mother tongue newsletter 8 (august 1989)

7/27/2019 Mother Tongue Newsletter 8 (August 1989)

1/37

.T0

T NH GE uR EN E W S L E T T E R O F T H E A S S O C Z A T Z O N

F O R T H E S T U D Y O F L A N G U A G EZ N P R E H Z S T O A V

A U G U S T 1999


2/37

AUGUST 199, MOTHER TONGUE EIGHTNewslet ter of th e ASSOCIATION fo r th e STUDY of LANGUAGE IN PREHISTORY.

ASLIP, Inc . became in A p r i l , 1989 a l ega l e n t i t y , a non-prof i tcorpora t ion in th e Commonwealth of Massachuse t t s . I t s purposes a res c i e n t i f i c , educat iona l and ch a r i t ab l e . Copies of th e A r t i c l e s ofIncorpora t ion and By Laws of th e corpora t ion a re ava i l ab le on reques t fo r asmal l f . . f r o . ASLIP, 86 Waltha . S t r e e t , Boston, Massachuse t t s 02118-2115. Our l ega l address i s 69 High Str-t, Rockpor t , Mass.01966-2163.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

MENU fo r th e month.

CHANGES OF ADDRESS and NEW HANDS AT THE HELM. p .1

WOLFGANG SCHENKEL & COLLEAGUES IN COLOGNE: RE PETER BEHRENS. p . 2

A. HURTONEN. A CRITIQUE OF ILLICH-SYITYcHs NOSTRATIC ETYMOLOGIES. p .7

+MT Treatment . AN EXPERIMENTAL FORMAT. COMMENTS ON MURTONENs PAPER. p.14YITALIJ SHEYOROSHKINALICE FABERSAUL LEVINCARLETON HODGE

DEBATING THE ISSUES: p.27Readers r eac t to MT7 and th e e d i t o r i a l essay on r eco n s t ru c t i o n .Igor Diakonoff , Paul Benedict , M.Lionel Bender.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: p.34Nile-Saharan conference in Bayreuth; Cushi t ic -Omot ic conference inTor ino; IE sub-s t ratum conference moves to I r e l an d . Conference onphonet ic symbols a t Kiel , FRG. Rober t B l u s t ' s new book onAUSTRONESIAN ROOT THEORY. Jan Wind, Edward Pul leyb lank , Er ic deS ro l i e r , and Bernard Bichak j ian s new book STUDIES IN LANGUAGEORIGINS, VOLUME 1. Bender -Samuel ' s book on N-C has come out , BenElugbe ' s COMPARATIVE EDOID wil l soon be out .

PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL OF FELLOWS. CALL FOR NOMINATIONS lc SUGGESTIONS. p.35


3/37

1CHANGES OF ADDRESS & NEW HANDS AT THE HELMA number of s t ab le fea tu res of ASLIP wi l l now change. For one th ingth e pre sen t Rockport address i s now ONLY our l ega l address . At some t ime inth e next year it wil l cease even to be our l ega l address . Our mail ingaddress changes fo r thwi th . I f one wishes to wri te to th e person in charge ofASLIP for the coming year or t h e e d i t o r of MOTHER TONGUE for the Novemberi s sue , then wri t e to th e Vice-Pres iden t :

ALLAN W. BOMHARD I ASLIP86 WALTHAM STREETBOSTON, MASS. 0 2 1 1 8 - 2 1 1 ~u.s.A.I f one wishes to wri t e to th e e d i t o r of th e February i s sue ,or wants to wri te to a f r i end ly ed i to r o ther than Fleming or Bcmhard, wr i teto : J . JOSEPH PIA80 ALAMEDA STREET. ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14613u.s.A.I f one wishes to send in a nomination fe r th e Council of Fel lows, ora suggest ion about th e way we should handle th e Counci l , or any i tem ofASLIP business ( e . g . , to ge t a copy of th e By-Laws>, then wri te to th eSecre ta ry : ANNE W. BEAMANP.O.BOX ~ 8 3BROOKLINE, MASS. 02146U.S.A.I f one wishes to re-new one ' s membership in ASLIP


4/37

z5wu;(

.=.

.J1:

(

0)

w-

IX)

Q

0)

N

c

-

C)

CD

~

c

.

Q)

-u

-0

:E(

-

c

=

-)

=

0

:r

-o

a:

0

"

-w~(=:a

z.-N

1-

CD

1-

=:a:O."

(m


5/37


6/37


7/37


8/37

'-0I 14B Aus dem amerikanischen Englisch iibersetzt1) BelletrislikW.S. BURROUGHS The Naked LunchW.S. BURROUGHS JunkieK.PATCHENW.S. BURROUGHS/A. GINSBERGE. MCBAINT. VEITCIIW.S. BURROUGHSW.S. BURROUGHSR. COOVER

Erinnenmgen eineJ schrichternenPornographenArt/der Suche nach YageDie..UtDie Luis Armed StoryNova ExpressSoft MachineDie offentlichl! Verbrennung

2) Milarbeit an AnlhologienE. REAVISR.D. BRINKMANN/R.R. RYGULlAR.D. BRINKMANNR.E. JOliND.ODIER

3) SnchhiicherA.C. ClARKEC. AlDRED

Rauschgiftesser erziihlenAcidSilverscreenMonds tripDer Job Interviews mitW.S. Burroughs

Unsere Zrd:rmft im WeltallDieJuwelen der Pharaonen

LimesLimes

L i m e ~

Limes.Ullstein

Kiepenheuer& WilschLimes

Kiepenheuer&WitschLuchterhand

Blinneier&NikelMarz

Kiepenheuer&WitschMllrz

Kiepenheuer &Witsch

LiibbePraeger

19621963

19M

196419651970197019711983

1967

196919711971

1913

19691912

C LitecarlschVeduten .,JJ Tableaus (enlstan

A u u u g ~ win: Stadin: LiterDer Ain: G l i i ~hg. v1988

Th c .s e> bI u a f 'by

avtdP-t -f:e (' '.5 c ~ _

/C. I II. d..-.ft 5..{1l.Uo.J\18a ~ sI 1 ..Rcl'.R

VI 0 T f.Hm. rr..."+-r a. 'ttS 1o.. ftoY\.aV\d I m13 h t- av ~ ~ y ,,'f\.JJ f,,buf.

