) turn out to be relic areas. “Lautverschiebungen”). Vennemann [ed.] 1989. an exhaustive treatment of the Proto-Indo-European lexicon. 2. and Fallon 2002:225—288). it also explains the fact that they were used only very infrequently in inflectional affixes and pronouns. which can only be accounted for very awkwardly within the traditional framework (cf. One of the most novel proposals put forth in the book is that Proto-Indo-European may have had labialized dentals and a labialized sibilant. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov published their monumental joint monograph entitled Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы: Реконструкция и историкотиполо-гический анализ праязыка и протокультуры [Indo-European and the IndoEuropeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a Proto-Culture] (an English translation of this work has since been published by Mouton de Gruyter ).20 Allan R. These constraints turn out to be a simple voicing agreement rule with the corollary that two glottalics cannot cooccur in a root. In 1984. and a new theory about the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (they argue that the Indo-European homeland was located in eastern Anatolia in the vicinity of Lake Van). among others]). this massive work (2 volumes. turn out to be mirages. but it is fully characteristic of the patterning of the labial ejective /p’/ (cf. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences frequency of occurrence (if it even existed at all). and Quechua as examples of natural languages exhibiting a similar constraint against the cooccurrence of two glottalics. Akkadian may be added to this list as well if we take Geers’ Law to be a manifestation of such a constraint.I:116): . see especially Salmons 1993. Such a low frequency distribution is extremely uncharacteristic of the patterning of the voiced labial stop /b/ in natural languages having a voicing contrast in stops. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s book also contains trajectories of the revised Proto-Indo-European phonological system in the various Indo-European daughter languages. Emonds 1972:108—122).328 pages) contains the most detailed discussion of the Glottalic Theory that has yet appeared (for additional information on the Glottalic Theory. Gamkrelidze 1981:605—606. Under the revised reconstruction. Their complete reconstruction is as follows (cf.
with preglottalization. Lehmann’s revised system is as follows (2002:201): . Though the Glottalic Theory has attracted a good deal of attention over the past three decades and has gained widespread acceptance. Moreover. 2. *χ.Allan R. Lehmann (2002:200) reinterprets *b. Hopper (1973:141—166). It is not surprising that the new look of Proto-Indo-European consonantism proposed by Gamkrelidze—Ivanov has a distinctly Caucasian appearance about it. he (2002:200) reinterprets the traditional plain voiceless stops and voiced aspirates as voiceless and voiced respectively with aspirated and unaspirated allophones. who. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 21 I. *’k. *¦. for example. b[º] d[º] g[º] - III. *g. Lehmann (2002:214—216) posits only palatovelars and labiovelars. it should be noted that there is still some disagreement about the make-up of the traditional voiceless stops and voiced aspirates. Lehmann (2002:198—202. they consider the feature of aspiration to phonemically irrelevant. p[º] t[º] k[º] q[º] $’ ’[º] $[º] t’° k’° d[º]° g[º]° t[º]° k[º]° s f `° Note: The consonants enclosed in the box are considered to be the most reliably reconstructed. In his most recent work. His system is as follows: Lehmann p b bº t d dº k g gº k¦ g¦ g¦º = = = p p’ b Hopper t t’ d k k’ ˆ k¦ k’¦ ˆ¦ This differs from the views of Gamkrelidze—Ivanov. *h. 1. assuming a secondary status for the plain velars reconstructed by the Neogrammarians. *d. 211—214) accepts a form of the Glottalic Theory. 4. reinterprets the traditional voiced aspirates as murmured stops. regard the traditional plain voiceless stops as voiceless aspirates. (p’) t’ k’ q’ II. *g¦ of traditional Indo-European as *’p. 3. as noted above. As in his earlier work (1952:100—102). while making no changes to the traditional voiced aspirates. Furthermore. *’k¦ respectively. Lehmann reconstructs the following four laryngeals: *#. Lehmann (2002:201) assumes that *χ and *¦ were voiceless and voiced velar fricatives respectively and that *¦ may have had a w-offglide. *’t. with the choice between the aspirated and nonaspirated variants being mechanically determined by the paradigmatic alternations of root morphemes. making no changes to the traditional plain voiceless stops.
Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Vowels ī e ē a ‹ ā o ō ū Consonants Obstruents Resonants Labials : Dentals: Palato-velars: Labio-velars: Laryngeals: p p’ t t’ k k’ k¦ k’¦ # bº dº gº g¦º m w n r l y Fricatives s χ γ h My own view is that it is necessary to recognize several distinct stages of development within Proto-Indo-European and that the traditional voiced aspirates were a relatively late development — in fact. Greek. Fallon provides empirical . The voiceless aspirates (the traditional plain voiceless stops). Ejective Voicing. and Italic. it is probably only necessary to reconstruct them in the Disintegrating Indo-European ancestors of Indo-Iranian. Here. of his 1992 book The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. This issue has been dealt with at length by Paul D. One of the sharpest criticisms concerns the alleged implausibility of the changes that would be required to arrive at the plain voiced stops found in the majority of the daughter languages.22 Allan R. Armenian. I would reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European phonological system as follows: Obstruents: pº bº (p’) tº dº t’ s h kº gº k’ k¦º g¦º k’¦ Laryngeals: # m/i e ē ¸ ° l/C a ā r/3 (i) ī w/u (u) ū y/i ə Resonants: Vowels: n/‚ o ō The Glottalic Theory has not escaped criticism. seem to be fairly ancient and were most likely inherited by Proto-Indo-European from ProtoNostratic. on the other hand. For the latest period of development (the stage that I have called “Disintegrating Indo-European”). Fallon in Chapter 6.
But like Mark Twain. they do help rebut some of the Glottalic Theory’s sharpest criticisms and should breathe new life into the debate. I think rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated.” 4. Fallon (2002:285) summarizes his findings by noting: In sum. examines and evaluates the plausibility of various paths for ejective voicing. Laryngealization: “Another commonly posited path of development from ejective to voiced is via laryngealization. I feel that these changes are valid possibilities.g. And I hope that I have shown that we should not … automatically rule out the possibility of direct phonetic or phonological change.Allan R. Garrett (1991: 803) said the Glottalic Theory “was an exciting proposal…one whose time has come and gone”. However. both cross-linguistically and individually. Fallow suggests that. 3.7). Direct Voicing: Fallon describes the process of direct voicing of ejectives as the spread of [voice] from a vowel. After presenting and discussing in great detail evidence from a number of languages.” This is the scenario I prefer. followed by default fill-in (or spreading). The data gathered here do not by any means validate the Ejective Model — such validation will require careful study and reassessment of almost 200 years of assumptions (such as the papers in Vennemann 1989). they both could be paths of ejective development. The results will often be a change to a pulmonic voiced consonant with loss of glottal constriction…” On the other hand. a little later on. laryngealization. And further (2002:288): … I also hope that I have dispelled the myth of implausibility of ejective voicing. as we have seen in Kabardian. the implosives would have been changed to plain voiced stops. we have seen that there is a tremendous amount of variation in the production of ejectives. I have discussed four possible directions of change from ejective to voiced: direct and indirect voicing. within the Quichean languages. “we can express this as indirect voicing in two parts. §6. Indirect Voicing: “The indirect voicing of ejectives involves their loss of distinct glottalization and the subsequent voicing of the voiceless unaspirated series. as the delinking of the laryngeal feature [c. as follows: 1. Fallon (2002:278— 285.” 2. and which I have followed in Chapter 5 of my forthcoming book Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic. “a rather direct change which telescopes what historically may have been a series of minute changes. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 23 support for the Glottalic Theory of Proto-Indo-European consonantism. .” As an example. ejectives may have become implosives as follows: Voiceless ejective > voiceless implosive > voiced implosive At a later date. And implosivization has occurred independently in a number of African and Central American languages. and that given dialectal variation. for example. Implosivization: “Many linguists now believe that PIE ejectives became implosive.]. and implosivization… Creaky or laryngealized voicing seems to be fairly common.
new possibilities suggest themselves. f-p-. Indeed. an equally thorough examination has turned up even more examples in which the voiceless stops reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European correspond to similar sounds in Proto-Afrasian and Proto-Kartvelian. a thorough examination of the reconstructed lexicons of these three proto-languages has turned up a massive number of examples in which glottalics in Proto-Indo-European correspond to glottalics in Proto-Afrasian and Proto-Kartvelian. Inasmuch as they are more straightforward. we are now in a position to confirm that the correct correspondences are as follows: ProtoNostratic b-bpº-pºp’-p’d-dtº-tºt’-t’g-gkº-kºk’-k’ProtoIE bº-bºpº-pº(p’-) (-p’-) dº-dºtº-tºt’-t’gº-gºkº-kºk’-k’ProtoKartvelian b-bp-pp’-p’d-dt-tt’-t’g-gk-kk’-k’ProtoAfrasian b-bp-. the most important of which is that the glottalics now reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European might correspond to similar sounds in Proto-Afrasian and ProtoKartvelian. .q-k.-qProtoEskimo p-vp-p(p)- Not only do the revised correspondences overcome all of the objections raised above concerning Moscovite views. Moreover. -fp’-p’d-dt-tt’-t’g-gk-kk’-k’t-tt-t(t)t-tk-xk-k(k)k-kt-s(s)t-ttt-t(t)k-kk-k(k)k-k(k)ProtoUralic p-wp-pProtoDravidian p-pp-/-vvp-pp-/-vProtoAltaic b-bpº-pºp-pd-dtº-tºt-tg-gkº-kºk-kt-ðt-t(t)t-tk. they are more straightforward and do not require setting up ad hoc rules to explain exceptions.q-k(k)-q(q)k. Consequently. Immediately. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 6.q-Ÿk. we are in a position to investigate the implications of this hypothesis for Nostratic sound correspondences. Revised Nostratic Sound Correspondences Now that we have reviewed and critiqued Moscovite views on Nostratic sound correspondences and discussed the reinterpretation of Proto-Indo-European consonantism in view of the Glottalic Theory.24 Allan R.
(f.) "at-t(ī) ‘you’./pl.) *#aata.) *tº³ ‘you’.) ôïß. sg. prefix ti-. in-ti ‘you’./pl./pl. f.) -tā. Ugaritic 9t ‘you’ (m.‘you’. (gen. sg.‘you’.) ôÝïò.) "an-tī ‘you’. Burji áši ‘you’. imperfect 2nd sg.) "àtta ‘you’. (f. sg.) tváyi. sg.) "an-ta.) te ‘you’. (f.) *tee ‘you’ > Gedeo (f. Akkadian (m. prefix ta-. sg. in-tin. (enclitic) *tº(w)ey/*tº(w)oy: Sanskrit (nom. (gen. Geez / Ethiopic (m. Kambata a"n-a"ooti ‘you’.) -ti.) en-tin.) *tºewe. ôïé. Proto-Afrasian *t[i] ‘you’: Proto-Semitic (prefix forms) *ti-/*ta-.) du ‘you’./pl.) *#ata. fem. Śeri / JibbXli tεn ‘you’.) tūm. prefix ta-. (dat. sg. perfect 2nd sg. prefix conjugation 2nd sg. (sg. perfect 2nd sg. Central Cushitic: Bilin (sg. sg. ProtoEast Cushitic (2nd pl.) teje. Bayso at-i ‘you’. permansive 2nd sg. we may now take another look at the examples cited above for ‘thou’ and ‘who?’ to see how they are changed: Example 1: Proto-Nostratic *tºi. Somali idin. Sidamo at-e/i ‘you’. te. imperfect 2nd sg.) -ta. tvā. (f. in Royal Achaemenid Elamite.) ta ‘you’.‘you’. person addressed or “second person”) gender suffix -t.) tvám ‘you’. endings (m.) tvZm. Greek (Doric) (nom. Konso at-ti ‘you’. prefix conjugation 2nd sg. sg. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines this principle as: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. sg. sg. Hebrew (m. sg. in pronominalized nouns and verb suffix of 2nd sg.) tee ‘you’. B. prefix t-. *tºewo. (dat.) tváyā.) an-tā. te. . Saho-Afar at-u ‘you’. Hadiyya (f. (f. (dat. (gen. By way of example.) túbhyam. Proto-Indo-European (nom.‘you’ > Saho-Afar atin ‘you’. të. Latin (nom. Gedeo at-i ‘you’ Hadiyya at-i ‘you’. endings (m. C.) "at-tāh. sg. *-ta. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 25 they satisfy the principle known as Occam’s (Ockham’s) Razor.) *tºw»/*tº». Dravidian: Parji -t appositional marker of 2nd sg. sg. *-ti). which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities. sg. sg. sg. Kambata (f. Somali ad-i. Elamo-Dravidian: Elamite (2nd sg.) *#at-i/u ‘you’ > Galla / Oromo at-i ‘you’. (f. (instr. (acc. Avestan (nom.) ôý ‘you’. voc./du. imperfect 2nd sg. tū ‘you’. (acc. (sg. sg. (2nd pl. Proto-Highland East Cushitic (2nd sg. (loc.) tuī.) "ááta ‘you’.) ty. verb ending) -t.) -āt(a). Rendille atin.) ty.) tibī. sg. Rendille at-i ‘you’. (pl. *tºwēm/*tºēm.) "an-ti ‘you’.) -āti. Kambata at-i ‘you’. ending -t (m.) "an-ta. *"atta. prefix t‹-. (suffix forms) *-t÷/*-t` ‘you’ > Arabic (m.) ti ‘you’. Dasenech itti(ni) ‘you’. (abl. (acc. (abl. Albanian (nom.) tvát. subj. *"atti). Tsamay atun-i ‘you’. (gen. sg. (f. endings (m. (acc. Armenian (nom. f. sg. sg. sg./pl. (acc. Gidole at-te ‘you’.) an-tī ‘you’.‘you’. Dahalo (pl.) *#atin. perfect 2nd sg.Allan R. Burji ašinu ‘you’. sg. Sidamo (f. this becomes -t due to loss of h). sg. verb ending) -ht (h + t. subj. (dat.(~ *tºe-) second person pronoun stem: ‘thou/you’: A. Proto-Southern Cushitic (pl.) tee ‘you’. Proto-East Cushitic (2nd sg./du. allocutive (that is.‘you’ > Iraqw aten ‘you’.) táva.) tē.) ôÝ.) tū ‘you’. të.) -t(i).) en-ti.