5o J '\d r-18- hf th'\.dft./as, w...e_ ha ~~ 1 (\..Jl C o _ ( J - f ~ o . a1}-f


9/37

Comroents on the Nostratic reconstructiionss of I l l i ~ - S v i t x ~ (as translated byMark Kaiser)by A. MurtonenApart from some general observations, comments are generally concentrated onthe 'AA.' (o r Semito-Hamitic) entries.

-1

3. /bq-/ ' to look' appears abstracted from secondafy meanin;s of triradicalroots such as /bqV/ (originally ' to stay') , /bqr/ ('to spl i t ' , as also /bq&/),/ b q ~ / ( 'to seek'); moreover, /bqV/ is attested in WSem and / b q ~ / in NWSem o n l ~ ,hence thei:r_ pre-Sem origin. is very u n l i ~ e l y , cf. n. ,..70- t.o-the introduction ofHebrew in i ts west Semitic setting ~ Part I Section Bb (to appear bythe end of 1989) and in greater detail in the forthcomming Part III 35 (witha large footnote).4. 'AA.' entry appears tenable, but support only from Alt. withk irregular /g/for /&/ correspondence, connection must be deemed doubtful.S. Appears tenable.~ - A g a i n , supported by Alt. only, and even for 'AA.', the basis is narrow.8i. Again, /br-/ 'grab, catch' appears abstracted from rather narrowly attestedtrirad. roots; most original meaning of /br/ appears to be 'pure, clear ' .9. The basic meaning of /brg/ appears to be ' to ascend' rather than 'high'; generally, adjectival meanings are secondary and/or rather late.10. Cf. 6 above.11 (14.17 etc.). Onomatopoeic words being imitative of natural sounds could havemore than one independent origina; unusual phonetic correspondences would corroborate this, but even in the absence of these, their relevance must be deemeddoubtful.12. Again abstracted from trirad. roots of which /bel/ only attested outside Sem,and as this is represented primarily by a KutturwoPt which spread from languageto language with the designated objects, the relevance of the 'AA.' entry is doubly doubtful.13. The 'AA.' entry appears abstracted from two different roots, /bl(l)/ whichmeans basically mixture involving both d ~ and wet ingredients; and /b&l/ in ahighly specialized secondary meaning derived from the name of an atmosphericdeity (with secondary loss of the pharyngal).16. / 'b l / appears to be of secondary origin, based on birad. /bl / , cf. /wbl/ =/ybl/, /nbl/, / tbl / , /blV/, ?/bwl/, all concerned with vegetation or growth ingeneral, butx often also in the negative sense of withering, aging or wearingout; the primary reference may thus have been to a meadow or steppe in a collective sense, growing and withering seasonally.20. Cf. 13 above (on /bl ( l ) / ) .

Appears_ va).iS:.,.22. The primary reference appears to be to uncultivated wastelianda as this usu-ally involved sand, the next item may be related, i f relevant.23. See 22 above.24. See 11 above; moreover, t h e ~ . ' basis appears flimsy.28. Basic 'AA.' reference appears to be to diseased swelling or growth or secretion, hence hardly comparable to sufficiency.30. / b n ~ / attested in two infrequent Kutturw8pter only (cf. 12 above).31. Meaning 'knee' appears secondary (primary fertil ization).32. / r / secondary sound (primary /n/).


10/37

2 - ~33. /s l - / again abstracted from trirad. roots; moreover, meaning ' spli t , cut,point' rather weakly represented even in them; the basic meaning of / s l ( l ) /appears to be ' to ascend'; /s/ is not a primary Sem-Ham sound either.

3 ~ 6 . / s t r / is a secondary root, formed from /swr/ by / t /- infix.37. /cx(x)/ is basically bitad., the semivowel augments clearly secondarywhere found; IE. Ural. Drav. entries also otherwise hard to reconcile.38. Onomatopoeic! (cf. 11 a b o v ~ ; / -x/ hardly conceivable as a secondary augment either; /cwV/ would have been semantically also closer, but even i t maybe onomatopoeic.40. /s(w)r/ in a relevant sense is unknown to me except as a var. of ;Xor/ =9wp = taurus, a KuZturwort of unknown origin; /cwr/ too mostly refers toherd of domesticated animals and may be related to the meaning, 'to besiege'in the sense of being confined to a cattle enclosure and partly spread as aKuZturwomrt again.42. /s(w/y)n/ ' to know' has limited attesstation and the origin of /s / is unclear.

.; -- - --Again;- /Cl--=!"to jump' can only have been abstracted from materials ofpatchy distribution and uncertain relevance.SO. /9(y)r/ 'faeces' is unknown to me, but can hardly be related t o ~ / 9 r /referring to moisture; moreover, /9/ as an independent phoneme is late, noteven common Sem.51. Cf. SO (end) above.53. Ditto.54. /em/ 'b i t ter ' is patchily attested, 'sour' does not mean the same, and'astringent' is again abstracted froru trxirad. roots; / s a m / ~ 'poison' is aKuL turwort.56. Cf. 51 above; there is no positive evidence for interchange o f ~ / with /c /in genuine Sem roots either.57. Ditto; no t w i t h / ~ / either.59. /d/- /o/- /z/ primarily deictc rather than locative.60. /d/ 'and' probably derived from /( ' /y)d/ 'with, sidie, hand'.61. /dq/ 'nearby' is unknown to me; basic meaning of the root is 'be minute,fine (ground/flattened etc.) .62. Primary meaning of /dlx/ appears to be ' to muddy (water)' and i t never refers to waves or sea.63. Again, i t is hard for me to find even trirad. roots from which /dm-/ 'cover,close, press' could be abstracted; the basic meaning o f / ~ ) / may be silenceor faint noises, with subdued activity.67. Could be valid, although the basic meaning of the root seems to be productioof abtmdant offspring or crop . 73. Cf. 63 above.74. Again, I find i t hard to identify the source of /d(w)r/ 'deaf ' ; the basicmeaning of I dwr/ is circular movement.75. Equally hard; and with only /d-/ in common with the other entries, hardlyvalid.76. Could .be v i l i ' C l ~ although attested in Sem on.ly.--- - -81. The primary meaning of /gid/ appears to be 'nerve, sinew'; again attestedin Sem only.82. /ghr/ has no SJP-ecific reference to sun or day, but mainly to intense light aor heat and i ts effects.


11/37

384. The primary meaning of /glx/ appears to be ' to shave', without referenceto smoothness or shining.87. ~ / g w p / seems to be s e c S f i R ! ? ~ 8 ~ /gw/ and refer primarily to body interiorfrom which the adjectival 'hollow' (not 'empty') is a further abstraction.88. Root /gw&r/ is unknown to me; /g&r/ and i ts (Eth) var. /gwr&/ is onomato-poeic, meaning rough and loud noises.90. /g(w)rH/ again unknown to me, but conceivable as an extension of /gUr/which, however, means primarily a young carnivore and appears to be a wander-ing word.91 . Admittedlty onomatopoeic (cf. on 11 above).92. Could be valid.94. Ditto, though possibly onomatopoeic.95 . /g(w)r/ root var. of /ghr/, cf. 82 above.

- ~

98 . /ywr/ refeJ:S...to depression in the ground rathertlfan-,deep water'; appearsdifferentiated from /&wr/ in WSem only.99. /ym(y)/ differentiated from /&mV/ in Arab (SAr?) only.100. Could be valid, though root mostly /'wV/.101. Ditto, though root var. /xwV/ could be more original (/w/ vs . /y/ originally allophonic).111. Tense differentiation secondary and late.121. Normally /hV/, but with sibilant var. which appears more or1ginal; hencehardly relevant.122. Connected with 121 above.123. / 'alyat/ refers primarily to the fat tail of a kind of sheep (not used asfood).124. / 'mr/ probably originally birad., related to /ml(l)/; no reference to day.125. Cf. 11 above.f26. /&rb/ (not / ' rb/) has no reference to witchcraft, and /-b/ could be second-ary, cf. /&rm/, /&rp/ semantically close.127. Semantically not very close, and possibly onomatopoeic.128. Phonetically and semantically possible, but with only one firm consonant,syntactically deviating and geographically remote hardly probable.129. Cf. 128 above; also phonetically vague.130. Ditto; also scantily attested.131. Ditto.132. Verbal attestation secondary or doubtful; mainly used as existential particle, ' there is '133. Unknown to me (denominative from /'ammat/ 'forearm'?).134. Pronominal only as a secondary var.; verbal preform. probably from vocativedeictic /ya/.135. W a n d e _ : ~ i n g word.

-36. Reflexive stem of the root /'wV/.137. Reference to mountain rarely attested, evidently secondary.138. /&ubb/ ' lap, bosom' (not 'breast') derived from /&b(b/V)/ 'be dense, thick'


12/37

-/04

139. Unknown to me; abstracted from /&qw/ 'to sink (a well)'?140. Based on /&lV/ 'ascend', cf. 137.141. /&c/ means ' tree, wood, timber' collectively; 'branch, twig' is a rare secondary var.142. /ya/ hardly original, cf. on 134 above.144. Basically monoradical, /m-/.146. Unknown to me, unless Eg /yn/ 'he said' be meant (a petrified formula inwhich /y/ may be secondary accretion) .150. /- iy/ probably derived from gn case vowel through prolongation (and -y- asa glide before newly attached case vowel) .151. Used mostly in abbreviated proper names in late historical times.152. Originally probably collective; regular pl. formation hardly pre-Sem.154. KuZturwort.!5"5 0 Unknown to me 0157. i ~ i a x s Could be valid, although attestation patchy.158. /knfr/ "(Eth Cush only) probably nasalized var. of /kpr/.159. Cf. 11 above.161. Could be valid, although the relevant root is /(h)lk/; cf. also Finnish/kulke-/ 'walk, travel ' .162. Probably derived from the root /kl (1) I 'be complete(d)'.163. Unknown to me.166. Ditto.172. Weakly attested and possibly onomatopoeic.173. Based on the root /kr(r)/ '(be/go) round' and spread as a KuZturwort.177. Weakly attested.178. Unknown to me.179. Ditto.180. A wandering word.190. Cf. 11 above.192. KuZturwort; var. /kad/ (etc.).193. Cf. 11 above; also weakly attested.195. Unknown to me.196. Could be onomatopoeic.197. Based on the root /kr(r)/ (cf. 173 above).199. Cf. 11 above.201. Weakly attested and semantically defective.202. Unknown to me; but cf. /gl ( l ) / , 'kr(r)/ .204. Unknown to me .

-- - ~ 205. The root is / q ~ n / .2o8. Phonetically and also semantically possible, although the root is /qlV/;but attested in Sem only.210. Unknown to me.


13/37

5211. Seems based on Gn 4:1 where, however, the root is used to create a pun.212. Seems abstracted from t r i rad. roots; /q/ and /k/ are not interchangeable in genuine Sem roots either.214. Could be valid.215. Unknown to me; normally, /qr(r)/ refers to cold.

-II

216. Known to me from some Eth (Gur and Cush, partly as loan) languages only;normally refers to even or low-lying ground.217. 1-ml seems original part of the root; attested in Sem only.218. Attested in Arab only (apart from a remotely related noun in Hbr).219. Unknown to me, but could be derived from / q ~ V / ' to be hard'.222. /kap/ only known to me; derived from /kp(p)/ 'to bend'; cf. 212 above.224. Phonetically possible, but geographically remote.229. Ditto.230. Looks valid; cf. 215 above.231. Cf. 11 above.232. Unknown to me; normally, interrog. pronoun based on /m-/ or / 'y/ .x233. Basic meaning of /qwV/ ' to expect, persevere (in efforts) ' .238. Perhaps wandering word.239. Based on /qwl/ (var. /qhl/) '&to cal l , speak'; ultimately onomatopoeic.241 . Ku7.. tunJozot.242. Seems attested in Cushx only, maybe even there ultimately derived from/qmx/ s p r e ~ d - ~ 7 . . t ~ o z o t .244. Weakly attested; normally adjectives are of late or1g1n.245. Unknown to me, unless the deictic /k-/ referring to what is nearby bemeant.247. Cf. 11 above.250. Unknown to me.252. l nmx Known to me from Akk only.254. Known to me in Eth only, as a secondary var. of more original /lxm/.255. Could be valid, cf. also /rgl/ (var. / 'gr/) ' leg, foot ' , Finnish /yalka/=; and 161 above.256. Unknown to me.257. Apparently prep. /1-/ meant; this may derive ultimately from a root / ' lV/,cf. the closely synonymous / ' i l (aY)j .258. To my knowledge, attested in Arab SAr only; cf. 244 above.262. Weakly attested even i f abstracted from lengthier roots (/lpt/ etc.) .267. Unknown to me; the common Sem-Ham root is /m-/; cf. /rwV/ 'to water'?268. Unknown to me; but the root seems abstracted from Arab / l f ' / , /1ft / .269. Known to me from Arab only.272. Unknown to me, unless indeed /lixlaxunu/ (Bodleian Ms. Heb. d 55 fol. vR4, cf. my Materials vol. I p. ,) be interpreted as i ts R-stem; may be transpositional var. of /xlV/, cf. the closely synonymous Arab /nxl/.273. Cf. 11 above.