te ‘you’. (encl. Mordvin (Erza) tiń. Hungarian ti ‘you’. Selkup Samoyed tee. sg. verb ending) *-tºe: Sanskrit (2nd pl. sg. tat ‘you’. tïń ‘you’. (nom. Kerek (pl. sg.) ti-i ‘you’. tebe. Old Church Slavic -te. Proto-Uralic (sg.) či ‘you’.) *tºi ‘thou. sg. .) tebe.26 Allan R. Kamchadal / Itelmen kəz(z)a (Sedanka kza) ‘you’. Kerek hənŋu ‘you’.) -ti-iš. Alyutor (pl. sg. zi-ga ‘you’.) tu-ú. sg.) či ‘you’. Votyak / Udmurt ti ‘you’.) -ti. sg.) tebě. Zyrian / Komi te (acc. Lithuanian -te. sg. Greek -ôå. there is a pronoun θi of unknown meaning. (gen. tizvin ‘your’. possessive instr. sg. (acc. secondary verb ending) -ta. sg. Lapp / Saami don/dú‘you’. -θi. (loc.) ta.) turuwwi ‘you’. pl. sg. sg. turŸ-in ‘your’.) þeina. sg. pl.) -ta-aš.) -te.) či ‘you’. Kamassian tan ‘you’. G. sg.) *te ‘you’: Finnish sinä/sinu. Mordvin ton ‘you’. Yukaghir tet ‘you’.) či ‘you’ (gen. Palaic (nom. Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan tannaŋ ‘you’. (instr. F.) ti-i ‘you’. Cheremis / Mari tä. (nom. tu-ga. Latin (imptv.) tu-uk. Buriat (nom. (nom.) þuk. sg. Old Irish -the.) tā. Monguor (nom. postAnatolian forms. sg. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *-ð in *kəð ‘you’: Chukchi Ÿət (Southern Ÿəto) ‘you’. tii ‘you’.) ta. sg. Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan tee— ‘you’. (encl. (encl. (encl. sg. sg. sg. Selkup Samoyed ta—. Cheremis / Mari təń ‘you’. sg.) tavyjè. sg. (dual) tuji ‘you’.) tē (Old Latin tēd). sg.) taí. (2nd pl. Alyutor Ÿətta. tucŸ-in ‘your’. (acc. Koryak Ÿəcci ‘you’. sg. Khalkha (nom. ti. Yukaghir tit ‘you’. (abl. pl.) tavimì. sg. sg. sg. (dat. Proto-Altaic (nom.‘you’. primary verb ending) -tha.) tù ‘you’.) šī ‘you’. Hittite (nom.) -te-it. pl. Dagur (nom. D. Gothic (nom. Votyak / Udmurt ton ‘you’. Note: the Proto-Indo-European reconstructions given above represent later. (nom. Old Irish (nom.) tu-e-da-az. (instr.) tebě.-dat. (nom. činu).) tā.) tobojC. sg. (acc. sg.) to. Old Church Slavic (nom. possessive nom.) tu-(e-)el. possessive gen. pl. Lithuanian (nom. sg. sg. (loc.) *te ‘you’: Finnish te ‘you’. sg. sg. Kalmyk (nom. sg. təjəj ‘your’. (gen. in view of the fact that the verbal imperative endings for the 2nd person are -ti.) -ti-in. θi may be a form of the pronoun of the 2nd person singular.) təjəkku ‘you’. (encl oblique sg. sg. pl. (nom.) tavþ. pl.) tú ‘you’. (nom. Yenisei Samoyed / Enets tod'i ‘you’. tenõ) ‘you’. sg. sg. -θ. Hungarian të ‘you’. Yenisei Samoyed / Enets tod'i" ‘you’. Proto-Indo-European (2nd pl.) -te-it.) ši ‘you’. pl. (gen. Ÿəttə (Palana Ÿətte) ‘you’.) tavýs. possessive acc. Etruscan: In Etruscan. (dat. Moghol (nom. Koryak (pl. (acc. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *tur(i) ‘you’: Chukchi turi ‘you’.) táv. (encl. possessive neut.) ta. sg. you’: Proto-Mongolian (nom. Luwian (nom. pl. (gen.) či ‘you’. (dual) təəj ‘you’. (nom. Zyrian / Komi ti ‘you’. tu-e-ta-za.) -ta (-du before -za). Proto-Uralic (pl. However.) ta.) zi-ik. Gothic -þ. (nom. Lapp / Saami dí ‘you’. sg. E.) tuju ‘you’.) ći ‘you’.) *ta ‘you’ > Written Mongolian (nom. Ordos (nom.-acc. sg. -de. (dat.) tę. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences (abl. (gen. (encl. (dat.) ta.) (*tºi > *t¨i >) či ‘you’. Kamchadal / Itelmen tuza"n ‘you’.) ty ‘you’. sg. possessive dat. sg.) þu ‘you’.) þus.
kö. . also used as a conjunction: ‘because. which?. ¹ō ‘what?’.‘who’.) kus (acc.) kuce ‘whom?. Áarsūsi kem ‘how much?. kü ‘who’. no matter who. čaiti ‘how many?’. (so) that’. *k¦ºa. hvat ‘what?’. when?’. Example 2: Proto-Nostratic *k¦ºi. *k¦ºi. gin ‘where’. Luwian ku-(i-)iš ‘who?’. Proto-Uralic *ki. what’.stem of interrogative and relative pronouns: Sanskrit ká-. Lapp / Saami gi/gK. cid ‘even. quisquis ‘whoever. Eskimo: West Greenlandic (2nd sg. whither?’. Zyrian / Komi kin ‘who’. Welsh pwy ‘who?’. how many?’.Allan R. Estonian kes ‘who’. Lithuanian kàs ‘who?. and none needs to be reconstructed when the correct sound correspondences are employed. how many?’ > Arabic kam ‘how much?.) ku-iš ‘who?’ (acc. which’. (h)waz ‘what?’ (New High German was). Proto-Indo-European *k¦ºe-/*k¦ºo-. sg. quid ‘what?’. what?’. whither?’. which?. (acc. Old Church Slavic kÞto ‘who?’.relative pronoun stem: Finnish ken/kene-/ke. ðüóïò ‘of what quantity?. kím ‘what?’. Mehri kəm ‘how much?’. Armenian kºani ‘how many?’. Note that there is not a single shred of evidence from the daughter languages to support the reconstruction of an initial glottalic at the Proto-Nostratic level here. Cheremis / Mari ke. gildi ‘how much. Cornish pyw ‘who?’. what. ku-wa-(at-)tin ‘where?. ¹aþ ‘whereto?’.interrogative pronoun stem: Proto-Semitic *ka-m ‘how much?. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 27 H. ¹ar ‘where?’. Breton piou ‘who?’. kijen. which. how many?. whoever. Avestan interrogative-indefinite pronoun stem ka‘who’. whence’. what?’. relative stem (nom. how many’. how much?. Old English hwā ‘who?’. Kamassian gi"i" ‘which (of two)’. how many?’. ku-in).) kuse ‘who(?).(~ *k¦ºe-) relative pronoun stem. Old High German (h)wer ‘who?’ (New High German wer).(~ *k¦º‹-) interrogative pronoun stem: A. Old Irish cía ‘who?’. Votyak / Udmurt kin ‘who’. Proto-Afrasian (?) *k¦a. hwie ‘who?’. Latin quis ‘who?’. absolutive possessive suffix) -(i)t. B. ku-wa-(a-)pí ‘where?. Old Icelandic hverr ‘who?. B interrogative and relative stem (nom. quod ‘that. somebody’. quot ‘how many?’. Old Saxon hwē. Old Danish hwa ‘who?’. C. ðï™ ‘where?’. Old Persian interrogative-indefinite pronoun stem ka‘who’. wherefore. hvé ‘how?’. relative adverb ku-wa-at-ti ‘where. Tocharian A interrogative stem (nom. Lydian relative pronoun qis. whichever. why’. who?’. Soqosri kəm ‘how much?’. kuc) ‘who?. Palaic interrogative and relative pronoun kuiš. (neuter) ku-it ‘what?’. interrogative adverb ku-wa-(a-)ti(-in) ‘how?’. whatever’. ¹arjis ‘which?’. Lycian interrogative and relative stem ti.~ *ke. Greek ôßò ‘who?’. also’. a few’. ku-(u-)wa-at ‘why?’. Old Frisian hwā ‘who?’. whither?. those who’. gi"ge" ‘what sort of’. ôß ‘what?’. which?. Hittite interrogative pronoun (nom. káti ‘how many?’. ku9 ‘where?. the one who. Hungarian ki ‘who. Derivatives of this stem are abundantly represented in the Indo-European daughter languages — only a small sampling is given here. what?. which’. whom. kZ ‘who?’. Old Swedish ho ‘who?’. ¹an ‘when?’. Mordvin ki ‘who. hwKt ‘what’. gi"in. what?’. Gothic ¹as ‘who?’.) kusne (acc.‘who. kucne) ‘who. kútra ‘where?’.
Mordvin kodamo ‘which?. qay ‘which?’. hańa" ‘whither?’. from where?’. kuze ‘how?’. which?’. from where?’. either’. Bashkir kem ‘who?’.~ *ko. Proto-Turkic *kem-. Lamut / Even \q ‘what?’. Dagur ken.interrogative pronoun stem: Finnish kuka/ku. kim ‘who?’. Turkmenian kim ‘who?’.‘where?’.28 Allan R.‘who?’. Proto-Eskimo *kitu ‘who’ or ‘which’: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik kitu. ēkun ‘who?. which?’. Negidal ēχun. Proto-Altaic *kºa(y) interrogative pronoun: ‘who?. kunne ‘when?’. qay ‘which?’. Kazakh kim ‘who?’. Aleut kiin ‘who’. Proto-Inuit *qanuq ‘how’ > Seward E. which?’ > Old Turkic (Old Uighur) kem ‘who?’. *ka. kuu ‘whither?’. North Alaskan Inuit kin¨a ‘who’. Ordos ken ‘who?. Uzbek kim ‘who?’. Proto-Eskimo *ki(na) ‘who’: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik kinaq ‘who’. kammõn ‘when?’. Yenisei Samoyed / Enets huju ‘one of two. Solon ī ‘what?’. Uighur kim (dial. kunno" ‘how?’. Orok χai ‘what?’. gost ‘where?. Lapp / Saami gutti ‘who?’. hā. Chuvash kam ‘who?’. Central Alaskan Yupik kina ‘who’. Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) hadi ‘which?’. Cheremis / Mari kudõ ‘who?. Evenki ē ‘who?’. Moghol ken ‘who?. hot ‘from where?. *ka. which?’.) qay ‘which?’. Central Siberian Yupik kina ‘who’. kaya ‘which?’. Turkish kim ‘who?’. hon ‘where?. which?’. qayï ‘which?’. Central Siberian Yupik kitu. Oyrot (Mountain Altai) kem ‘who?’. ko ‘when?’. Karaim kïm ‘who?’. Kirghiz kim ‘who?’. Greenlandic Inuit kina ‘who’. gokÎtĕ ‘how?’.‘who’. what?’ > Manchu ai. kuni"aaŋ ‘how?’. χen ‘who?. which?’. qayu ‘which?’. which?’. Gagauz kim ‘who?’. whither?’. Khalkha χen ‘who?. kun ‘where?. Tatar kem ‘who?’. Nanay / Gold χaị ‘what?’. North Alaskan Inuit kisu ‘which’. kun ‘when?’. Vogul / Mansi hoo. kem) ‘who?’. Western Canadian Inuit kina ‘who’. whence?’. Tavgi Samoyed / Nganasan kua. Seward Peninsula Inuit kina ‘who’.‘who?. Noghay kim ‘who?’. huna. Eastern Canadian Inuit kituuna ‘who is that’. ēwa ˆ ˆ ˆ ē ‘what?’. Azerbaijani kim ‘who?’. D. ˆ kūn ‘what?’. kõda" ‘how?’.‘who?. Proto-Mongolian *ken. ya ‘who?. Yakut kim ‘who?’. Hungarian hol ‘where?’. Tuva qïm ‘who?’. qayu. χā-. Kamassian kojət ‘what kind of?’. kon ‘who?’. which?’ > Written Mongolian ken ‘who?. Dolgan kim ‘who?’. Kalmyk ken ‘who?. Naukan Siberian Yupik kitu. which?’. Seward Peninsula Inuit kitu ‘which’. which?’. (dial. Zyrian / Komi kod ‘which?’. qay ‘which?’. kona ‘which?’. Monguor ken ‘who?. which?’. Selkup Samoyed kutte. Buriat χen ‘who?. Central Alaskan Yupik kitu. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Yukaghir (Southern / Kolyma) kin ‘who’. what?. kudö ‘who?’. . qanu ‘which?’. Ostyak / Xanty koji ‘who?’. ku ‘whither?’. Greenlandic Inuit (North Greenlandic / Polar Eskimo) kihu ‘what’. qay ‘which?’. hova ‘whither?’. kutar ‘how?’. Karakhanide Turkic kem. Yurak Samoyed / Nenets hu ‘who?’. koda ‘how?’. χaya ‘which?’. kune. kunie ‘which?’. what kind of?’.‘who’. kŏti ‘what?’. hodiet ‘why?’. what?’: Proto-Tungus *χia ˆ (*χai) ‘who?. Votyak / Udmurt kudiz ‘which?’. kussa ‘where?’. qay ‘which?’.‘who’. Naukan Siberian Yupik kina ‘who’. Proto-Uralic *ku. huńaŋy ‘which?’. koso ‘where?’. huńana ‘where?’. kuninu ‘where?’. kintek ‘who. which?’. koska ‘when?’. qay ‘which?’. qay ‘which?’. Ulch χay ‘what?’. hogy ‘how?’. what?’.‘who’. Sirenik kin ‘who’. ku ‘when?’. Eastern Canadian Inuit kina ‘who’. somebody’. kuštõ ‘where?’. hoot ‘where?’.
Again. the . coronal vs. North Alaskan Inuit qakuŸu ‘when (in future)’. Greenlandic Inuit qaŋa ‘when (in past)’. Greenlandic Inuit qanuq ‘how’. quite recently. with the following results: (they are given as approximations because there is a problem arriving at exact figures given that there [are] some cases where it is difficult to tell whether one is dealing with a single Nostratic form or two. it is just the Proto-Nostratic reconstructions proposed by the Moscow School that are wrong. as expected’. Sirenik qaku ‘when’. is that so?’. new etymologies suggest themselves that were not apparent to the Moscovites. voiced vs. Western Canadian Inuit qaŋa ‘when (in past)’. Proto-Eskimo *qaku ‘when (in future)’: Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik qaku ‘when (in future)’. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 29 Peninsula Inuit qanuq ‘how’. North Alaskan Inuit qaŋa ‘when (in past)’.‘which. voiceless. glottalized as well as labial vs. Dolgopolsky as well) in light of typological considerations. Central Siberian Yupik qayuq ‘how’. Proto-Yupik-Sirenik *qayu(q) ‘how’ > Alutiiq Alaskan Yupik qayu ‘how’. Eastern Canadian Inuit qaŋa ‘when’. Central Alaskan Yupik qayumi ‘indeed. I only performed the experiment on root-initial stops. Specifically. Finally. Central Alaskan Yupik qaku ‘when (in future)’. Proto-Eskimo *qaŋa ‘when (in past)’: Sirenik qaŋən ‘when (in past?)’. qanaaŋ ‘how many’. Aleut qana. In closing. qaywa ‘really?. qanayaam ‘when’. Eastern Canadian Inuit qaku ‘when (at last. by implication. we may note that Alexis Manaster Ramer (1997:94—96) arrived at the same conclusions reached here regarding the need to reexamine the Nostratic sound correspondences proposed by Illič-Svityč (and. Central Siberian Yupik qakun ‘when (in future)’. Western Canadian Inuit (Siglit) qaku(Ÿu) ‘when (in future)’. is that so?’. Naukan Siberian Yupik qaku ‘when’. seem to be inconsistent with typological predictions. where’. in the above two examples. or whether a particular form should begin with this or that stop): *b 50+ *p 15+ *p’ 40+ *d 20+ *t 15+ *t’ 30+ *g 40+ *k 50+ *k’ 60+ The first observation (see Manaster Ramer in press a) was that … the relative frequencies of the three phonation types (voiced. Note that. he writes: 6. Greenlandic Inuit qaquŸu ‘when (in future)’. the etymologies remain valid. velar) reconstructed for Nostratic by Illich-Svitych. I decided to see what would happen if one counted up the occurrences of the different stops (voiceless vs.Allan R. North Alaskan Inuit qanuq ‘how’. glottalized) posited for ProtoNostratic stops. Seward Peninsula Yupik qaŸu(n). Eastern Canadian Inuit qanuq ‘how’. Naukan Siberian Yupik qay ‘I wonder. Specifically. after lengthy waiting)’. given the revised sound correspondences. as reflected in the sets of cognates compiled by Illich-Svitych. This notwithstanding. there is no evidence for reconstructing an initial glottalic in the Nostratic protoform. the vast majority of work produced by Illič-Svityč some forty years ago holds up quite well. at least in initial position. qaŸuFun ‘when (in future)’. Of course. Sirenik qayŋun ‘really?’. while some of the etymologies based upon the incorrect sound correspondences must now be discarded. Seward Peninsula Inuit qaŋa ‘when (in past)’.1. Western Canadian Inuit qanuq ‘how’.
the stop series reconstructed by Illich-Svitych as plain voiceless and by me as glottalized (or aspirated) comes out in Proto-Indo-European as that series of stops which is traditionally reconstructed as voiced (media) but which many scholars have recently interpreted as glottalized. Proto-Kartvelian *p’ap’. while the “voiceless” series represented some more marked phonation type. Proto-Indo-European (f. the solution turned out to be quite simple. typological considerations provide us with arguments for reinterpreting the Nostratic stop series in a way that fits quite well with the glottalic theory of Indo-European. and Vocabulary. I will just give the reconstructed proto-forms for each daughter language (except for Dravidian and Etruscan) — the full body of supporting data. just as in the case of the clusters and affricates discussed above. in particular. This reinterpretation of Nostratic … naturally calls to mind the glottalic theory of Indo-European.‘old man. Proto-Nostratic *p’: 1. B.30 Allan R. glottalized or perhaps aspirated. something was amiss. since that would entail the “misuse of similarity” which Hamp (1992) cautions against. But it is not an unwelcome development when it occurs. Of course. and in the latter it is easy to imagine that this could be a contact-induced development. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences series of stops reconstructed as glottalized is much more frequent at all points of articulation than the series reconstructed as (plain) voiceless. I would suggest that the “glottalized” series was actually plain voiceless in Proto-Nostratic. Morphology. old woman’: A. there is no reason in general to expect the phonetics of related languages and proto-languages to agree in this way. Much of this supporting material is also listed in my 1994 coauthored book The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Here. Given the markedness considerations. .‘grandfather’. This is consistent with the fact that the Nostratic series Illich-Svitych wrote as “glottalized” is in fact realized as glottalized only in parts of Afro-Asiatic and in Kartvelian. can be found in my forthcoming book Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology. Appendix This Appendix contains a sampling of the evidence from the Nostratic daughter languages that supports the sound correspondences for glottalics I have proposed (only for stops and only in initial position). However. and such a convergence cannot be regarded as a criterion or an argument for relatedness among languages. Since one expects glottalized stops to be more marked and hence less frequent than plain voiceless.) *p’`p’aA > *p’`p’ā ‘old woman’. As it happens. Nostratic Nostratic (Illich-Svitych) (Manaster Ramer) *t *t’ *d *t’ (or *tº) *t *d Indo-European (Traditional) *d *t *dh Indo-European (Glottalic) *t’ *t *d Totally unexpectedly. Proto-Nostratic *p’ap’a. along with references to the relevant literature.