14/37

-

6 -ld-275. Cf. 244 above.277. Could be valid.278. /ml' / would be closer semantically (but attested in Sem only; cf. 244 again)279. /mn&/ attested in WSem only.280. Unknown to me.281. Basic meaning of /mn(V)/ 'to divide, apportion'.284. Identical with the indefinite/interrogative pronoun /m-/.287. Conceivably valid; extended root forms /'mn/, /ymn/.289i. /n/ appears more original.290. Basically =284; negative and prohibitive usage originated from the rhetorical one.291. Unknown to me.292. To my knowledge, occurs only as var. to /mr(')/ or /bn/.~ 9 3 . Abstracted from trirad. roots; but /m(w)t/ could be related, as / r / isattested as a var. of / t / .294. Unknown to me; i f derived from /mr(r)/ 'pass by/along, flow', originalmeaning hardly relevant.296. Abstracted from lengthier roots; spread partly as KuZturw6.rteP.298. /m-/ the only firm element in the 'AA.' entry.300. Secondary modification of no. 284 above.301. Phonetics douhtful; even i f corract, not widespread.302. Appears abstracted from trirad. roots of limited occurrence and doubtfulPe levance 304. Known to me from Arab only, perhaps secondarily differentiated from/me (c/V) I 'suck, squeeze out' 306. /md(d)/ means ' to stretch, extend' rather than 'end'.309. Rather limited attestation.310. Ditto.311. Unknown to me.313. /mlV/ refers primarily to preceding evening.316 Unknown to me 318. Onomatopoeic.320. Secondary root (cf. / 'wr/).323. /n-/ may be a secondary root augment, cf. (Hbr etc.) /yc' / .326. Root var. of /nwr/, from more original / 'wr/ (cf.x 320 above).327. The primary meaning is unsteady movement; quickness is better represented in the cognate /nd(d)/, but this is attested in Sem only.332. The nasal is a deictic element rather than pronoun proper; but as dem.pronouns are of deictic origin, the comparison may st i l l be valid.333. /-an/ is originally collective.334. Again, /n-/ is a secondary root augment and the original root /g&/, cf.I gw&/, /yg&/.362. Unknown to me, but may be related to /prs/ 'to split ; cloven hoof'.


15/37

7364. I f based on /prV/ ' to sl i t , cut open', hardly relevant.338. Wandering word.367 Unknown to me

-13

368. Ditto; /plg/ ans ' to splitX, divide'; reference to permanent settlementmust anyway be late 339. Cf. 11 and also 364 above.372. May be valid.374. Primary meaning of /brk/ is fertil ization.375. Primary root form is /bqr/ and meaning 'to spli t ' (referring to hooves).376. /q/ /x/ are not i n t e r c h a n g e a b l ~ nor secondary a ~ n t s (in prehistorictimes) 377. Ditto; and 'door' is a K u Z t ~ o ~ .344. Semantically rather remote.346. Based on /r 'V/ ' to see' .347. /clx/ - - ~ w o u l d be semantically more apposite; but i t is not attested outside WSem.348. /.hr/ refers primarily to the moon.349. Cf. 11 above.350. Unknown to me; /w/ likely to be secondary augment anyway.353. The primary reference is to the large numbers (of offspring, flocks etc.),not to pregnancy or descendants as such, let alone other relatives.

( ~ S fO'IlSJJ..sM T-'r tV\.I

n Tht.s c r r, CA..Q w ,-1_Ra.__f_f f 10 ba b, -/t fy.

- - - - - - - - - - ---- ----- --


16/37

I fwerner Vvcichl , V i t a l i j Shevoroshkin, Stephen Lieberman, Saul Levin, GroverHudson, Carle ton Hodge, Gene Gragg, Gideon Goldenberg, Alice Faber , AaronDolgcpclsky, Abraham Demos, Allan Bernhard, Lionel Bander, Ycel Arbaitman.

Ju ly 23, 198969 High S t r ee tRockport , Mass. 01966No, t h i s i s n et th e beginning of another Ci rcu l a r 1 ! By an emergingagreement amen; soma of us, including a mail pol l of th e Beard of Direc to rs ,we are s t a r t i n g an experiment in so-ca l led *CA Treatment , only a shor tenedand much mere rough and ready vers ion of it. An a r t i c l e or review-in-de ta i li s s en t in by someone and it locks premis ing a& a veh ic le fe r discuss ion and soma shedding of l i g h t en a p a r t i cu l a r topic . Soma people maywant to comment very of ten on th ings wr i t t en for MOTHER TONGUE, while othersmay hardly cooperate with such an endeavour. We sha l l see . However, I shouldpoin t cu t to a l l of you t h a t (a) s ince you a re paying fe r MT, you wil l ge tmere bang fe r your buck i f you coopera te , and (b) s ince it i s YOUR OWNSPECIALITY t h a t i s involved, you wil l want your opinion reg i s t e red en thesubjec t . None of th e Muscovites have been so l i c i t e d on t h i s because it t akes3 0 ~ t"ong fe r tti-e mails to go and come. "But they wi."l-1 -be in th e fu ture .

Will you please read th e a r t i c l e and respond in some way in t ime fo rit to reach me by August 15th? I am holding back MT8 j u s t fo r t h i s purpose .Ideal ly you wil l make a p o in t by poin t c r i t i q u e of th e au thor ' s poin t s . Inmore genera l te rms we wil l a lso publ ish such comments as "All in a l l from aSemit ics s tandpoin t th e a r t i c l e i s cc r r ec t / h a l f - n - h a l f / p o o r / very bad." Atthe end of t h i s *CA Treatment which we wil l s t a r t ca l l ing *MT Treatment i fit ca t ch es on


17/37

-!REI1ARK.S on A. I1URTOUEll' s C O M 1 1 E l ~ S Oit: UOSTR. RECONSTR. o I.;.S ( t rans l :M.Kaiser) Some 98 o/o o MrurtonenJ' s ''comments" are irrelevant: they indicate 11' slack of knowledge in c e r t a ~ fields o l inguist ics and have nothing to dowith I -S 's work. By the way, I consider quite inappropriate an attempt t o ~ -view Semitic material without even s e e i n ~ i t : the trSJmlated entry heads contain AfAs, and not Semitic, roots. 0o ge to Semitic roots and supporting mat e r ia l o at tested S e ~ . languages, 11 should take I-S dictionary (a t least , l s tand 3rd issues are present in any maj1lr l ibrary). 11 considers i t legitimate tojudge I -S 's phonetic comparisons having no knowledge about phonetic correspondences revealed by I-S (Kaiser 's t ranslat ion is not accompanied by phonetictables present in I -S 's 1st volume; i f M would know them he wouldn't cal l ,say,the correspondence Alt.g : AAs q "irregular" (see no.4); - as i t is correctly stated in the table on I-S p. 152, this correspondence is quite regularwhen in clusters with sonorRnts).

~ s l a c k of knowledF,eof non-Semitic AfAs languaF,es clearly shows on thosemany occasions when he sais "Uiikilown to me 11 about AiAs roots reconstructed byI-S: in vast cajori ty of such cases the AAs roots are reconstructed on the mate r ia l of Chadic, Cushitic and/or other non-Se-mitic languages o the AfAs family . St i l l , in some cases some Semitic 1-ges are used, but corresponding wordsare "u.nknown." to 11 (nos 40, 81, 98, 139, 155 and others).H1s profound lack of knowled e in diachronic semantics shows on many occasions; I ci te a ew: s u s a e meanJ.ng o oo might be "abstracted!romsecondary meanings" such as ' to stay' or ' to sp l i t ' . - 8. The meaning'grab, catch' - ! rom 'pure, clear ' . - 31. 'Knee' - ! rom ' fer t i l izat ion ' . -.33. 'Spl i t , cut , ~ o i n t ' - !rom ' to ascend.' . . 61. 'N'earby'-from 'be minute,fine(ground/fiattenedJ' etc . - 63. 'Cover, close, press ' - f rom ' s i lence ' or ' f a inno i se s ' . - 67. ' f i s h ' - !rom 'production of abundant offspring or c rop ' . -84 . 'Bo ld ' - from ' to shave ' . - 138.'Lap, bosom'- !rom 'dense, th ick ' . -139 'Vter'- from. ' to sink (a wel l ) ' . - 140 'Burn offerings, flame' - trom ' ascend' .162.'Daughter ( s i s t e ~ ) - U r - l a w , b r i d e ' - from 'be complete(d) ' . - 173 'Lamb,sheep' - from ' (be/go) round . - 239. 'Tr ibe ' - !rom ' to ca l l , speak' .MwooJ!Dftt:O2a4 and 290: Derivational nominal formant prohibitive and negative partrcle .... 36B. 'Settlement, dwelling' < ' sp l i t , d i

v i d e ' ~ 3 7 4 . 'Ask, pray, bless ' < ' !e r t i l iza t ion ' .375. 'Cattle, bul l ' < ' s p l i t ' . -348. 'Be awake'


18/37

-tREMARKS on M' s COMI1EliTS:P.2M applies a double standard to his own conclusions when compared with I -S 's .M allows humsei! ~ o derive the meaning 'deaf ' t.rom ' c ircular movement' (no 74)and other such monstrosities (see above) but he does not allow I-S (no 28) tocompare AfAs root with the meaning 'be excessive' to Kartv. cognate with the meaning 'be s u ~ f i c i e n t ' (both roots are quite comparable, in a !act) . He wouldn'tallow to combine ' b i t te r ' and ' sour ' in one root (54) despite wide-spread evidence to the contrary (cf. even in Arabic: OoStolbova [Coi9o-Hist. Phonetics anda Diet. of ~ C h a d . L-5es in: Afrik. i s t o r i ~ o az kozn., H 87, p.2o3, no 54o. -WChad. * H V - ~ a m V ' h i t te r ' is re ate o w 1c as to p e _ r e - ~ e c o n s t r u c t e d as aroot with in i t i a l *9]; YChad. 1 - ~ e s show presence of 'b i t ter . sour. a s t r i n ~ e n t ' '