to heat up’: A. to sprinkle. 3. (n.) to swell.(~ *p’ot’-) ‘(vb. round’.‘to be cut. Proto-Indo-European *p’ul-. to split. (with break break (hair. to split. (extended form) *t’e¸-y/i. C.‘to drip. round.[*t’a¸-] > *t’ā. to pound’.) break. .~ *t’ul. to heat. to wet. to sprinkle. to fall in drops. *p’ol. C. bulbous’: A.). bulge. (reduplicated) *p’ul-p’ul. or pull off or apart. to warm oneself’. Ku0ux pudugnX (pudgas) ‘to pluck out etc. (adj. Proto-Indo-European *t’el-/*t’ol.‘to pluck (poultry)’. Note: The variant Proto-Nostratic stem *tºepº. Proto-Kartvelian *t’eb-/*t’b. *p’omp’ol-. (adj. Proto-Altaic *pula. Proto-Nostratic *t’aħ.(vb. drizzle’: A. to burn’ is not related to the above. Dravidian: Kolami put. or pull off or apart’ numerous extensions).Allan R. break. to pluck (flower). lump. Proto-Kartvelian *t’ex.) dew. Proto-Nostratic *t’: 1. break.[*t’a¸-y/i-]. (n. to moisten’. Proto-Nostratic *t’al. to pound. drop’. to fall in drops. B.) ‘to drip. putuk. anything ground or pulverized’: A. to split.‘swollen. B. torn-off.(~ *t’əħ-) ‘(vb. Proto-Kartvelian *p’ut’w‚. to (rope)’. C. Proto-Indo-European *t’e¸. B. (n. to crush.‘(vb.)’.) *t’al.‘to cut to pieces’. B. Naik0i put.‘to swell’.(~ *t’‹l-) ‘(vb. to (intr.) to swell. to sprinkle.‘to break. to heat up’. Proto-Afrasian *p’ul.) to cut. Naiki (of Chanda) put. to moisten.(dissimilated to *p’ump’ul-. or broken-off piece or part’: A. B. pulled-off.(~ *t’əb-) ‘to be or become warm. split. Proto-Afrasian *t’al.‘to be or become warm. tear.) swollen.(~ *p’ol-) ‘(vb. Proto-Afrasian *t’ab.) to drip. to pluck’. to make warm. (reduplicated) *p’ulp’ul-. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *bat’. *p’omp’ul-). Proto-Nostratic *p’ul.‘to cleave. hump. division.‘to warm. to grind. to fall in drops.) cut-off. to crush. to strip (fowl) by plucking’. to divide’. (rain) drop. 2. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 31 2.(~ -o-) ‘to swell’.) swelling. Proto-Afrasian *t’aħ. to wet.) swollen.‘to cut. Proto-Nostratic *t’ab. *p’olp’ol. to wet.(putt-) ‘to cut in pieces. to grind.‘dew. 3. (n.‘to break’. tear. Proto-Nostratic *p’ut’.‘to warm. to moisten’.‘to cut. (n.) to break. to make warm. round’.
Proto-Kartvelian *t’q’aw.is a prefix) — for the semantics. chisel’.(~ *t’‹l-) ‘to lick’: A.) rip. C. stake. to sever. tarikai ‘a kind of axe. close. Proto-Nostratic *t’aq’.) length’.) to tear. burden. (adj. high’: A. B. wooden post. to rend. hide’. to lengthen’:) (extended forms) *t’C-H-gºo.(~ *t’əpº-) ‘to strike. which are derived from ProtoIndo-European *t’er-/*t’or-/*t’3.‘to lick. to rend. Proto-Nostratic *t’al. *t’l-e-Egº. to stuff. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *t’a/wa/l. to cut off’. weaver’s loom. (n. slice’: A. dense’: A. Proto-Indo-European *(s)t’ek’-/*(s)t’ok’. (n. Gothic dis-tairan ‘to tear down. to pack (tight) with’. load. Afrasian: Egyptian dns ‘to be loaded heavily’.‘to pound. 8. broken’. a kind of axe’.> (with regressive deglottalization [see above]) *(s)tºek’-/*(s)tºok’. to take away’.‘to stretch out. dense’.‘to take away’ (*#a.‘skin.‘to take away’ > Proto-Semitic *#a-t’ar.32 Allan R. tari (-v-.‘closely packed or pressed together. to extend. tear. to trample’. 5. to cut.) to fill. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 4.‘to tear. cf. to extend’. B. (n.) covering’: A. to chop off. .) to stretch out. Proto-Kartvelian *t’lek’-/*t’lik’.‘to strike. Proto-Indo-European *t’epº-/*t’opº. -tt-) ‘to lop.‘(vb.) closely packed or pressed together. Proto-Indo-European (*t’el-/*t’ol-/*t’C. tall. (?) (reduplication of the simple verbal stem *t’en-) *t’it’in. Proto-Kartvelian *t’en. dnsw ‘weights’. to lengthen. Proto-Afrasian *t’Vr. B. B. 7.‘to cover’. to protect.‘long’.(~ *t’‹r-) ‘(vb. tari ‘a cutting off. height. Dravidian: Tamil tari (-pp-.(~ *t’‹n-) ‘(vb. Proto-Altaic *tāpºV.) to cover. B. B.(~ *t’‹l-) ‘(vb.(~ *t’‹q’-) ‘(vb. Proto-Altaic *tālV.‘to stuff.) long.‘to strike. to remove’ and ga-tarnjan ‘to rob. to stuff. to extend.‘to stretch. tari ‘pot. to extend. Proto-Nostratic *t’al. thick. to beat. Malayalam tarikka ‘to cut down’.> *t’lēgº.) length. to fill tight’. (n. Proto-Afrasian *t’ap. Proto-Semitic *na-t’al. Proto-Nostratic *t’apº.‘to fill. Proto-Indo-European *t’‚s-u. Proto-Nostratic *t’ar. to pack tightly together. to hit’. Proto-Semitic (reduplicated) *t’al-t’al.‘to lick’.) to stretch. -nt-) ‘to be cut off. C. 9. dns ‘weight.‘to throw’. to press’. to flay’ cited below. Proto-Nostratic *t’an. cut. thick. to pound’: A. heavy’. to lick oneself’. (adj. 6.‘to lift’.
‘to shine. Proto-Indo-European *t’er-/*t’or-/*t’3.‘to tear. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 33 hedge-stake. slaughter. tarvu ‘to slice. Ku0ux tārnā (tāryas) ‘to fell (tree).‘to hit. heat’: A. to strike. far off. 12. tīzTra ‘light. Malto táre ‘to cut down.(~ *t’‹w-) ‘(vb. to gleam. to let go’. tiur ‘moon.) stroke. to cut off. to go away’. damage’: A. to flay’. to fell’. Note: Also found in Northwest Caucasian: cf. B. Proto-Altaic *tāyV ‘elder male in-law.(ti·c-) ‘to singe. month’. harm. Toda ti·y. to lop off (bough)’. (n. Dravidian: Tamil tī. to go away.(tarip-. tiv-. (adj. tarip ‘cutting’. KannaTa tari. stick.) to go. roasted’. Proto-Indo-European *t’ew-/*t’ow-/*t’u. remote. tīy ‘to be burnt.‘to cut’. cutting. taruvu. to roast’. to be bright’. to let go.(tarakt-) ‘to cut. 14. tari ‘cutting. taric-) ‘to chop to small bits’. blow. Malayalam tī ‘fire’. Proto-Circassian *t’awə ‘to bump one’s head’ > Temirgoy ya-t’awə ‘to bump one’s head’. heat’. brightness.(~ *t’‹y-) or *t’iy. Proto-Nostratic *t’aw.(ti·c-) ‘to be singed. ti·y. to speak’: A.(tarc-) ‘to cut (using an implement with one hand). Brahui tīn ‘scorching. B.‘to hit. Proto-Afrasian *t’aw.‘to leave. Proto-Indo-European *t’e#. charred. .(~ *t’‹w-) ‘(vb. tare ‘to strip off. Kota tayr.Allan R. distant’. 13. to clear (jungle)’. C. to strike’. KannaTa tī ‘to burn. weaver’s loom’. Proto-Nostratic *t’ay. Etruscan tin ‘day’.‘to say. Telugu tarugu. to leave. to speak’. (n. TuJu taripuni ‘to lop off. to burn brightly. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) *t’ay. to scorch.‘to go. to go away. Kolami targ. to cut’.‘brother-in-law on husband’s side’. scorching heat’. 11. KoTagu tari.) to shine. Kota ti·y. to strike’. Rhaetic tiu-ti ‘to the moon’. to glitter. tiu. to glow.(> *t’ē-) ‘to say.(ti·s-) ‘to be singed’.(~ *t’ey-) ‘(vb. injury.) to hit. to cut a path through jungle’. to injure’. to leave. Proto-Indo-European *t’ey-/*t’oy-/*t’i. Proto-Indo-European *t’ay-wer-/*t’ay-w3. brightness.‘(elder) male in-law. C. tīrūnk ‘spark’. far away. sharp knife or sword’.) far away. stake. to cut off’. targu. Proto-Nostratic *t’e#. tare ‘to break (as a stick). Proto-Afrasian *t’aw. to parch’. at a distance’: A. 10. B. (elder) male relative’: A. to chop’. to rend. Proto-Nostratic *t’aw. elder male relative’. to singe. Proto-Kartvelian *t’ew. Proto-Indo-European *t’ew(A)-/*t’ow(A)-/*t’u(A). tøTirincu ‘to shine’. C. post. blighted’. B.‘to go. Naik0i targ.) light. to be bright. Telugu tīzTrincu.
blow. to rear. discourse. to enumerate.‘to strike with the feet. to recount.(> *t’kw/u-). list.‘wedge. Proto-Nostratic *t’oH.>) *t’‚gºū-/*t’‚gºwā.(~ *t’el-) ‘tongue. Proto-Afrasian *t’uk’-. to bruise or destroy by treading. Proto-Finno-Permian *tukз. (n. B.(secondary e-grade form: *tºek’-) ‘to knock. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences B. to recount. Proto-Indo-European (*t’CgºuA-/*t’CgºweA. peg’: A. *t’k’eč-/*t’k’ič.> (with regressive deglottalization) *tºok’. to trample on. to strike’. to hit. 19. Dravidian: Tamil tukai ‘to tread down.>) *t’ō. B.(tukt-) ‘to trample’. (n.‘pin. to strike. to trample. tale’: A. Proto-Eskimo *təli. C. 16. voice’. to squeeze’.) talk.‘(vb. tlēkt-) ‘to put out the tongue. TuJu tōku ‘collision’.) giving.‘to give’. to strike’. Dravidian: Kui tlēpka (< tlēk-p-. Kui tōga (tōgi-) ‘to kick’. Pengo tog. to step on’.34 Allan R.) to knock. to pound in a mortar. . to buck (of a horse)’. Turkic: Sagai (dialect of Khakas) tu¦ula. F. to enumerate.(*tu¦з-) ‘to break. to recount. Proto-Indo-European (*t’oH-C. thump. to list. Proto-Indo-European *t’el.‘to knock. to strike. to bring. B.‘to say. Proto-Nostratic *t’il. to list. to sound’. peg’. Proto-Altaic *tilV ‘tongue. Ku0ux tōknā ‘to stamp violently with one foot or with both feet (as in jatra dance)’. KannaTa tōku ‘to beat.(~ *t’ok’-) ‘(vb. to crush’. to rear. (n. *t’ok’.‘to tell someone to do something’. ManTa tug.‘to beat. D. to pound. to strike’.‘to give. B. to buck (of a horse)’. to tell. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan (reduplicated) *jilə(jil) (if from *tilə(til)) ‘tongue’. E. to vex’. language. 18.‘to strike with the feet. Khalkha tuil. Proto-Indo-European *t’ok’. to beat. to strike’.) to give. Proto-Indo-European *t’ul. language’ (derivative of *t’il. Proto-Altaic *tē. to enumerate’ [see directly above]): A. present’: A.) to say. to tell.in: vendōri tekhmū ‘put out your tongue!’. to list. to thrust forth from a cavity’. to bring’. to pound’.‘to press. to buck (of a horse)’. (extended form) *t’oH-w. 17. Altaic: Mongolian tuyila.‘to say. Proto-Kartvelian *t’k’ač. D.(~ *t’el-) ‘(vb. to beat.‘to hit.(tokt-) ‘to tread on. to beat.‘press. Proto-Nostratic *t’uk’. to rear.‘tongue’ (with widely different reflexes in the daughter languages due to taboo). *t’k’ep’. Proto-Uralic *toxe. enumeration’. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) *t’ul¨. stroke’: A. speech. speech.) knock.‘to strike with the feet. *t’k’eb-/*t’k’b. (n. C.(secondary o-grade form: *t’ol-) ‘(vb. Proto-Nostratic *t’il.) talk. Kuwi tekh. to tell. wedge.) to say. to trample’. to mash. gift. 15.
regulations’. (n. eating’. regulations.) to be dark.) bite. bite’: A. to gulp. 20. kavvu (kavvi-). 2.‘tooth’. marriage. clay. Kui kappa (kapt-) ‘to swallow liquid hastily. Proto-Kartvelian *k’b-en-..)’.) crackling sound’: . C. ekōt [ekwt] ‘builder.Allan R. to eat as a dog or a madman’. Malayalam kauvuka ‘to seize with the mouth. peg’. to take hold of. to hug. fault. clay’. Telugu dūgara ‘dust. to bind by spells. to grasp with eagerness. clay’. setting of a jewel’. se-kōt [se-kwt] ‘potter’s workshop’. building. cloudy. grasp. smoky.(onomatopoeic) ‘(vb. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *təqi.‘(vb. Proto-Nostratic *k’: 1. habka"ānā ‘to bite’. Proto-Nostratic *k’ad. Proto-Finno-Volgaic *tola ‘wedge. (n. mason. Proto-Altaic *tÔūl¨u ‘wedge. kassai ‘dam’. C. (n. dirt. kassazam ‘building’. to take hold of’. tigers. B. to fasten. dam. dust. to put on. Proto-Altaic *kadu ‘a kind of harness (bridle)’. to wear. kassaJai ‘code. Proto-Afrasian *k’ab. to shut up.) to be dark. tūkuT ‘earth. etc. to bite’. to be equal. band.) tie. *k’b-il. ManTa kap. etc. (n.‘to seize. to seize with the teeth. D. potter’. dusty. smoky. smoke’. C. Proto-Nostratic *t’uq’¦.‘to bite’.(~ *k’‹d-) ‘(vb. to form’. to build. Õqdw ‘potter. seizing by the mouth (as dog). clay’. moral defect’. kammuka ‘to snap at.) to tie. grip. dusty. KoTagu kabb. soot. *k’b-in. causeway’. Dravidian: Tamil tukaJ ‘dust. to construct’. TuJu kappuni ‘to eat greedily’. to cram into the mouth’. (dark) cloud.) smoke’. earth. Telugu kavvu ‘to seize by the mouth’. (n. Naik0i tūk ‘earth. potter’. particle of dust. packet.) to seize with the mouth.) tie. Proto-Nostratic *k’ab.) darkness. rule. (n. to compare with.) to cackle. C. Gadba (Ollari) tūkuT ‘earth.) seizure. pollen. creator’. to fasten.) to tie. smoke’: A. *k’ed-el.(kabbi-) ‘to seize with wide-open mouth (of dogs. to marry. Pengo kap‘to bite’. fastening’: A. bundle. B. cloudy. kauvu (kauvi-) ‘(vb. (n. band. custom. peg’. kassasam ‘building. darkness.‘(vb. (n. Coptic kōt [kwt] ‘to build. to drink’. fastening. Ku0ux xappnā ‘to swallow. soot. soil’. Kolami tu·k ‘dust.(~ *t’oq’¦-) ‘(vb. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 35 B. binding of a book. to bite. qd ‘to use the potter’s wheel’. mason. to fashion (pots)’. soot’. 3. Proto-Afrasian *t’o(o)k’¦. to chatter. B.) fog.‘to build. sooty. Afrasian: Egyptian qd ‘to build. to drink’. dirty.(~ *k’‹b-) ‘(vb. habkā ‘a bite’. qd ‘builder. dirt. Proto-Nostratic *k’ak’.) to seize. hold. to build. to construct. to store.‘wall’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ed-/*k’d.‘to bite’. sooty. kappuka.) to smoke. cloud. Parji tūk. Dravidian: Tamil kassu (kassi-) ‘(vb. Dravidian: Tamil kappu (kappi-) ‘to gorge.