in-. one word Cf. t y p o l o ~ , e. g. ,Sal. :Squamish l s = s a ~ a m ' b i t te r , sour'. -on Occa51ons, Mderives nouns rrom adjectives (c!. 219: ~ o n e ' < 'hard' Lapparently , the other way around]) but he wouldlnt allow I-S to reconstruct a root withthe meaning 'high' (9) since "adjectival meanings are secondary"; cf. also hisremark about 244 ( ' shor t ' ) . In real i ty , there are adjectives ( 'dead ' ; ' short //small ' ; 'widejbroad'; 'high' and some o t h e r s ) ~ c l i belong to the most stable,most archaic, basic lexica. I-S 's reconstructions are very good- now supported.by additional Nostr. data, as well as by external comparisons with non-Ns 1-ges.On very many occasions M formulates captious objections, - showing, in fact ,his o ~ ~ lack of understanding of the ways o! i i n ~ i s t i c evolution. He does notsee that words !o r body parts are exceedingly s t ~ l e and archaic; so he objectsto I -S 's reconstruction o ~ AfAs words !o r 'kDee' (see above), or ' foot ' (etc . ;he derives this root !rom 'bend': 222); same about such basic words as 'deaf ' ,' look' , 'know', 'nape o f neck', 'greasy/smear ' , 'wash', ' end ' , etc. (In a l l thesecases I-S demonstrates solid evidence of Selll. and/or non-Sem. A!As languages, tosay nothing of non ~ A s Nostr. languages. New. data c o ~ i b m I-S 's reconstructionsalso I-S 24 - and ~ A s Diet . , issue 1, no 117; I-S 50 - confirmed in a r e cent p a ~ e r by Oreland Stolbova on Cush., Chad. and Eg.; I-S 63 - and AfAs Diet.:no 154 Lthe exact meaning: 'smear, cover with smth. s t icky ' ] ; I-S ? 3 - and I l l sDiet. 2, no l431 [the root was not jus t *dm but * d ~ Kartv. * d ~ 'be silentT]~ 7 6 - and A!As Diet. 2, no 176; I-S 136- and Dolg.'s reconstr. A ~ A s ? i t ' ea t ' ; I-S 146- and OreljStolbova's data [the root i s *jan- ' t e l l ' , not just .*jn, -which i s a welcome confirmation of I-S 's Nostr. reconstr. : now *janV],etc,Where M sais that the A ~ A s root ~ k ~ ~ h o w s just one consonant,it usually shows two(cf . 129, 144, 267, ?5 ~ ~ d others; moreover, recent reconstructions o ~ AfAs vowels give further c o n ~ i r m a t i o n to I-S 's etymologies; c!. above).M i s certainly wron when he ob ects to "onomato oeic words". Originally ''descriptive' words (an t ere are more sue wor s an we usua y think) became normal (and stable) words in amwhi ancient languages: they are not descriptivea t a l l in languages we use !o r reconstructions. They follow phonetic rules inthe way a l l other words follow.I-S did not include in his diet . regular onom.womM i s wron ob ect i to "Kulturworter": Roots used by I-S follow regular pho-netic ru es see a ove an us o no behave as b o r r o w i n ~ s ; t h ~ are no Kultur-worter (on some occasions these - and other - words show 1nterp le t ic geneticrelationships). I-S was very apt to distinguisb between borrowings and words inherited !rom a proto-proto-language: see his paper on Semitic borrowings in IE( in Probl. IE jazykozn., M. 1964). Thanks to him i t became possible to aeparatecultural borrowings in Proto-IE from inherited words ( this also lead him to theidea rnot new in i t se l f ] that IE homeland was in Anatolia: not far from S e m i t e s ~ .~ I - ~ 19.2. " " " ~ a d A ( : ~ A . 6 . J V ) ~ t . i f ~ { N J I - S ' s c P 1 1 1 1 W ~ ) . - . Nothing in M's comments make them interesting and useful; to me, i t is one mo-re attempt to discredit I-S; none of previous attempts succeeded. All this inspite of the fact that I-S wrote his work a quarter century ago; so i t , obviously , requires some corrections. Such corrections are being made by scholars whoknow well both Nostratic and i t s daughter languages. Yhat is more interest ingis the !ac t ~ h a t the recent progress in deep reconstructions brouhgt not onlyconfirmation to I -S 's results but also added elements which were not known atI-S 's time b u ~ hadbeen predicted by him. - - - What is needed now is an Englisht ranslat ion o ~ the whOle nostr. dictionary. Publishers are ready to publish i t ,but they are not paying for translation ( s t i l l , 67 entries . .. have been recently translated by our able student John l1asteika). - - - As for a "test" I-Sdoes not need any: he past his t es t many years ago with !lying colors. H i ~ w o r k ~praised by Collinder, I1enges, Poppe, Gar4e, Birnbaum et al . - and that ' s in t ~


19/37

REMARKS on M' a OOM!'IENTS: p. 3 ,_I:Some "detailed remarks" on M i'ollow [.lbbreviaticns:\Diakonofi'' s (ed-.1) Com-arative-historical dlctionar Ai'ras1an ian ages , ls t issue of whiChappeare J. n , r - 1n , cite . as_ Dkl, Dk2and Dk3 accordingli;

' Detailed remarks: 3. Dkl p.62 sq. (no ?8) con.!'irms I - S ~ . s r ( ~ c o n s t r . fully(Dk reconstructs the primary root as *bVk 'ob"serve'"extended"root : b ~ j / w f ? j present in A.ram., Arab., Cush:, Egypt.; aiso .extentions * b ~ - ~ ' .b ~ - r / 1 \..!'ormer in Ugar.,Hebr.,.Fben.;latter in Akk.,Hbr,Aram.(Syr.) etc.).tI-S had_, essentially, si.milar data. Note that M cites wr.ol_YLrOC?ts ( s . a b o v ~12.The Ai'As root i s *bat (Sem.,Cush.,Berb.): Dkl pp. 58-9, no 72.13 and 20. I-S has shown, on several o c c ~ s i o n s , that a language tends to "combinetwo, originally di.!'ferent, roots, provided they are similar both insound and meanins. Only external comparison can separate such roots.AfAs*bjl ( i .e . ,*bil-) . is present in Eg., Cush., O h ~ d . ; the meaning 'cloud' is.present in Oush. and Chad. and i ' i ts Ural. pilwe, Alt .*buli- 'cloud'. I-Sstresses here (entry 13) that a secondary meaning ' ra in, water' seems tohave developed "under the in.!'luence" o.!' AfAs *b(w)l ' to moisten/damp'(no 20)16.A.!'As (sic) ?bl is present not only-in Sem., but also in Oush. and Chad.20. -See 13 . - }qote that Ai'As *b(w)l is present both in Sem. and in Berber.22 .and 23. I-S indicated ( las t lines of entry 22) that ' 22 and 23 are related.24."I-S put.s. "? A.!'As [his "S-H"] br- ' to boil ' ' ' . The correctness of this recon-s t r u c t ~ o n and comparison with ural . *pura-, Dravid. *PUI:- and IE *ohreu(a l l roots with -u-) i s con.!'irmed b ~ Diakonof.!''s g r o u p : ~ e e Dkl p.95 (nol l?) where a root variant with-u- (sic) i s present: At'As *bwr ' to boi l ' .28.Data o.!' diachronic semantics ('based on observations ot ' very many dit'.f'erentlanguages) con!irm correctness o.!' I-S comparison. On the other hand, J"'lur-tonerls uni.!'ications o.!' phonetically identical (or similar) roots aDsolutely unaccept"'ble (see General remarksJ. .:SO.A.!'As *bnt' i. s not present i i i Sem.; i'e' s present in Eg . and Chad.31Jfead.-wrongf Words ioroody parts are mostarchaic and s t a b l ~ ! Of-. =n-=-k=-1 p.B?.-'32.Sem. has both r and n; the !'act that r (and not n) is th e primary sound inour r o ~ t is confirmed by external comparisons (IE *bher- ' child ' ,Krtv "ber-).33.How can a meaning like "spli t , ... : : t l ~ " _ o r i ~ i n a t e i'ro!U "to ascend" ???! _-: Dols:Nstr n(V)XU > Sem. SlX ~ u t a s ~ d e r ! X ~ ) , X r t Y ' ! s / s X a l - , U r ( iU) *sal[ii)36.I-S sais that the comparison is possible only i f Sem. - t i s a sut'fix.- Sem .'' . s is reconstructed not only by I-S but also by Diakono.!'f e t a l. cf. , e. g. ,. table i.11-At'rik. is tor . jaz:rkozn. ,H. 198?, p-. ~ 4 / 2 5 . - Dolgopolsk;r coni'irms. I-S 's s t - r ( - r s u . ! ' ~ . J but considers i ~ as a variant o.!' Sem. t t - r < Ai'As(asshown by SOush. 1 a ( ) ~ retrofl . ] 'cover up', Eg. t? ' to hide'):