4. kalu.‘partridge’. kalu ‘stone’. boulder. nutriment’: A. 6.‘to cackle. Akkadian kakkabānu name of a bird). to make a noise’. Dravidian: Kolami kakkare ‘partridge’. Proto-Indo-European *k’al. Note: Loanwords are found in Indo-European: Hittite kakkapa.‘rock.‘rock. Kolami kal ‘stone. to laugh at. Altaic: Proto-Turkic *käkälik ‘partridge’ > Turkish keklik ‘red-legged partridge’. Gondi kakr`nj ‘partridge’.‘stone. Gondi kal. Gothic hallus ‘rock’. pebble. to nourish.‘to feed. C. B. sustenance. KannaTa kal. Telugu kallu ‘stone’. boulder’. TuJu kall‚ ‘stone’.onomatopoeic bird name. Lapp / Saami kallo ‘rock’. precious stone. stone’. B.‘to cackle. milestone’. hard.) to feed. slab of rock’. to satisfy’. Old English heall ‘rock’). rock’: A. B. stiff state of mind’. *k’(a)lakºtº‘nourishment.‘(vb. Proto-Kartvelian *k’Cde. C. crag’. Brahui xal ‘stone. kalla ‘glass beads’. KoTagu kallï ‘stone’. kan-) ‘stone. These forms are usually considered to be loans from Germanic (cf. Proto-Afrasian *k’ak’. E. D. 5. Proto-Indo-European *k’ak’. Proto-Nostratic *k’al. milk’. kall(i). Toda kal ‘milestone. hella ‘flat stone.(onomatopoeic bird name) ‘partridge’ (derivative of *k’ak’‘to cackle. to chatter’. Note: Also found in Northwest Caucasian: cf. . Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *kakac(o) ‘a kind of bird’. milestone’. cliff’. to ridicule’. precious stone’. kallu ‘stone. Greek êáêêÜâç ‘partridge’ (cf. D.‘to laugh’. to nourish’. boulder’. (?) Uralic: Finnish kallio ‘rock’. Naik0i khalbada ‘stone slab for pounding’.‘to cackle’. Malayalam kal. KonTa kalu ‘stone’. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences A. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ak’ab. B. Proto-Nostratic *k’al. Pengo kal ‘stone’. Proto-Nostratic *k’ak’. kallu ‘stone. kalïr ‘round river stone’.36 Allan R. kaljune ‘rocky’. kallan ‘mason. Parji kel ‘stone’. C. Kuwi kak. Proto-Indo-European *k’(e)l. to chatter’): A. Proto-Afrasian *k’ak’. Dravidian: Tamil kal (kar-. Parji kākral ‘partridge’.) nourishment. hard-hearted’. to nourish. bead’. (n. D. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *k’al-ab. kakt-) ‘to laugh. rock. Dravidian: Kui kapka (< *kak-p-.‘partridge’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ak’a-n. Proto-Circassian *k’ak’a ‘to chirp’ > Kabardian k’āk’a ‘to chirp’. Old Icelandic hallr ‘big stone’. Estonian kalju ‘rock. kakpinai ‘to joke’. rannakalju ‘cliff.‘to (breast-)feed. rantakallio ‘cliff’.
to be short of’. Telugu kālu ‘to burn. to diminish. to stir. distress. insufficient.(~ *k’‹l-) ‘(vb. kālcu ‘to burn (tr. to tremble. uneasiness. must. (?) Dravidian: Malayalam kāJuka ‘to burn.‘to lack. to be or become reduced or diminished. to mix’. 7. Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kelke. to shake. to beget’. Proto-Afrasian *k’al.) to burn. lacking. to decrease. 8. to warm. scalded. to agitate. C. actual. to sprout. kali ‘perturbation. glowing embers’: A. (Georgian-Zan) *m-k’l-e‘missing. (n. possessions. birth’: A. baked’. uneasiness.‘to move. to be born. true. dissension.) to grow luxuriantly. perplexity’.‘(vb. kalakkam. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 37 E. Proto-Afrasian *k’[a]l.‘to take away. 9. B. to come into being. meager.‘to burn.(~ *k’‹l-) ‘(vb. roasting. Dravidian: Tamil kalayku (kalayki-) ‘to be stirred up.) to come into being. to cook.Allan R. ought to’.‘to burn. to decrease. to flame’. to reduce. discomposure. setting on fire. to set fire to.‘to smart’. roasting. muddy water. distress. war. to diminish. strife’. possessing. scanty.) flourishing. to spread (as news)’. sparse. kalaykal ‘turbidity. needy’: A. kali ‘(vb. to be burnt. to singe. (adj. may . lovefever’. discomposure. to deprive of. to stir. (n. etc. Proto-Nostratic *k’al.(~ *k’‹l-) (vb. to be able’. Parji kāl. to scorch. kalakku ‘being agitated (as surface of water). Telugu kalugu ‘to accrue. scorched. kālupu ‘burning. agitated. kalāvu (kalāvi-) ‘to be perturbed. Proto-Kartvelian *k’el-/*k’l. Proto-Nostratic *k’al. baking’. presence. to mix. to exist. kaligincu ‘to cause. Proto-Eskimo *qaluF ‘rock’. 10. abashed’. having’. short of.).) little. displeased. to be born. muddiness. present-future or past in meaning) ‘possibly be. wealth’. to reduce. angry’. to occur. C.) existence. perturbation’. to remove.) to take away. prospering’. B. to remove.‘to give birth. confused. to effect. to be or become reduced or diminished’. Proto-Afrasian *k’al. presence. to be produced or caused. ruffled (as water). to tremble. deprived’.) kal-. wanting. kalt(present-future paradigm. to increase. to char. appearance. Kolami (neg. kala ‘existing. kalimi ‘existence. (n.) ‘to move. Proto-Afrasian *k’[a]l. to be. to scald. Proto-Nostratic *k’al. Proto-Indo-European *k’el(H)-/*k’ol(H)-/*k’C(H). to produce. to roast’.) agitation.) cooking. to deprive of. confused.‘to be necessary. to appear. to char’ > Common Germanic *kolan or *kulan ‘coal. kāJal ‘high flame. to bake’. Dravidian: Tamil kala ‘to appear. to shake. perturbation. to agitate. to scorch. to come into being. Proto-Nostratic *k’al. kalakku (kalakki-) ‘to confuse’. trembling. B. disturbance’: A. charcoal’. B. to happen. baking. to roast. to bring about’. confusion. (n.
to become.‘to get. son’ (< *kaJde ?). kazzu (kazzi-) ‘to be attached to.‘to bend. trap. Malayalam kazi ‘snare.‘to bend. cord. KannaTa kazi ‘knot. B. stratagem’. to produce. kezikka ‘to entrap’. këziñj-) ‘to get stuck. kizi ‘wit.38 Allan R. turn. clanti. to beget. begotten. kall-. 13.) birth. tie. kanduvu ‘child’.(~ *k’‹n-) ‘(vb. 12. neck-rope for bullock. këzic-) ‘to entangle. or tie together’. neck-rope’. to beget’ cited above. band.‘to give birth. Dravidian: Tamil kazzi ‘wreath. Proto-Indo-European *k’en-/*k’on-/*k’‚. kanubadi ‘produce’. TuJu kezi ‘stratagem’. KonTa kane ‘a rope used to fasten cattle. (?) Pengo ka0de ‘boy. produced. young tree’. kazaya. mesh of a net’. to accrue’. or tie together. Proto-Indo-European *k’en-u. knot. colt.‘pregnant. 11. twist. kezi ‘snare. Brahui xaning ‘to give birth to’. to bring forth’. net. B. child.) born. to produce. tie’. ear’. to produce’. (?) TuJu kazzi ‘fiber’. male child. Proto-Indo-European *k’al. sapling. to bear children’. to bring forth’. (n. string’: A. kazzi ‘link of a chain. Proto-Afrasian *k’an. kanu ‘to bear or bring forth. Dravidian: Tamil kannam ‘cheek. Tamil kazzi ‘snare. C. turn. clanθi ‘adoptive (?) son’. kezi ‘trick’. caught’. to create.‘to accrue (as prosperity). turn. clenar) ‘son’. oxen)’.‘to get. to get into trouble’. buffalo calf).‘to bend’. (këzip-. këzi (këziv-. KonTa kalgi. Proto-Afrasian *k’an. jaw’. young plantain trees around the mother plant’. twist. (n. tie’. noose. kal. Kota kayz ‘yoke-rope for bullock’. Etruscan clan (pl. young of various animals. twist. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences be’. KoTagu këzi ‘bird-trap (bent sapling and noose with bait). young of animals’ from Proto-Afrasian *k’al. D. Proto-Nostratic *k’aŋ. (adj.‘to bring forth young (of human beings). fiber. ManTa ka0de ‘boy’. to produce.(~ *k’‹n-) ‘jaw. to possess. young animal or plant’. Semantic development as in Burji k’al-a ‘son.‘to do’. young plantain trees around the mother plant’. . Proto-Nostratic *k’an.(~ *k’‹ŋ-) ‘(vb. KannaTa kazzi ‘rope. Telugu kandu ‘infant’. Ku0ux xadd ‘child. or tie together’. D. cord. Malayalam kannam ‘cheek. kandu ‘calf. Telugu kanne-tāTu ‘neck-rope (of calves. KonTa kās. clante. cheek’. C. Malayalam kannu ‘young of cattle (esp. produce’: A. offspring. Proto-Chukotian *kKŋ(Kt).‘jaw.‘to beget. kazikka ‘to lay a snare’. gin’. cheek’: A.) wreath. Malto qade ‘son’. kāncu ‘to bear. rope’.) to get. KannaTa kanna ‘the upper cheek’. young of animals’. kānupu ‘bringing forth a child’. B. Kuwi kalg. to happen’. to acquire. KannaTa kanda ‘young child’. garland. Dravidian: Tamil kanru ‘calf. trickiness. to create. rope. to be fastened to’. to create. to beget’. kaze ‘the knot which fastens a garment around the loins’. to acquire. Rhaetic kalun ‘son’. Proto-Indo-European (*k’en-/*k’on-)*k’n. cunning’. cunning’.) to bend. C. Proto-Nostratic *k’an.
(n. KoTagu kaÿz. Proto-Nostratic *k’an¨. Kui kanu ‘eye’. KonTa kaz ‘eye’. etc. star in a peacock’s tail. kāzike. Proto-Nostratic *k’aŋ. kāzikka ‘to show. Ku0ux xann ‘place on bamboo or cane where side shoot was cut away’. small hole. kazs-) ‘(vb. vision. kazaykāl ‘ankle’. kannu ‘joint in cane or reed’. Kota kaz ‘eye’.’. Parji kan ‘eye’. KannaTa kāz (kazT-) ‘(vb. kazakkāl. 15.)’. Naik0i kank er. Kota kaz ‘joint of bamboo’. C.Allan R. comprehension’: A. bud’. orifice’. small hole. recognition. kāzkai ‘knowledge’. kazi ‘sight. ganakay ‘wrist’. eye of a tuber’.(~ *k’‹n¨-) ‘(vb. kāncu ‘to see’. etc. to . kāzke ‘sight. kazukkāl ‘ankle’. to observe. nipple. KannaTa kaz ‘eye. to investigate. to appear. Brahui xan ‘eye. to seem. to consider. kannu ‘eye. joint’ (derivative of *k’aŋ.‘to observe. Telugu kanu (allomorph kān-). Telugu kanu. etc. Dravidian: Tamil kaz ‘eye. gazupu ‘joint. Naiki (of Chanda) kan ‘eye’. cane. Gondi kan ‘eye’.or the like) ‘to appear’. sticks.) to observe. knob. joint or knot of any cane’. cave’. kazukkai ‘wrist’. kanTakt ‘seen. kazpu ‘joint in knot or cane’. node (of bamboo. appearing’. Naik0i kan ‘eye. Kolami gana ‘knot in tree’. joint of the spine. kazzu. Pengo kazga ‘eye’. etc. to consider.(kaÿmb-. KoTagu kazzï ‘eye. to perceive’. Ku0ux xann ‘eye.’. orifice. kazu. Toda koÿz. to perceive. star in peacock’s feather. kazakkai. to have the use of one’s eyesight’. Malayalam kaz. loop in string’. gazike ‘knot or joint’. TuJu kazz‚ ‘eye. to become visible. kazavu ‘node of bamboo. spot in a peacock’s tail’. knob’.) that which observes. Naik0i khan ‘joint in bamboo’. (n. sugarcane. Kolami kanTt. Malayalam kaz. or tie together’): A. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 39 14. eye of a peacock’s feather’. turn. Gondi gana.) sight. Brahui xan ‘knot in wood’. present. Parji kanTp.(kanTt-) ‘to search.) seeing. bud’. small hole..‘to bend. orifice. cane. Malto qanu ‘eye’. Toda koz ‘joint of bamboo or cane’. divination’. gazalu ‘knuckle of the fingers. kāzpu ‘seeing.(< *kanTk. Dravidian: Tamil kaz ‘joint in bamboo or cane’. Kolami kan ‘eye. perceives: eye. beauty’. Gadba (Ollari) kaz ‘eye’.(kaT-) ‘to see’. Kota kaz-/kaÿz. kazaykai ‘wrist’. visible’. knuckle.(koT-) ‘to see’. Note: Also found in Northwest Caucasian: cf. Tamil kāz (kāzp-.) to see. KannaTa kaz ‘joint in reeds. sight’. mesh of net. gift’.‘knot. kazupu. Malayalam kāzuka ‘to see. (Salur) kanu ‘eye’. Proto-Afrasian *k’an. (?) Proto-Chukotian *kKŋkKl ‘tip of pole for driving reindeer’. to seem’. Kabardian k’an ‘knucklebone (used in bone game)’. star of a peacock’s tail’. to point out’. ominous sight. to think. Toda koz ‘eye. kazzu ‘eye. rent.) to see. tear’. twist. perception. ManTa kan ‘eye’. small hole in ground. Proto-Circassian *k’anə ‘knucklebone (used in bone game)’ > Bžedux č’Îanə. Proto-Indo-European (*k’en-/*k’on-/)*k’n. kazippu ‘articulation of limbs’. to look’. TuJu kāra kazz‚ ‘ankle’. knot. orifice’. to appear. observation. aperture. xannērnā ‘(of newly-born babies or animals) to begin to see. vertebra’. kazzu (kazzi-) ‘to purpose. (n.(~ *k’‹ŋ-) ‘knot. to consider’. B. kazT-) ‘to see. B. Telugu kanu. kazu ‘joint of bamboo. spectacle. nipple.
(~ *k’‹r-) ‘(vb. C. soot. dirt’.‘jaw. to suit well’. Malayalam kaviJ ‘cheek’. invocation. to roar. Proto-Indo-European *k’er-/*k’or-/*k’3. C. to tie (together). to call (out to). Proto-Indo-European *k’epº-/*k’opº. Proto-Nostratic *k’apº. 18. which is not related to the above. -eA [-aA] (> -ā) ‘dirt. Dravidian: Tamil kavuJ ‘cheek. to summon’. back of the head’. (?) Telugu gauda ‘the cheek’. crooked.‘to call out to’. B. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences seek’. dirty. kavuTrasa ‘cancer of the cheek’.‘lower jaw. face’. TuJu kauJu ‘the cheek’. Brahui xaning ‘to see’. tied. dark-colored. temple or jaw of elephant’. Modern English (regional) crock ‘smut.‘dark. Dravidian: Tamil karai (-v-. to cry (out). soiled’. to weep. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ep.40 Allan R. to be of good effect. D. mouth’. proclamation. to bind.‘black. roar. Proto-Nostratic *k’ar. Proto-Kartvelian *(ni-)k’ap. Note the parallel Proto-Nostratic stem *kºar. Proto-Inuit *kap‹lFuq or *kap‹lFuk ‘neck part of an animal’. dark’. back of the head’: A.) curved.) to twist. Proto-Afrasian *k’ar. to bend. to turn. Proto-Afrasian *k’ar. (n. to screech. rubbish’.) that which is tied or bound together: bunch. back of the head’. grime’ > Greek (Hesychius) ãñýî· ‘dirt in the nails’. B. to recognize. C. Parji gavla.. -tt-) ‘to call. to understand. bent. dark-colored. Proto-Afrasian *k’ap. coal’. to know’. 19.(~ *k’‹r-) ‘(vb. (metathesis in) galva ‘jaw’. Proto-Nostratic *k’ar. 20. etc.) call.‘dark.) to shout. B. Note Proto-North Caucasian *k’ărV ‘black. Latvian gruzis ‘dirt. 17. cry. to invite’. Proto-Nostratic *k’apº. dirty.(~ *k’‹pº-) ‘nape of the neck. Ku0ux xannā ‘to be pleasant to the eye. C. to lament.‘to call to’. chin’. Proto-Altaic *karu (~ kº-) ‘black’. Proto-Indo-European *k’r-u-k’o-s.(> *k’nō-) ‘to perceive. lamentation’: A. -nt-) ‘to sound. to wind. (adj. Proto-Nostratic *k’ar. 16. soiled’: A. karai (-pp-.(~ *k’‹pº-) ‘jaw. to call. smut. (n. bundle’: . (?) Kui kūlu ‘cheek’.‘nape of the neck. *k’n-oH. B. bound. C. kavuzTrasa. Proto-Indo-European *k’en(H)-/*k’on(H)-/*k’‚(H)-.‘nape of the neck. Proto-Altaic *kēpºa ‘jaw. jawbone’ (the Altaic cognates seem to point to Proto-Nostratic *k’epº-): A.
Proto-Chukotian *kawra. KannaTa karaze. Russian gorb [горб] ‘hump’. tied. to bind. Telugu gavi ‘cavern’. swelling’): A. Toda kar. C.) bent. bent.) to twist.) curved. rays of the sun).> *k’ū‘(adj. Proto-Indo-European *k’er-/*k’or-/*k’3.(kart-) ‘to tighten (knot)’. [adj.) to take. (n. (n. to tie together’. Dravidian: karasu ‘ankle. Proto-Afrasian *k’aw. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ar-/*k’r.‘to take’. to turn. round. 23. KannaTa gavi ‘cave’. chest. to bend. kurassa ‘knuckle of hand or foot’.(karθ-) ‘to become tight’.‘to twist or tie (together). Proto-Kartvelian *k’w-er-. grass. Malayalam karra ‘bundle (as of grass. B. (n. Proto-Nostratic *k’aw. clot’. to bind. Proto-Altaic *kera. Proto-Nostratic *k’ar. to seize. lump.) hand’. or turn round.) that which is tied or bound together: bunch. bust’.) any round object: a hole’.(kard-) ‘to become tight (rope)’. lump’. crooked’ in the sense ‘curved shape. bent. B. 21.) to take. Proto-Indo-European *k’er-/*k’or-/*k’r. E. Lithuanian grùbas ‘hump.(or *k’aw[H]-/*k’u[H]-) ‘(vb. Old Church Slavic grudь (< *grCdь) ‘breast’.(~ *k’‹w-) ‘(vb. Telugu karuTu ‘lump. knot in wood’. hole. cell’. . karv.Allan R.) bent. to bind. breast’ > Armenian kurc ‘core. hump. to wind around’.(~ -r¨-) ‘to bind.) bent. Dravidian: Kota karv. E.) any round object’: A. twist. to hold. round.‘to twist. lump’.(~ *k’‹r-) ‘protuberance.‘[vb. Serbo-Croatian (pl. sheaf of corn’. to seize. (adj. Polish garb ‘hump. to tie (together). to wind. B. stump’. to turn.‘(vb. to tie (together). hillock’. to turn.‘to bind.) to bend. Old Icelandic kryppa ‘hump. curved. C. bundle’.) hand’: A. curved. Dravidian: Tamil kevi ‘deep valley. (reduplicated) *k’wer-k’wer. hunch’. to grasp. etc.) any round object’. B.] curved. to hold. KannaTa kante ‘bundle (as of grass.‘breast.(kart-) ‘to tighten (tr.] to twist.(~ *k’‹w-) ‘(vb. hump.) kurckº ‘breasts’. to grasp. cave’. lump. 22. (pl. to bend. F.)’.) grudi ‘breasts’. to bend. curve. curved. Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kärз. round. TuJu gavi ‘cave. to thread’. Tamil karrai ‘collection (as of hair. Proto-Kartvelian *m-k’erd. straw. karf. paddy seedlings).‘protuberance. (n. (adj.‘(adj. bosom. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 41 A. crooked. C. Proto-Indo-European *k’ew-/*k’ow-/*k’u-. Proto-Indo-European *k’ow(H)-/*k’u(H). breast’ (possibly derived from *k’ar. bound. kazze ‘clot. straw). to rotate. (n.‘round object’. also *k’ewH-/*k’owH-/*k’uH. to wind. (n. bundle (as of straw. D. grudÎ [грудь] ‘breast. Proto-Kartvelian *k’aw-/*k’w. to wind. mass. coconut leaves braided together like ropes as bands for hedging’. chest’. to bind’.‘to go round’. Proto-Afrasian *k’ar. to tie [together]. Malayalam karaza ‘knot of sugar-cane’. lump. Proto-Nostratic *k’aw.)’. D.
articulation’. B. to waste away. to take a handful. *k’(a)lōC. Note: Not related to the parallel Proto-Nostratic stem *kºal. to wither. Proto-Indo-European *k’enu-/*k’nu. knot or joint of reed or cane’.) to decay.‘to scoop up’.) to gather. gazsa ‘a knot’. joint’: A. bride’. bend of the leg. etc. splitting. worn out.).‘knot. KoTagu gïzzï ‘joint in wrist or fingers. Naik0i kanTe ‘joint in bamboo’. handful’: A. Kuwi grecali (gret-) ‘to gather up. to take into a ladle before serving. to become old. 25. -o) ‘daughter-in-law. old’: A. Proto-Nostratic *k’en¨.(secondary o-grade form: *k’onu-) ‘knee. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ep’. to collect. gazsu ‘knot in string.) to cut. to shovel into with the hands.) collection. cane. 28.‘(vb. Telugu gazsu. husband’s sister’: A. angle’. Proto-Indo-European *k’er(H)-/*k’or(H)-/*k’3(H). Proto-Indo-European *k’(a)lowV-. wasted. B. angle’. (n. Proto-Altaic *kēpu. Proto-Altaic *kele (~ -i. joint (as of sugarcane.‘female in-law’. Proto-Altaic *kĕru (~ kº-) ‘old. to wear out. . B.) decayed. joint or articulation of body’. knot in sugarcane’.‘to decay. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 24. C.) the act of cutting. to mince’. the act of mincing. Proto-Nostratic *k’er. Pengo gre. ManTa grepa. Proto-Nostratic *k’ep’. chop. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) *k’el. finger.‘to chew’. to collect into a heap and pick up’. Proto-Afrasian *k’[e]r. withered. chewing (the cud). Kui grāpa (grāt-).42 Allan R. TuJu gazs‚. or break into small pieces. to munch. B.‘(vb. to take a handful. to pluck’.‘female in-law.‘husband’s sister’. or breaking into small pieces. Dravidian: KonTa ker.‘to gather. 26. gazsu ‘knot of cord. bamboo. to become old’. to pick. B. 27. C. Malayalam kezippu ‘joint. to scrape together’. to wear out. Proto-Altaic *kēn¨a ‘front leg.‘to cut or chop into small pieces. Dravidian: Tamil kezsai ‘ankle’. rumination’: A. to collect. to chew. worn out’. gathering. grēpa (grēt-) ‘to scoop up.‘(vb. to fill oneself with drink’. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) *k’er.‘to scoop up with the hand’. (adj. to wither.)’. to take a handful’. armpit. joint of reed. split. KannaTa gizzu. to pick. etc. chopping. gezzu ‘knot. to pluck. (n. to waste away. ankle. Afrasian: Semitic: Arabic "aba"a ‘to eat.‘to take handfuls or small quantities out of a mass (of grain.
to cut off. Proto-Afrasian *k’os. to cut into. kerääntyä. E. Note Proto-North-Caucasian *k’irV ‘knife. Proto-Nostratic *k’os.) stroke. to cut off’. behind’ (< ‘hind-part. B. to engrave. to take a handful’.‘to accumulate. This is one of the small number of examples that appear to support the Moscovite position. to split’. to clip.I:344. TuJu kūdi ‘anus.‘bone’: Ku0ux xōcol ‘bone’. to collect’. no. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 43 C.‘to cut. tail’: A.‘to gather. C. blow.‘bone’: A.‘to collect. Note: The putative Mordvin cognates cited by Illič-Svityč [1971— . to gather together. Malto qoclu ‘bone’.‘to gather (together). to notch. 31. (?) Proto-Indo-European *kºos-tº. lumbar region. axe’. kertyä.‘hind-part. Dravidian: Tamil kūti ‘pudendum muliebre’. to sever. Karelian kereä.‘tail’.‘to gather. to sever. Proto-Altaic *kiro. (n.‘to pluck (out)’. to carve. to clip. to notch.(~ *k’as-) ‘bone’. to mince’. to cut in two. to incise. Malayalam kūti ‘posteriors. region of the buttocks in general’.‘to gather. Proto-Afrasian *k’e(e)r-. end’). Proto-Nostratic *k’ud. C. B.‘to cut. membrum muliebre’. 29. posteriors. keruu ‘collection.‘to cut.(if from *k’os-tº-) ‘rib. Proto-Kartvelian *k’er-b-/*k’r-eb. to engrave. to pick’. Proto-Indo-European *k’er-/*k’or-/*k’3. 32. back. B. knock. keräys ‘collection’. Proto-Indo-European *k’er-/*k’or-/*k’3. D.(~ *k’or-) ‘to cut. D.) to strike. Afrasian: Highland East Cushitic: Burji k’ud-ee (adv. to pile up’. to gather. to gather up. 219] do not belong here — they go back to Proto-Finno-Permian *kaskз ‘sacral region. to assemble’. to split’: A.(~ *k’er-) or *k’ur.) ‘in back of.(~ *k’od-) ‘(vb. gathering’. to collect’. 30. Proto-Dravidian *kōcc. bone’. to nip off. cuff. thump’: . to cut off. to nip off. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ud. end. Proto-Kartvelian *k’r-eč’k’-/*k’r-ič’k’-/*k’3-č’k’. *k’r-ep-/*k’r-ip. flowers)’. membrum muliebre’. Uralic: Finnish kerätä.‘to collect. Proto-Nostratic *k’ud. to collect.(extended form *k’er-bº-/*k’or-bº-/*k’3bº-) ‘to cut.Allan R. perhaps also Georgian k’ert’-/k’rt’. *k’o(o)r. small of the back’. to pick (fruit. to notch’. Proto-Nostratic *k’ir. to incise. Toda kuÿθy ‘anus. to cut in two. to cut into. C.
to smash. stroke. to lament. Proto-Nostratic *k’um. (vb. to pound. chilliness. kuJutti ‘coldness. to cuff’. (n. Malayalam kussuka ‘to pound. snow. 34. kuJir ‘(vb. frost’. body) to feel cool. kuJïrï kaÿla ‘cold season’. moan. pitcher’. frost’: A. (n. Proto-Afrasian *k’um.) frost. C. refreshing’.(~ *k’ol¨-) ‘(vb. tambourine). kuJuppam ‘chilliness’. kumiru (kumiri-) ‘to resound. feet. Kota kus. numbness’. Proto-Indo-European *k’ol-/*k’C. 33.) to become cold. kusantam ‘pot’. mourning. kindness’.‘to sigh. -Ô-. drumbeat. coolness. shivering’. KoTagu kuJï. kusuvai ‘vessel with a small narrow mouth. to groan. pot’: A. to freeze. . pitcher of an ascetic’. cold. kusaykar ‘waterpot’. (Either here or with *k’¦ad. kuJït-) ‘to feel cold’. to grumble’. Tamil kossu (kossi-) ‘(vb. Dravidian: Tamil kuJircci. to comfort’.(kuc-) ‘to pound’.(kuJïp-.‘wood-pecker’. kosai ‘blows.) to sigh. to abuse roundly’.‘to hew. Kota kuJak in-. (n.‘vessel carved from a single piece of wood’. thrust’ [see below]). kosu ‘to thrash. to clap. Proto-Finno-Permian *külmä (*kilmä) ‘(adj. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences A.) to be or become cold. etc. to trumpet. kuJirppikka ‘to chill. Proto-Altaic *kol¨i.‘to moan. B. to groan’. (reduplicated) kuJukuJu ‘intense cold’. to hollow’. Proto-Afrasian *k’od. to beat. kuJur ‘coldness.] to strike. pot’. (n. 35. time-measure’. to hammer. KannaTa kuJir ‘(vb. to refresh. kuJirppu. to have confused uproar’. ague. kossān. Proto-Kartvelian *k’um-in.‘[vb. C. B. to be cool. act of cooling or refreshing. stroke.) beat. kusukkai ‘coconut or hard shell used as a vessel. grumble’: A. chill. kuJiruka ‘to be chilly. to pound (as paddy). to moan. B. to get numbed. kuJirppu. (n. to strike with the palms.(~ *k’om-) ‘(vb. *k’od-al. to freeze’. cold. coldness. to beat (as a brazier). to weep.‘vessel.44 Allan R. kusikai ‘ascetic’s pitcher’. to freeze.(~ kº-. etc. kossan ‘mallet’.] knock. kuJirmai.) to be or become cold.) coldness. (n. refreshing.(~ *k’od-) ‘vessel. (reduplicated) kuJJa-kkuJir. -e-) ‘to freeze’. kumural ‘roaring. (mind) to feel calm and peaceful’. to roar’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’od.‘(hands. frost’. to crash (as thunder). groan. Proto-Kartvelian *k’od. Dravidian: Tamil kussu (kussi-) ‘to cuff. C. kuJir ‘a fan’. refreshed’.) cold.) cold. Dravidian: Tamil kusam ‘waterpot.) to feel cool.) to be cool or cold. to quiet.) sigh. (reduplicated) kuJkuJ in. lamentation. D. (n. kuJirma ‘freshness’. to bellow. etc. round abuse’.. B.) to beat (as a drum. roar. to strike with the knuckles on the head or temple’. [n. Proto-Nostratic *k’ud. to moan. Dravidian: Tamil kumuru (kumuri-) ‘to resound.) cold. to weep. kuJumai ‘coolness. to lament. kuJirtti. hub of a wheel’.‘to be intensely cool and refreshing’. chill.(secondary e-grade form: *k’el-) ‘(vb. Malayalam kumuruka ‘to make thundering sound’. coldness. cool. Malayalam kuJir. resounding’. Proto-Nostratic *k’ul¨. chilly.) coldness.