see Proceedin s. 4th Internat. Ham-Sem. Con ess, Benjamins, 196?, p. 203. 3? . I-S s recons r . seems correct t oug er er root is dit'.!'erent). _38._Chadic data (unknown to 11) con.!'irm I-S 's .recoJ?,str.and comparison with Krtv.40. Berber data confirm semantic reconstr . ( 'herd o.!' wild [sic] animals ') . I-5c.ites Sem.: c ~ l l < X J . u i a . l _ Arab . i / u w 4 r ' . h . ~ ; : d ... wild oxen and. _cows'. ,4 2 . D . c l ~ . : Sem. s?n knowr,tnj ' see ' (Krt ! ~ ~ , l r r " : " T i ; s u ] J V ) ( + E g . swn;as.d.n1].44.Not only in Sem, but also in Chad.i:c! In any case, I-S puts a "?".50.The root is confirmed in recent papers by Oreland Stolbova on Cush.,Chad.and Eg.-. Where Arab. !,-Aram.t,Hebr. ! ,e tc ,are present,Diakonot'f gives= 5l.See 50.- Modern research allows 'tt9 reconstruct two Nostr. roots on I-S data59. The primacy of' locative meaning is 'confirmed by Cushftfc (Biiin-,Saho - ~60.I-S discusses Berber, Cushitic and Chadic. . c ,6l.I-8 does not discuss Semitic words h e ~ e ! (Only Cush. and Chad.; very ar62.I-S does not say that At'As *dlx refers to waves or sea (SeJLcagitatejrippl~ ~ ~ P r i m a c y of Sem. ~ is cont'irmed by both ~ e r b . and Cush. Both Semitic aDdkt.tt$: IE show an archaic meaning ~ o v e r . with) dung" (Zzlgl. 'fg is related). I wo,::f:'- der how 'cover, close, press' can be "abstracted" (I"l . .rom a "basic meac . . - ning" 'sile_nce ot' faint noises, w1 th subdued activity ' ... Sc.e. Js. 7J (-. ~ ; / ( e , . , J r_J}.;r wonder how. Sem. *d(j)g ( i .e . , *dig-) '.!'ish' [ rt'ish',in IE ancl.Alt. J canbe "derived." .!'rom the root "production of abundant ot'.tspring or crop"(M)?~ ~ ' ~ ~ identit 'ies Sem. *dm- 'cover' with *dm- (


20/37

- IREI1ARKS on J"itJRTONEU, page lt

74.How can a meaning 'dea.f'' be derived .from ' c i rcular movement' ??! - A.f'As *dwr !dur-] and secondary *dr- ' is present in Berb.,Cush.,Chad. (A.f'As *dur- Krtv.dur- 'deaf ' ) . The meaning 'dea.f'' i s present in a l l three absve branches.75.Recent research con.f'irms I-S 's reconstruction. I t s e e ~ q , A!As root was, actual ly, *wdq/*wdj (< * d j ~ \ ' i . c!.IE dheiHW (H\v being a rea l labiovelar, re! lected ei ther as "length" or LW]), Krtv dw-, a l l meaningtpUt' ( < l ~ s t r "diqu).The A!As root was present in Sem. (*wdq/*dq),Eg. (wdj) and Chad.(*d[u]H-).76.Yrong; the root is also ~ r e s e n t in Cush. (Oromo du(?J 'd ie ') ,Berb. ,Chad.! InDk2 no 176 i t is reconstructed as A...f'As *dVhf (because o! 1 in some daughterlanguages; note independent reconstr . o! Dolg.: nostr. root with *-H-;*H i n ~[ I t i s clear that Sem. *dwj/*dw? IE *dhweiH-; the root should be *dilwr?']8l.Quite wrong. A!As root is present in Sem. and (mostly) in Cush.; the m ~ a n i n g sin different 1-ges are: 'back o! the head', 'back (adj . ) ' , ' anus ' , ' (be)hind ' .82.The pr1mary meaning in Sem. i s connected with intense l ight (not heat); butc!. other A!As 1-ges: CentrCush. ( 'day ' ) , Chad. ( ' sky ' , 'day ' ) , e tc . - Cf. 95.84.The p r ~ m a r y meaning in Sem. i s not 'shave' but 'be bold ' , 'bold (spot) ' . Thesemantic change !rom (Nstr) 'smooth/shiny' to 'bold' is tota l ly normal.87.A!As *gwP is based on Sem. *gwp (sic) and related roots in ECush. and Chad.88.The A!As root *g(w)C:r i s "unknown" to 11 because i t is not present in Semitic.But it i s present in other AIILs 1-ges: Cush. (Saho gar e t c ) , C h a d . , E g . ~ ~ ~90.The root is "unknown" to 11 because it is present in Cush and Chad.- As for :Sem. /gUr/ mentioned by M, i t might belong to Nstr *gUjRa (93) 'wild animal' .95.Roots 82 (Nstr *gEfhr/a 'dawn') and 95 (gurv ' l iving coals ' ) are, most certa inly , di!.f'erent: 82 has -w- in A!As, and the meaning i s not connectedwith heat (c.f'. also IE *gherH- 'dawn', Alt. ~ a i d . ) , whereas 95 ha s -w - inA!As (Chad. ~ ; similar in Cush.), and the meanings of related words are' burn ' , ' roas t ' , ' ca tch . t ire ' (Cush.), ' s e t ! i r e ~ ' c o a l s ' , ' a s h e s ' etc. (Chad.);c.f'. IE *gWber- ' l iving coals ' , 'burn,hot ' ;Alt gurv- ' l iv . coals;catch f i re ' .

1 . : ' ~ l i e n e e in At.As: ~ h r 'daylight , day' (82), but g(w)r ' . t i re, coals ' (95). 98.Sem . *lwr i s , most certainly, 'deep water' (c! . , in attested Sem. languages:'depth' , ' submerge' , 'be absorbed' in Arab.; 'subsoi l water' in Ug.; ' lake':SArablOO.Notaso. The in i t i a l h- (


21/37


22/37

-d-Oearliest, and not AA. Forms containing '''d- (e.g., "'clS: 'stone') would, if they werereconstructible beyond Central and South Semitic, provide more appropriate comparisons, were it not for the fact that, as M notes, Semitic "'c represents an innovatedphoneme, and not one inherited from AA.

#36 'hide'. I have no opinion regarding M's suggestion that Semitic "'ctr is a secondaryformation from ..cwr. Regardless, ,.ctr is West Semitic, at the earliest, and hence shouldnot be compared with other Afroasiatic forms, let alone at further remove. In any case, asnoted above "'c is not an AA phoneme.

#50 'pus, slush'. Like M, I am not familiar with any forms of "'8r(y) meaning anything otherthan 'moist, damp'. However, I disagree with M's contention that "'8 is not PS; about 20%of the reconstructed lexical items with "'8 in my corpus have relatively solid potentialcognates in other Afroasiatic language groups. I will admit, however, some uncertaintyregarding the nature of the ancestor phoneme.#51 'smell, odor'. While "'8yn is solidly reconstructible for PS, and perhaps, on the basis of

Cushitic cognates, attributable to P AA, the forms unambiguously mean 'urine, urinate'.Hence the comparison with Uralic is far-fetched on semantic grounds. G. lists N-5 sad'urine' (#143).#56 'look after, guard'. I know of no forms reflecting ,.er- with an appropriate meaning. Thereis, almost certainly, no such PS form.#121 deictic particle. I agree with M that some forms with ?a are secondary to ha , itselfsecondary to !.#127 'fire'. I don't find M's suggestion that ll?s(t) is onomatopoetic in origin plausible. Giventhe clear PS forms, and Bender's attribution of ,.at 'burn' to Proto-Omotic, the item is

conceivably PAA. But, given the tenuousness of the Altaic form given, based as it is on asingle language, cultural transmission between Semitic and IE cannot be discounted.#128 negative. The Semitic negative "'11 has no AA cognates (with the exception of Agawforms which are to be treated as loans), and is probably to be connected with theasseverative "'la (on which, see Huehnergard, JAOS 103: 569-593, 1983). Likewise, theprohibitive "?al is no older than WS. Hence, neither can be compared here (paceM).#129 negative. The most appropriate PS reconstruction for this item is "?ay. Elsewhere in AA,

this negative is, to my knowledge, restricted to Burji (Cushitic); thus, it is not likely torepresent an original negative.#132 'be at a place'. As M notes, verbal forms of this root in Semitic are secondary. However,this is not, in and of itself, a barrier to longer-range comparison.#142. WH. Semitic, Cushitic, Berber, and Omotic unambiguously reflect "?ay. I know of noforms reflecting "'ya. Thus, AA forms should not be, as M notes, compared with the otherforms given by 1-S.

-- - ~ - - - ---------


23/37

-J-(#196. 'cut'. There is no PS form reflecting meaning 'cut'. In any case, as already noted, PS *c

was not inherited from AA.#219 'bone'. Rather than deriving 'bone' from 'hard', as M very tentatively suggests, thereverse is more likely. 'bone ' is attested in Egyptian, Cushitic, and Chadic, while 'hard' isfound only in Egyptian, Central Semitic and Harsusi (Modem South Arabian).#232 'who'. k as an element in AA interrogatives is widespread, but is, to my knowledge,

found only in stems meaning 'when, why, where, how?'. I know of no forms reflecting

#257 locative. If Semitic *1 and "?il(ay) are, as M suggests, are to be related, it seems to meequally likely that the latter is secondary, derived from the former by compounding withthe preposition "?in(na), attested as an independent form in Akkadian (?) and Eblaite andin compounds in ESA (mn, bn, !n, all meaning 'from') and, perhaps, in Central Semitic. Astronger barrier to the comparison, however, derives from the fact that all of the AAforms with which I am familiar reflect either a dative or a directional meaning, while allof the other candidate Nostratic forms given by I-S appear to be pure locatives.

#273 'tongue'. I know of no forms reflecting "'ls within AA meaning 'lick,' other than someEthiopian Semitic forms resulting from elision of a medial laryngeal, although this gapdoes no t constitute a barrier to wider-range comparison. I see no basis for treating thisitem as onomatopoetic. G. lists N-S lit 'tongue' (#140).#290 negative/#300 WH. Prohibitive reflexes of AA "'ma are found in Egyptian and Cushitic,

and more general negative reflexes in Semitic (relics), Cushitic, and Omotic. "'ma may alsoreconstructible as the AA WH element, but I know of no relevant Omotic forms. There isthus no basis for M's assertion that the negative is secondary to the interrogative,although the assertion may, of course, be correct If anything, though, the negative is olderthan the interrogative. It should also be noted that "'m negatives are found in languagefamilies which, I believe, have no t been connected with Nostratic (e.g., Nile-Saharan).

#362 'nail'. AA *pr more likely meant 'wing' or 'fly'. G. lists N-S fat 'wing' (#156).#374 'ask'. AA (most likely just PS) *brk is probably related to the 'knee' family. I don't

understand M' s relating i t to 'fertilization'.#347 'be favorable'. AA *sl- presumably refers to PS *slm 'healthy' and WS *slm 'peace' and*slw 'be calm'. WS forms reflecting "'clx 'forgive', alluded to by M, may be comparable

with Akkadian forms meaning 'sprinkle', borrowed, according to Ueberman (1974, #648)from Sumerian.#348 'be awake'. AA forms reflecting *shr meaning 'be awake' are of extremely limited

distribution in Central Semitic (Arabic, Modern South Arabian, and Jewish [i.e., late]Aramaic). A more appropriate AA comparison might be PS *sl).r 'dawn', although WS*ihr ~ n e w moon' /PCushitic *ieeh 'moon' is also possible.


24/37

1

.!remarks on tbe .!recent Circulars Jrom A! rk i i l iser /Jild A. A1urtonenKaiser and Murtonen have both done a worthy service to linguistics, oneby presenting more than 350 Nostratic etymologies of Illich-Svitych, withthe