KannaTa kūn (kūnt-). C. anus’. to stoop’. to cause to stop stooping’. to shrivel up’. -nt-) ‘to bend (as a bow). D. qnbt ‘corner. to become hunchbacked’. bottom (of a vessel)’. anus. Gondi gun. Proto-Kartvelian *k’um. to bend or fold (together). clump. qnÕ ‘sheaf. kuni ‘semicircle. to contract oneself. hump on the back. gúzno [гузно] (vulgar) ‘ass.‘to bend’: Semitic: Arabic "aniya ‘to be hooked. angle’. curve’. humpback. Proto-Altaic *kuŋtºV (~ -o-) ‘rump. Proto-Nostratic *k’ur. B. Telugu gūnu ‘a hump.) to bend. curve. Kuwi kūna ‘buttock’. to bow. E. fold.). kunikka ‘to make a curve. Coptic knaaw [knaau] (< qnÕw) ‘sheaf’. hooked: bend. kuniyuka ‘to bow. kūni (-v-. kūnan ‘humpback’. TuJu gūnu ‘a hump’. mass. Slovenian gó ‘rump.‘to press together’. Russian guz [гуз] ‘rump. to seize. "a"nā ‘bend. anus. to be crookbacked’. Proto-Afrasian *k’[u]m. buttocks’: Czech huzo ‘rump. hump’ (Modern ˛za Polish guz ‘lump’.‘to press together. buttocks’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’on. anus’: A. buttocks’. Proto-Altaic *kunu. to grasp’. bottom (of a vessel)’. curve. to groan’. folded. KannaTa kuzTe ‘buttocks.(~ *k’om-) ‘(vb. to weep. to lament. compression’: A. curve.) that which is bent. Dravidian: Tamil kūn ‘bend. to crouch. (n. curved. Proto-Nostratic *k’uŋ. (-pp-. C. aquiline (nose)’. C. pressure.) heap.(~ *k’or-) or *k’ar. to tie or bind together.) to press together. (n. (?) Proto-Chukotian *kumŋə(kum) ‘voice. buttocks’. 39. B. rump. 38. Gadba kunT ‘anus’. guza ‘posterior’). sound’. Proto-Afrasian *k’[u]n. to bend down. wrinkle’: A. kūnal ‘bend. Proto-Nostratic *k’un. to subjugate’. hooked’. -tt-) ‘to bend (tr. to become crooked. to bow. angle. Malayalam kūnuka ‘to stoop. to moan.(secondary e-grade form: *k’em-) ‘to press together.Allan R.‘to bend’. end of a fruit or nut opposite to the stalk’. hump’. 37. a crooked back’. KoTagu kūn ‘hunchback’. gúzka [гузка] ‘rump (of a bird)’. bundle’. to twist’. to seize. Proto-Indo-European *k’om-/*k’m. rump. bottom (as of a vessel). Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 45 D. to stoop.(~ *k’‹r-) ‘crane’: . snail’. kūnu (kūni-) ‘to curve. bow (weapon)’. to stoop. Proto-Indo-European *k’un-k’o-s ‘rump. bum’. kūnu ‘to bend.(~ *k’on-) ‘(vb. curved. kūni ‘curvature. Egyptian qnb ‘to bend. Telugu kusse ‘anus’. Proto-Nostratic *k’um.(~ *k’oŋ-) ‘buttocks. to stoop’. to incline (oneself).(~ kº-) ‘to fold. crooked. Old Polish gąz ‘protuberance. Malayalam kuzsi ‘posterior. curvature. to grasp’. crooked. to bend’. 36. Dravidian: Tamil kuzsi ‘buttocks. Proto-Indo-European *k’om-/*k’m.‘to tie together’. B.(secondary e-grade form: *k’em-) ‘to sigh. lump.
‘to become scarce’. to strike with the knuckles on the head or temple’. insufficient’.) to beat (as a drum. stork’. to beat.) to strike. Proto-Indo-European *k’er-/*k’or-/*k’r. calf’. insufficient’ > Turkish kıt ‘little.‘[vb.. insignificant’. pupil of eye’. Turkmenian ™ït ‘not enough. small’.) knock. kuruku ‘heron. stroke. giTaka ‘short. kıtlık ‘scarcity. B. insufficient’. guTTa ‘child’. Bashkir (dial. to beat (as a brazier). to abuse roundly’.) beat.(~ *k’¦‹d-) ‘(vb. Proto-Altaic *kÔūta (~ -tº-) ‘insufficiency. B. kıtlaş. kocca. KoTagu kussi ‘child of any caste except Coorgs. [n. smallness’. Orok qụta ‘miserly. greedy’ > Evenki kōta ‘debt’. to cuff’. Tuva qïdï¦ ‘oppressed’.) qïtlïq ‘hunger’. deficient’. Proto-Turkic *Kït. kossān. kosu ‘to thrash. Karaim qït ‘not enough. guTTū ‘small. stroke. dwarfish’. kussan ‘laddie. Tamil kossu (kossi-) ‘(vb. kokkera. to pound (as paddy). famine’. cat. kokkan. little girl. small’. Kirghiz qïdïq ‘dwarf’.‘to be offended’. narrow’. young of animals (except dog. kokkarāyi ‘crane’. kussi ‘young of a dog.] to strike. kıtıpiyos ‘common. tambourine). to clap. Dravidian: Tamil kussam ‘smallness. kussai ‘shortness. etc. lamb. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences A.‘secretive’. 40. urchin’. Chuvash χədəχ ‘compulsion’. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ad. Proto-Nostratic *k’ut’. kosai ‘blows. gu00ū ‘dwarfish (of persons and animals only)’. gallinaceous fowl’. child (chiefly girl). TuJu giTTa ‘small. cuff. tiger. thrust’: A. lassie (as a term of endearment)’.‘short.(kuc-) ‘to pound’. greedy’. guTTu ‘shortness. drumbeat. bird. gūsi ‘stumpy. insufficient’. TuJu korygu ‘crane.‘little. smallness’. to pound. Kazakh qïtïqtan. KannaTa kokku. smallness. knock. kukku ‘heron. poor. (n. dearth. kuru ‘heron’. to smash. Kota kus. Gondi koruku ‘crane’. Ku0ux guTrū. Telugu giTTa. small’: A. greedy’. thump’ [see above]). kokkare ‘crane’. Kolami koŋga ‘crane’. scarce. Lamut / Even qōt ‘debt’.‘not enough. Noghay qït ‘not enough. young of a monkey’. dwarfishness’. guTTa ‘dwarf. Proto-Uralic *korkз (~ *karke) ‘crane’. crane. D. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦: 1. Dravidian: Tamil kussu (kussi-) ‘to cuff. kussi ‘young of any animal. small’. a boy. qïtïray. etc. debt’: Proto-Tungus *kōta ‘debt. C. blow. insufficient’.] stroke. round abuse’. Malayalam kussuka ‘to pound. few. (Either here or with *k’ud. Uighur qiti¦ir ‘miserly’. miserly. Parji kokkal ‘crane’. Ulch qota ‘miserly. pig)’. Nanay / Gold qota ‘miserly. Kui gūsa ‘short. pig. dwarfish’. etc. kusu ‘small. KannaTa giTTu. Proto-Afrasian *k’ut’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’ut’. Brahui ghuTTū. Dravidian: Tamil kokku (< *kor-kku < *korV-nk-/-nkk-) ‘common crane’. kuriyan ‘paddy bird. Kota kus ‘short.‘short. Azerbaijani ™ït ‘not enough. crane. greedy’. short. trifling. time-measure’. short’. Telugu koyga. Malayalam kussan ‘boy. to hammer. to strike with the palms. giTTa ‘dwarf’. qïtïy. stork. C. heron’. kossan ‘mallet’. .‘crane’. shortened’.46 Allan R. (n.‘lean and small’. shortness’. Malayalam kokku.
pounded. Proto-Kartvelian *k’wam-/*k’wm. to pound. trace’. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦aħ. Proto-Eskimo *kaðu¦. pushed or pressed together. to stay.‘to push in. to push or press in. B kālak. Dravidian: Tamil kumpu (kumpi-) ‘to become charred (as food when boiled with insufficient fire)’. D. to pound. C. (n. B. Dravidian: KannaTa kore. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦e¸-dº. quietude. to follow’. ashes.‘track. (n. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ar. to go after or behind.used to form the non-present tenses of i‘to go’.(~ *k’¦‹l-) ‘(vb. lik’wremi ‘to freeze’.) embers. to remain. to beat.Allan R. Assuming development from Proto-Indo-European *k’¦el-/*k’¦ol-/*k’¦C. Afrasian: Proto-Southern Cushitic *k’¦aal.(~ *k’¦‹m-) ‘(vb. freezing’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’wal. (n. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 47 B. B. Afrasian: Semitic: Akkadian "amū ‘to burn.‘to strike (with an instrument)’. close’. 6. kummu expression descriptive of heat. to be glowing. 2. Kota korv. beaten. etc. to push or press in’. smoke’: A. Malayalam kumpal ‘inward heat’. fever’.) track. C. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦am. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦edº-/*k’¦odº. B.‘to stay.(~ *k’¦‹r-) ‘(vb. Proto-Kartvelian *k’wex. kor. to settle down’.) hit. korata ‘the piercing of cold’. kori ‘to pierce (as cold)’. k’warmob ‘frost. rest. kwar ‘cold’. (n. koreta. to beat. heat. to rest. karīng. to smolder. to dive or plunge into’. (adj. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦aħ. resting place’: A.) to hit. quiet. kumai ‘to be hot. C. Kolami korale ‘cold’. C.(kwarθ-) ‘to be cold (in songs)’. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ar.‘to follow’. Kartvelian: Georgian (Lečxumian) k’rux-wa ‘cold’. to strike. 4. Indo-European: Tocharian A kälk-. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦ar. filled’: A. kumural ‘oppressive heat’. coldness’: A.(~ *k’¦‹ħ-) ‘(vb. 5. Toda kwar. korv ‘coldness’. to fill in’.(~ *k’¦or-) ‘to be cold’. koring ‘cold’.(kwarθ-) ‘to feel cold’.) still. attested only in Tocharian.) to rest.‘to come from’. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦al. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦ar. at rest. kumiruka ‘to be hot.) stillness. to be red-hot. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Volgaic *kūma ‘hot. B. red-hot. kalk. 3. crammed. KannaTa kome ‘to begin to burn (as fire or anger)’. (adj.) to be cold.) to burn slowly.‘to hit. to remain.(~ *k’¦‹r-) ‘(vb. to strike. to smoke. to be hot.) to go: to go away from.‘to smoke’.[*k’¦a¸-dº-] (> *k’¦ādº-) ‘to push or press in. to smash’. way’: A. to consume by fire’. kumuruka. repose. Svan k’warem ‘ice’. to beat. sultry’.) cold.(kord-) ‘to be cold’. Gondi kharrā ‘frost’. . kwar.‘to go.‘to strike. C.
grinding stone.) to strike fire. karuvam ‘fetus. Dravidian: Tamil karu ‘fetus. ManTa kuh. 7. rock’: A. Proto-Kartvelian *k’werčx.‘to stroke or stir up (a fire)’ > Geez / Ethiopic "¦as"¦asa ‘to stir a fire’. Kuwi hiccu kahinomi ‘we kindle fire’.‘to sit’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’wes. to run away. to husk’.‘to strike fire’.[*k’¦raAw‚-] (> *k’¦rāw‚-) ‘mill.(kuruk-) ‘to beat like a carpet’. fire’: A. B. millstone’. to grind. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦erbº-/*k’¦orbº-. the middle. to crush’.‘to light (lamp.‘to light (lamp)’. B. to put out (fire). inward part’.) spark. Malayalam karu ‘embryo. to elope’ > Bžedux k’nāsa. Kabardian k’nāsa ‘to go out (as fire. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦es-/*k’¦os. Proto-Circassian *k’nasa ‘to go out (as fire. the middle. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦er-/*k’¦or-/*k’¦3. kasis.(~ *k’¦‹r-) ‘(vb. germ. kari ‘uterus of animals’. Note: Also found in Northwest Caucasian: cf. Parji kerba ‘egg’.) to crush. still’. Gadba (Ollari) karbe ‘egg’. kūrisu ‘to cause to sit’. kurr-) ‘to pound in a mortar. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences C. fire)’. to elope’. 8. of fire)’. egg. larva of bees. Gondi kurkal ‘stone pestle’.48 Allan R.) grinding pestle. to hit. (n.‘to be lit (as fire). D. Kota karv ‘fetus of animal. C. Dravidian: KonTa kas. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ar.‘the inside.‘gentle.(~ *k’¦‹s-) ‘(vb. *k’¦rebº. to strike. mild. the middle. (n.. C. Pengo kuc.(kut-) ‘to pound (clay in preparation for making pots)’. Malayalam ku8avi ‘small rolling stone to grind with’. Telugu kūr(u)cuzTu ‘to sit. to run away. D. stone. calm. etc. Dravidian: Tamil ku8avi ‘grinding pestle’. Telugu karuvu ‘fetus’. kurru (kurri-) ‘to pound. to be seated’. to crush. Gondi garba ‘egg’. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦as.‘to sit’. to split. light). to put out (originally. to smash’. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic (reduplicated) *k’as-k’as. to burn’. . embryo’. C.‘to break up. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ar-bV. Gadba kurk. to desert. to escape. pregnant (of animals)’. yolk’. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦erAn-/*k’¦3An-. Kota kur. light). *k’¦reAw‚. B. Tamil kuru (kuruv-. young of animal’. karuppai ‘womb’. embryo. *k’¦reAn.(~ *k’¦‹r-bV-) ‘the inside. inward part’. interior. inward part’: A.‘the inside. to escape. 9. (?) Dravidian: KannaTa kūr ‘to sit down’. to desert. interior.‘to extinguish. interior. Pengo kacay ki. at rest. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦arb.[*k’¦raAn-] (> *k’¦rān-).
smoke’: A.) sharp’: A.). Proto-Afrasian *k’¦as.‘(vb. Proto-Kartvelian *k’wet’. to smoke. to break down (tree)’.‘to cut’. Low German quesen ‘to grumble’.‘to chop. D. New High German (dial.‘to whet. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 49 10. to smolder. to moan. Dravidian: Malayalam kattuka ‘to kindle. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦‹t’-/*k’¦at’. to ruin. Kota kat. sword. Dravidian: Malayalam katti ‘knife’. to be reduced. ruin. to mumble’.(katy-) ‘to burn (intr. Naiki (of Chanda) katuk-/katk. to murmur. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦at’.. to whisper. to moan. Dravidian: Tamil kesu (kesuv-. to groan.) burning. to mumble. C. B. Swedish (dial.‘to moan’.) smoke’. to cut off’. (n.) to cut. D.) to burn. kucukucukka ‘to whisper’. -tt-) ‘to whisper’. B. to light (lamp)’. katc.‘to sigh. kuśalikka ‘to whisper. (n. 12.(~ *k’¦‹t’-) ‘(vb. whisper. destruction. heat. to become spoiled.(katc-) ‘to set fire to’. Parji katt.) to destroy. sickle’. to squander. Kota katy ‘billhook. to run away defeated’. to become damaged. murmur. (n. Kolami katk. to be destroyed. cutting instrument.‘to cut down (tree). appetite’. to groan’.) to destroy.) kvisa ‘to whisper’. (n. to smolder. to murmur. to mumble’. katiÿr ‘to cut’. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ed. kucukucuppu ‘whispering’.) to sigh. to . to burn’. Proto-Kartvelian *k’wes-/*k’ws. to rot. to whisper.> (with progressive deglottalization) *k’wet-/*k’wt. to spoil. to sharpen’.(vb.(~ *k’¦‹t’-) ‘(vb. 11.(~ *k’¦‹s-) ‘(vb. to groan.> (with regressive deglottalization) k¦ºet’/*k¦ºot’. etc.) smoke’.‘to cut with an axe’. kattikka ‘to set on fire. to smolder. etc.. razor. (n. Tamil katti ‘knife. (n. B. etc. Indo-European: Old Icelandic kvis ‘rumor.) to burn. decay’: A. to burn’.(katakt-) ‘to strike down (man). heat. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦at’.. to decay.) to burn.KannaTa katti ‘knife.Allan R. damage. kvisa ‘to gossip. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦‹t’-/*k’¦at’. to damage. -tt-) ‘(vb. to whisper’. Norwegian kvisa ‘to whisper’. sword’. kess-) ‘to perish. razor.) queisen ‘to sigh. kacu-kuc-enal onomatopoeic expression signifying whispering.) knife.) death. C. groan. (adj. 13. mumble’ (onomatopoeic): A. kaśukuśu imitative sound of whispering. etc. to decay. tattle’. Malayalam kuśukuśukka. to smoke. to moan. to slaughter. knife’. Dravidian: Tamil (reduplicated) kucukucu (-pp-. cutting instrument. to smoke. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦as. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦at’.> (with regressive deglottalization) *k¦ºet’-/*k¦ºot’. C. to rot. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦at’. to sacrifice’.) sigh.‘(vb. kattal ‘burning. to fall on evil days. moan. kesu (-pp-. to degenerate.
(n.. to corrupt. adversity. arrogant’. B.(~ *k’¦ey-) ‘(vb. weighty’. 16. hide. Dravidian: Tamil cī ‘pus. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦iy. kō0e ‘young bullock’. to lose.‘to fester. thickness in consistency.) to die. ruined’. poverty’. crust’: A. B. evil’.) fat. solid. Malayalam ko8ukka ‘to grow thick. to be insolent’. to be saucy. leather. "ay (pl. cow’. to be of thick consistency (as sandal paste). kēsu ‘ruin. to get lost. crust’. Note: Perhaps also found in Northwest Caucasian: cf. to grow fat. kesumpu ‘ruin. Proto-Kartvelian *k’wed-/*k’wd.) pus’: A.. danger. to lose. hide. Dravidian: Telugu kōTiya. ko8umai ‘plumpness. (vb. to perish’ > Bžedux k’nadə. bad. Malayalam cī ‘putrid matter.‘to be heavy. sauciness. kōTi ‘cow’. to grow fat. kessa ‘bad. pride’. stiff by boiling. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ur¨. (n. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦»dº-/*k’¦kdº.‘(vb. 14. KoTagu kiÿy(kiÿyuv-. mucous matter’. degeneracy’. purulent. ox. B. stoutness. to be purulent’ > Arabic "āa ‘to fester. repulsive’.) fat. ko8uppu ‘solidity (as of broth or curry). flourishing. leather. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *koya ‘outer covering: skin. C. to perish’. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦ey-/*k’¦i.50 Allan R. loss. solid’. B. secretion of the eyelids’. damage.(~ *k’¦or¨-) ‘(to be) heavy. spoiled. mucous matter’. bark (of a tree). weighty. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦kw. shell. shell. cow’: A. (n. Proto-Circassian *k’nad(a) ‘to disappear. to defeat. Kuwi kōdi. B. plumpness. solid. purulent’. to be purulent’. Proto-Nostratic (Eurasiatic only) *k’¦oy. loss’. Telugu cīku ‘to rot’. ox.‘bullock. hide. ManTa kūTi ‘cow’. kōTe ‘young bull’. bark (of a tree). Kolami kōTi ‘cow’. etc. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦ur. Kui kōTi ‘cow. ko8uppu ‘richness. damage. kesuti ‘ruin. fatness.) to prosper. "uyū) ‘pus.(secondary e-grade form: *k’¦eyH-) ‘skin. thickness. thick. to be plump.) peril. C. to flourish. 15. to get lost. kiÿñj-) ‘to become rotten’. thing lost. 17. kesutal ‘ruin. . to spoil. grease. luxuriance. ko8u ‘fat.‘outer covering: skin. Kabardian k’nad ‘to disappear. fat. cīmu ‘pus’. fertility’. stout.‘bullock. to be rich or fertile (as soil). etc. leather’.) death. evil’. ox’.‘to be putrid. (n. Pengo kōTi ‘cow’. bulky’: A.‘rotten. loss. Afrasian: Proto-Semitic *k’ay-aħ. impudence’. to become putrid’. KannaTa kī ‘to become pus. death. prosperous. Proto-Nostratic *k’¦ow.) to be putrid. affliction. damage. evil’. danger. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences extinguish. Dravidian: Tamil ko8u ‘(adj. kessavan ‘a bad. immoral person’. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦oyH-/*k’¦iH.
(n. spike. Proto-Nostratic *q’am. to grind.Allan R. to bite. Proto-Afrasian *k’am. stinking. Proto-Finno-Permian *kal¨kkз ‘egg. Proto-Chukotian *qametva.(~ *q’‹n-) ‘field.‘jaw’. qnnÕ ‘plant’.(or *qamatva-) ‘to eat’. plowed field’. D. 5.) to rot. Malayalam kaviJ ‘cheek’. Afrasian: Semitic: Akkadian "allū. to chew. 2. TuJu kauJu ‘the cheek’. to bite. kavuTrasa ‘cancer of the cheek’.(~ *q’ər¨-) ‘(vb. (n. B. land. (?) Telugu gauda ‘the cheek’. Parji gavla.‘to go bad.) rotten. qnt ‘plant’.(~ *k’‹pº-) ‘jaw. Proto-Kartvelian *q’ab. C.) to crush. weighty’. B. to cut to pieces. to chew. (?) Kui kūlu ‘cheek’ — either here or with Proto-Nostratic *k’apº.‘(vb. C. to bite. Proto-Finno-Permian *kentä ‘field. B. to become rotten’. ka0i.(k0aŋt-) ‘to go bad. kavuzTrasa. womb’. to chew. ka0īstānā ‘to rot.‘to chew (up). B.‘to rot. E. Dravidian: Gondi ka0ītānā ‘to be rotten. nail’. 4. to crush’. 3. gallū ‘sexual organ’ (this is usually thought to be a loan from Sumerian). Proto-Kartvelian *q’an. to grind. *k’om-bºo-s ‘tooth. temple or jaw of elephant’.‘cornfield. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦or(H)-/*k’¦3(H).‘to be rotten. Proto-Indo-European *k’ebº-/*k’obº.(~ *q’‹l¨-) ‘sexual organs. C. to decay’.) flour’. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *qəlqK ‘penis’. to stink’. Proto-Indo-European *k’em-bº-/*k’om-bº-/*k’i-bº. private parts (male or female)’: A. Proto-Kartvelian *q’ar-/*q’r. to rot.‘penis’. (?) Dravidian: Tamil kavuJ ‘cheek. Proto-Nostratic *q’ar¨.‘vulva. to become rotten (egg)’.(~ *q’‹m-) ‘to crush.) jaw’. jawbone’.‘(vb. genitals. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 51 C. Proto-Nostratic *q’al¨. . (metathesis in) galva ‘jaw’.(~ *q’əb-) ‘jaw’: A. Proto-Nostratic *q’ab. KonTa ka0k. to eat. C. pasture’. meadow. B. to eat’: A. to go rotten’. Pengo k0aŋ(g). testicle’. Proto-Nostratic *q’an. (?) Afrasian: Egyptian qn used as a designation for plants in a field. Amharic "¦əla ‘testicle’.) to munch. Proto-Nostratic *q’: 1. to ret (hemp)’.(secondary e-grade form: *k’¦er(H)-) ‘heavy. Geez / Ethiopic "¦əl ‘testicle’. Proto-Kartvelian *q’al. (open) country’: A. putrid’: A. Proto-Indo-European *k’el-tº-/*k’C-tº. (n. to stink.
Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 6. uproar’. kinnān ‘wet.) to swallow’. C. peak’. to shout. uproar’. golagola ‘a confused noise’.‘(vb. servitude’. tenants’. throat’. Proto-Nostratic *q’ud.‘house’. to hit. abode. lament.) to strike.) to freeze. kulaippu ‘barking. grievance’ (New High German Klage). B. Gondi kinan. to cry (out). house’. allegiance (as of subjects to their sovereign). Proto-Kartvelian *q’el. Proto-Afrasian *k’aw.‘to freeze’. gulgu ‘to grumble’.. hubbub. Dravidian: Tamil kulai ‘to bark (as a dog). to cry (out). Proto-Nostratic *q’¦al. manslaughter. kusaykar ‘hut. C. snarling’. to be or become cold. D. (n. Proto-Nostratic *q’in. uproar’: A. cottage’. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦al.(~ *q’əw-) ‘head. kinām ‘cold’. Malayalam kulākulā imitative of barking. to wound. Proto-Nostratic *q’aw. etc. lineage. kusiy-āJ ‘tenant’. kusicai. shout. Proto-Nostratic *q’el. cottage’. the wailing of children’. B. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦al.‘forehead. home. brow’.[*k’¦l-aA-]) ‘a bleating. kolakola ‘noise. Proto-Kartvelian *q’ua. B.‘neck. murder. Proto-Indo-European *k’el-/*k’C. lineage. destruction. kusiñai ‘small hut.) to call (out). abode. town. Old High German klaga ‘cries of pain. kīnd ‘cold’. kusimai ‘family.) call.) cold. kusil ‘hut. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦: 1. KannaTa gullu ‘loud noise. hubbub.) killing.‘neck. throat. to talk incoherently’. death’: .(~ *q’od-) ‘dwelling. B. cool’.(~ *q’¦‹l-) ‘(vb. complaint. to slay. (vb. 2. Proto-Kartvelian *q’in. gōla ‘loud noise or outcry’. house’: A. tumult’. brow’: A. (n. Dravidian: Tamil kusi ‘house. abode’. Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kota ‘tent. hubbub’. temple’. 7. kulavai ‘chorus of shrill sounds’. Indo-European: Proto-Germanic *kew-la-z ‘head.‘to call (out).‘(n. lamentation. Proto-Kartvelian *q’ud.‘to cry or shout’.(~ *q’¦‹l-) ‘(vb. kinnīta ‘cold’.< *k’¦l-eA. summit. throat’: A. forehead. 9. family. cry. hut. kusiyilār ‘tenants’.‘forehead.52 Allan R. to shout’. to hurt. outcry. kusikai ‘hut made of leaves. (n. Indo-European: Greek âëç÷Þ (Doric âëá÷#) (< *k’¦l-ā. 8.) neck. B. kusical ‘hut’. Telugu gollu ‘noise. C. to kill. Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan *quli. noise. TuJu gullu ‘a great noise. handle (of an axe)’. Dravidian: Kolami kinani. frost’: A. top. to cut. shed. sound.
fortress. to reap. to fell. snake-catchers. to hit. peak’. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦ar. kuricci ‘village in the hilly tract. D. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦er-/*k’¦or-/*k’¦3.(~ *q’¦‹r-) ‘edge. to hurl’. to murder’.) to throw. kuravāzar ‘the Kurava tribe of the mountain’. to slay.) to call out. murder. 3. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦al. kuricciyan ‘a hill tribe’. konr-) ‘to kill. to proclaim’. (?) Altaic: Mongolian qor¦a ‘fort. kolli ‘killing’. B. to wound. dogs)’. kurumpan ‘shepherd. fortress’. to resound’ (gh. to cry aloud’. Malayalam kūruka ‘to speak. kurumba ‘a caste of mountaineers’. E. B. to assert. mountain. to ruin.(~ *q’¦‹r-) or *q’¦ur. village’. to hit.) call.‘to howl (of wolves.‘to slay. to sound (as a trumpet). shout’: A. cry. to cut. to proclaim’. D. kuricci ‘hill country’. C. to cut. E. B. Old Turkic qur¦an ‘castle.‘to strike. kollika ‘to make to kill’.‘to strike. kūrru ‘call. tip. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦al. to extol. to slay. horn’. to tease’. gūrmisu ‘to murmur or roar (as water of a river or the sea). utterance. to cry out. to destroy. caste of mountaineers in WayanāTu’. to laud. to hurt. to commend. Malayalam kolluka ‘to kill. Telugu korava name of a tribe of mountaineers. to cut. C. vexation. Dravidian: Tamil kol (kolv-. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦el-/*k’¦ol-/*k’¦C. kūrru ‘proclamation.‘to strike. to kill’): A. shelter. 5. peak.(~ *k’¦‹l-) ‘(vb. Proto-Uralic *kola. kūrram ‘cry (as for help)’. . teasing’. kuriñci ‘hilly tract’. cry of men. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦ar. to afflict. to hurt. to kill’.Allan R. to murder. (n.‘to die’. to hit. club. kūrram ‘word’.‘to throw. peak’: A. TuJu gūruni ‘to hoot’. Malayalam kuravan ‘wandering tribe of basket-makers. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦ar. summit. kolai ‘killing.‘highest point. B. to cry aloud. Toda kurb ‘man of Kurumba tribe living in the Nilgiri jungles’. (n. top. noise’. 4.. to kill’. hill.‘edge’. to acclaim’. to hurl.(~ *q’¦‹l-) or *k’¦al. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦el-/*k’¦ol-/*k’¦C. Dravidian: Tamil kuram ‘Kurava tribe’. to roar or bellow.is from Sanskrit ghūrz. to turn around’]). mountain. Proto-Kartvelian *q’ur. Telugu ghūrzillu ‘to sound. Proto-Kartvelian *q’wal.) sling. hurling’ (probably identical to *q’¦al.‘to throw. and gypsies’. KannaTa gūrzisu. murder’. throwing. Afrasian: Semitic: Arabic "araa ‘to praise. C. to cry out the price. enclosure’. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 53 A. Proto-Kartvelian *q’ur.(~ *q’¦or-) ‘(vb. kula ‘killing. etc.‘hill. to wound. word’. Proto-Afrasian *k’¦al. point. Dravidian: Tamil kūru (kūri-) ‘to speak. to hurl’.‘to move to and fro’ [> Telugu ghūrzillu ‘to whirl. to slaughter’. to kill.
Áarsūsi "ard ‘throat’. Uralic: Proto-Finno-Ugrian *kut¨з.000 to 12.) neck.‘to make a sound. Proto-Circassian *q’natºa ‘to tell.(~ *q’¦or-) ‘(vb. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦er-/*k’¦or-/*k’¦3. (?) Indo-European: Lithuanian girdžiù. to praise’. throat’.54 Allan R. to summon’.) to say. to bore’ (assuming semantic development as in Ostyak / Xanty [Southern] hutÎ-. girdà ‘hearing’. to annoy. to incite. Note: Also found in Northwest Caucasian: cf.) neck. and Vocabulary. 7. Mehri "ard ‘voice. invocation. kuTki ‘female’s ear ornament’. dumb’.‘to call. B. C. [Nizyam] hŭś. to announce. In his 1998 book. kiŕga. C. B. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences D. to call. Proto-Kartvelian (*q’worq’. to provoke’). B. dzìrdêt ‘to hear’. kuTka. girdjti ‘to hear’. Kabardian "nāta ‘to tell.(~ *q’¦or¨-) ‘(vb. invitation.‘to say. to bother. KannaTa kQTaygè ‘earring’. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦ur. Morphology. to speak. John C. *q’ur-u.>) *q’orq’. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦etº-/*k’¦otº. to speak. to call’. C. Kerns tried to show that the most likely homeland of the Nostratic parent language was located “in or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus”. ear’.) to swallow. throat’ > Finnish kurkku ‘throat’. to tease. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦at¨º. Mordvin (Erza) kirga. Corroborating Evidence In our joint monograph. throat’: A. Proto-Finno-Ugrian *k[ü]rkз ‘neck. summons’: A. (?) Chukchi-Kamchatkan: Proto-Chukotian *qəððiðK. to make known’ > Bžedux "nātºa.‘to call. (n. 8. D. to report. I propose that “[t]he unified Nostratic parent language may be dated to between 15. The Nostratic Hypothesis and Linguistic Paleontology. Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology. Malayalam ku8a ‘earring. to seduce. Dolgopolsky places the homeland in the same general area.) ear’: A. to announce. (n.‘throat. Gondi ku0ka ‘earring’. In my forthcoming book.(~ *q’¦‹r¨-) or *q’¦ur¨.(secondary e-grade form: *k’¦er-) ‘(vb. to call. to report. gullet’. Note: Finnish kurkku is usually considered to be either a Scandinavian loan-word or to have been influenced by Scandinavian. Afrasian: Semitic: Śeri / Jibbāli "εrd ‘throat’. Proto-Indo-European *k’¦or-/*k’¦3. Dravidian: Tamil ku8ai ‘earring. ear’.‘to pester.) to hear. (n.) call. Latvian dzìrdu. 6.(~ *q’¦‹t¨º-) ‘(vb. (n. to make known’. Kolami kuTka ‘earring in the upper ear’. The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. .000 BCE. throat’.) to swallow. Proto-Nostratic *q’¦ar¨. korga ‘neck’. to entice.‘ear’. to call out.‘deaf. Proto-Kartvelian *q’ur.
Lak-Dargwa. 1996 2004 2008 . according to Diakonoff— Starostin (1996). has been claimed by some to be an ancient Northwest Caucasian language. the Hurrian language. J. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV [Through Hardship to the Stars: Indo-European Studies in Honor of Jens Elmegård Rasmussen on His Sixtieth Birthday. Not only are languages of these families still spoken. We may note in passing that. Anders Richardt Jørgensen. Kerns. and Vocabulary. For example. they covered a considerably wider geographic area than they do at present. If this scenario is correct. 69—79. (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. References Bomhard.” Likewise. SC: SIGNUM Desktop Publishing. A good place to look for such evidence would be the Northwest and Northeast Caucasian languages. I have listed that evidence above as it pertains to the sampling of Nostratic material given in this Appendix — there is much more. they form a larger North Caucasian family. The evidence given here for the forms with initial glottalics is especially significant in that it independently corroborates the Proto-Nostratic reconstructions I have proposed. An examination of the vocabularies of the Northwest Caucasian languages. was located in “the northeastern Zagros-Taurus corner of the ‘hilly flanks’ of Mesopotamia. and Thomas Olander (eds. 1984 Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. vol. not only the glottalics but the postvelars and labialized velars and postvelars as well. the Ides of March 2004]. Brill. Šapsug] and East Circassian [Kabardian]. which was located in central Anatolia. Leiden: E. according to Nikolayev—Starostin (1994). there are good reasons to believe that. 27. we would expect to find evidence of contact between Nostratic and non-Nostratic neighboring languages. and Ubyx / Ubykh) and Northeast Caucasian (North Central Caucasian [Nakh] and Northeast Caucasian proper [Avar-Andi-Dido. Dolgopolsky. Morphology. 2 volumes. shows that there is indeed evidence of very ancient contact between this family and Nostratic languages. may have belonged to the Northeast Caucasian language family. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. along with the closely-related Urartian. West [Adyghe: Bžedux / Bžedukh. and I are essentially in agreement about the location of the homeland of the speakers of the Nostratic parent language. Hattic. Together. Allan R. in: Adam Hyllested. which.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Charleston. Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. in particular. Jenny Helena Larsson.). Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology. the Northwest Caucasian (Abkhaz. in ancient times.Allan R. at the end of the last Ice Age — it was located in the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus…” As can be seen. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 55 that is. pp. Temirgoy. and Lezgian]) language families are related. “The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals”. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Этимология (Ėtimologija) 1967:296—313. and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Bomhard. An Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic Languages. Markey (eds. Shevoroshkin and Thomas L. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells. Munich: R. Auf Grund des fünfbändigen “Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen von K. Этимология (Ėtimologija) 1965:259—270. and Time (1986). Karl. and John C.] Diakonoff. Brugmann and B.  [2nd revised edition. Вопросы Языкознания (Voprosy Jazykoznanija) 1964: 53—63.. Aaron 1964 “Гипотеза древнейшего родства языковых семей северной евразии c вероятностной точки зрения” [The Hypothesis of the Ancient Relationship of the Language Families in Northern Eurasia from a Probabilistic Point of View]. 1965 “Методы реконструкции общиндоевропейского яазыка и сибиро-европейская гипотеза” [Methods in the Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and the Sibero-European Hypothesis]. 2nd edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.). Typology. Burrow. Emeneau 1984 Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. . Dolgopolsky. 2nd edition. NY. Allan R. and Berthold Delbrück 1897—1916 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen [Elements of the Comparative Grammar of the IndoEuropean Languages].56 Allan R. Relationship. and Murray B. Delbrück”]. Based upon the Five Volume “Elements of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages by K.. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. Berlin. 1967 “Ностратические основы с сочетанием шумных согласных” [Nostratic Roots with Sibilant Clusters]. Björn 1955 Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary. Reprinted 1967. New York. Kerns 1994 The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. 27— 50. Reprinted 1970. English translation published in: Vitalij V. Starostin 1986 Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language. Brugmann. Karl 1904 Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. and Sergej A. Delbrück” [Concise Comparative Grammar of the IndoEuropean Languages. Collinder. Igor M. Kitzinger. Brugmann. Brugmann und B. Thomas.
Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels. pp. Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily. Этимология (Ėtimologija) 1968:237—242. Károly Rédei. Tone. Nostratic Dictionary. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Berkeley and Los Angeles. 65—112. The Nostratic Hypothesis and Linguistic Paleontology. and Hermann Reichert (eds. CA: University of California Press. Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Этимология (Ėtimologija) 1970:356—369. in: R. J. Brill. “The Nostratic Vowels in Indo-European”. in: Vitaly Shevoroshkin (ed. “The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Short Introduction”. . and Surab Sardshweladse 1995 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Kartwel-Sprachen [Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages]. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller. p. Contributions to Generative Phonology.). Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. “Problems of Nostratic Comparative Phonology (Preliminary Report)”. TX: University of Texas Press. Nostratic. E.). Dene-Caucasian.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Linguistica et Philologica. Gedenkschrift für Björn Collinder (1894—1983) [Linguistics and Philology. 298—331. 2838. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 57 1968 1970 1972 1984 1989 1992 1994 1998 1999 To appear Ehret. Emonds. Fähnrich. pp. in: Vitaly Shevoroshkin (ed. Memorial Volume for Björn Collinder (1894—1983)]. and Vocabulary. 19—44. 5.). pp. “On Personal Pronouns in the Nostratic Languages”. “Nostratic”. Joseph 1972 “A Reformulation of Grimm’s Law”. “О ностратической системе аффрикат и сибилянтов: корни c фонемой *μ” [On the System of Nostratic Affricates and Sibilants: Roots with the Phoneme *μ]. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Achaeological Research. Consonants.). vol.). Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Austin. in: Michael K. Этимология (Ėtimologija) 1972:163—175. Austric and Amerind. pp. 90—98. Christopher 1995 “Ностратические этимологии и происхождение глагольных формантов” [Nostratic Etymologies and the Origin of Verb Formatives]. in: Colin Renfrew and Daniel Nettle (eds.Allan R. Asher (ed. pp. Bochum: Brockmeyer. in: Otto Gschwantler. Leiden: E. 108—122. “Ностратические корни с сочетанием латерального и звонкого ларингала” [Nostratic Roots with a Cluster of Lateral and Voiced Laryngeals]. Brame (ed. Heinz.
Language 42:69—83. Fortson. 707—717. Alexander Kerns. The New Sound of Indo-European: Essays in Phonological Reconstruction. Greenberg (ed. 1981 “Language Typology and Language Universals and Their Implications for the Reconstruction of the Indo-European Stop System”. Steven Jacobson. 117—121.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. New Comparative Chukotko-Kamchatkan Dictionary. Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg. Berlin and New York.). Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Fallon.1/2:47—59.). Fortescue. 1987 “The Indo-European Glottalic Theory: A New Paradigm in I. pp. IV 2004 Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. CA: Stanford University Press. 9—46. Joseph. Polomé and Werner Winter (eds. NY: Mouton de Gruyter. NY: Mouton de Gruyter. The Hague: Mouton.). Berlin and New York. in: To Honor Roman Jakobson. Journal of Indo-European Studies 15. 2002 Fortescue. Saratoga. vol. 2. 1999 “Typology and Reconstruction: New Trends in Comparative Historical and Diachronic Linguistics”. pp. 63—71. in: Alphonse Juilland (ed. Stanford. Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. in: Joseph H. Bomhard (eds. 571—609. 1992 “Comparative Reconstruction and Typological Verification: The Case of Indo-European”. John E. CA: Anma Libri. pp.). 399—406. and Hans-Josef Niederehe (eds. in: Theo Vennemann (ed. NY: Routledge. pp.). and Lawrence Kaplan 1994 Comparative Eskimo Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell. 2. Phonology. 1978 “On the Correlation of Stops and Fricatives in a Phonological System”. Thomas V.. in: Edgar C. 1976 “Linguistic Typology and Indo-European Reconstruction”. Michael 2005 The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. York. part II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. AK: Alaska Native Language Center. pp. Paul D. Universals of Human Language. 1989 “Language Typology and Indo-European Reconstruction”. The Emgergence of . vol. in: Yoël L. Gamkrelidze.58 Allan R.E. vol. pp. Fairbanks. Benjamin W. 1966 “A Typology of Common Kartvelian”. Arbeitman and Allan R. Michael. Comparative Linguistics”. in: Sheila Embleton. Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. I. 1967 “Kartvelian and Indo-European: A Typological Comparison of Reconstructed Linguistic Systems”.
and Vjačeslav V. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. 2 vols. Ivanov 1972 “Лингвистическая типология и реконструкция системы индоевропейских смычных” [Linguistic Typology and the Reconstruction of the Indo-European Occlusives]. in: Конференция по сравнительно-исторической грамматике иодоевропейских языков (12—14 декабра) [Working Papers of the Conference on the Comparative-Historical Grammar of the Indo-European Languages (12—14 December 1972)]. 2006 Selected Writings: Linguistic Sign. in: Mary Ruth Wise. Thomas V. 22—25 September 1998]. pp. Phonetica 27:150— 156. and Language Reconstruction. Koerner. 2: Metholodological Perspectives and Applications. in: Otto Carruba and Wolfgang Meid (eds. 2 vols.). Vol. PA. 109—114. English translation by Johanna Nichols. and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gamkrelidze. pp. pp. 15—18. September 1998 [Anatolian and IndoEuropean. Brend (eds. Pike. Moscow: Nauka. pp. 1984 Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы: Реконструкция и историко-типологический анализ праязыка и протокультуры [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a ProtoCulture]. Typology. Language and Life: Essays in Memory of Kenneth L. 1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a ProtoCulture. 2003 “Indo-European and the Glottalic Theory.Allan R. Dallas. K. Pavia. NY. New York. . and Ruth M. Acts of the Colloquium of the Indo-European Society. Edited by Ivo Hajnal. Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Tbilisi State University. Pavia. Anatolisch und Indogermanisch / Anatolico e Indoeuropeo. and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. with an Introduction by Rüdiger Schmidt. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 59 the Modern Language Sciences: Studies on the Transition from Historical-Comparative to Structural Linguistics in Honour of E. 2001 “Anatolian in Light of the Glottalic Theory”.. In Defense of Ejectives for Proto-Indo-European”. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. 22—25. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Geselschaft. 513—531. Thomas N. Philadelphia. Berlin. Headland. TX: SIL International. F. 119—127.). 1973 “Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse” [Linguistic Typology and the Reconstruction of the Indo-European Occlusives].
семитохамитский)” [Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages (Indo-European. 51—60. 1973 “Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European”. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Greenberg. уральский. Alexander Kerns. Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Glossa 7:141—166. Stanford. 1969 “Some Methods of Dynamic Comparison in Linguistics”.” Orbis XXVI.60 Allan R. International Journal of American Linguistics 36:123—145. . CA: University of California Press. IL: Southern Illinois University Press. pp. II. Hopper.). Louis 1967 “Ketzereien eines alten Indogermanisten” [Heretical Views of an Old Indo-Europeanist]. Hammerich. Substance and Structure of Language. Hamito-Semitic)]. Griffen. алтайский. Paul J. Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence. 133— 142. Bomhard (eds. картвельский. pp. pp. in: To Honor Roman Jakobson. MI: Karoma Publishers. 1988 Germano-European: Breaking the Sound Law. дравидский. 2000—2002 Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. pp.). Carbondale. Altaic. The Hague: Mouton. pp. Illič-Svityč. Kartvelian. CA: Stanford University Press.). in: Brian D.).1:41—53. Uralic. in: Edgar C. Joseph and Joseph C. PA: John Benjamins. in: Yoël L. Toby D. Joseph H. 1998 “The Convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostratic”. 1:57—72. Этимология (Ėtimologija) 1965:321—373. Salmons (eds. Dravidian. 147—203. Ann Arbor. V[ladislav] M[arkovič] 1965 “Материалы к сравнительному словарю ностратических языков (индоевропейский. 1977a “The Typology of the Proto-Indo-European Segmental Inventory”. Polomé (ed. Journal of Indo-European Studies 5. vol. 839—840. part I. 1981 “‘Decem’ and ‘Taihun’ Languages: An Indo-European Isogloss”. 2 vols. 1982 “Areal Typology and the Early Indo-European Consonant System”. 1970 “Some Generalizations Concerning Glottalic Consonants”. 1977b “Indo-European Consonantism and the ‘New Look’. Berkeley and Los Angeles. The Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia. in: Jaan Puhvel (ed. 121—139. Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Arbeitman and Allan R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Milano: Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese. Dravidian. 3 vols. Selected Writings. Oslo. (Originally presented as a report at the first plenary session of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists. Lehmann. pp. G[eorgij] V. in: Roman Jakobson. Uralic. Altaic)]. 2nd edition. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. Kuryłowicz. Lunt (ed. TX: University of 1952 Texas Press. уральский. 141—163. Jerzy 1935 Études indoeuropéennes I [Indo-European Studies I]. Moscow: Nauka. pp. Kartvelian. дравидийский. Knobloch.Allan R. Kuipers. 1964 “On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction”.) Jakobson. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. 523—532. 1964 Этимологический словарь картвельских языков [Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages]. Опыт сравнения ностратических языков (семитохамитский. Winfred P. I. Berlin and New York. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. индоевропейский.). August 1957. 2—6 Settembre 1963 [“The Proto-Language”: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of Linguists. алтайский) [An Attempt at a Comparison of the Nostratic Languages (Hamito-Semitic. pp. 2—6 September 1963]. A[ert] H. Roman 1971(1957) Klimov. The Hague: Mouton. NY: Mouton de Gruyter. The Hague: Mouton. . Indo-European. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 61 1966 1971— “Соответствия смычных в ностратических языках” [Correspondences of Stops in the Nostratic Languages]. in: Horace C. Kraków: Polish Academy. in: “Le Proto-lingue”: Atti del IVo Covegno Internazionale de Linguisti. картвельский. Johann 1965 “Concetto storico di protolingua e possibilità e limiti de applicazione ad esso dei principi strutturalisti” [The Concept of Proto-Language and the Possibility and Limits of the Application to it of Structuralist Principles]. “Typological Studies and their Contribution to Historical Comparative Linguistics”. 1995 Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects. vol. 1998 Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages. Этимология (Ėtimologija) 1966:304—355 and 401—404 (additions and corrections). Moscow: Nauka. Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin. 1975 A Dictionary of Proto-Circassian Roots. 9—36.
(= Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph no. DC: Institute for the Study of Man. . Martinet. Orël. Stuart E. Alexis 1997 “Nostratic from a Typological Point of View”. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 25. Évolution des langues et reconstruction [Evolution of Languages and Reconstruction].) 1997 Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Buchum: Brockmeyer. Brill. 112—124. 1984—1987 An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary. 248—261. Moskow: Языки русской культуры (Jazyki russkoj kulÎtury). Nikolayev. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 2002 Pre-Indo-European. Mallory. Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Starostin 1994 A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. IL: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. S[ergey] L. Vladimir E.1/2:79—104. in Vitaly Shevoroshkin (ed. James P. 90—110. 2000 Этимологический словарь чукотско-камчатских языков [Etymological Dictionary of the Chukchi-Kamchatkan Languages]. and Olga V. Oleg 1989a “Eskaleutian Roots”. Leiden: E. pp. Adams (eds. London and Chicago..) Meillet. 41. Manaster Ramer. Stolbova 1995 Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. AL: University of Alabama Press. Mann. Reprint of 8th edition (1937). University.). Vendôme: Presses Universitaires de France. pp. Antoine 1964 Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes [Introduction to the Comparative Study of the Indo-European Languages]. André 1975(1953) “Remarques sur le consonantisme sémitique” [Remarks on Semitic Consonantism]. 1989b “Kamchukchee Roots”. Explorations in Language Macrofamilies. Mudrak. Bochum: Brockmeyer. and Douglas Q. Ian 1984 Patterns of Sound. in: Vitaly Shevoroshkin (ed. and S[ergey] A. (Originally published in: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 49 .. J. Studia Philologica.). Maddieson. pp.62 Allan R. in: André Martinet.) Washington. Moscow: Asterisk Publishers.
Anna Dybo. Joseph C. The Uralic Languages. The Glottalic Theory: Survey and Synthesis. Leiden: E. Phonetica 17:65—99.. 478—554. . with additional notes and references. Brill. Vennemann. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Szemerényi. History and Foreign Influences. Leiden: E. Schmidt. Holger 1931 1951 The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Pekka 1988 “Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages”.) 1989 The New Sound of Indo-European: Essays in Phonological Reconstruction. MD: Linguistic Society of America. Karl Horst 1962 Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der südkaukasischen Grundsprache [Studies on the Reconstruction of the Sound Structure of the South Caucasian Parent Language]. 3 vols. NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Oxford: Clarendon Press. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Die gemeinindoeuropäischen und vorindoeuropäischen Verschlußlaute [The Common Indo-European and the Pre-Indo-European Occlusives]. 1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Mudrak 2003 An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages. Institute for the Study of Man. IN: Indiana University Press.Allan R. English translation by John Webster Spargo. 2 vols. Theo (ed. Julius 1959—1969 Prokosch. 1993 Sammallahti.). Károly (ed. VA: Pokorny. Sergej A. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences 63 Pedersen. Bern: Francke Verlag. McLean. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Uralic Etymological Dictionary]. Berlin and New York. J. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. and Oleg A. Translated from the 4th edition (1990) of Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft [Introduction to Comparative Linguistics] by David Morgan Jones. Baltimore. Eduard 1938 Rédei. Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner GMBH. in: Denis Sinor (ed. Oswald 1967 “The New Look of Indo-European: Reconstruction and Typology”. Bloomington. Brill. J. Midland book edition 1962. Description. Starostin.) 1986—1988 Salmons. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary]. pp.
Revised and edited by Julius Pokorny. Alois 1897 “Die Verbindungen zweier Dentale und tonendes z im Indogermanischen” [The Connections of two Dentals and Tone-final z in Indo-European]. pp. Included as an Appendix to the 3rd edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston. Reprinted 1973. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung (KZ) 34:461—536. Calvert (ed.] . Watkins. Boston..  [Revised edition. 2090—2134. Bomhard: Nostratic Sound Correspondences Walde. 1927—1932 Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen [Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-European Languages]. MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.64 Allan R.]  [Second edition. 3 vols.) 1985 The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots.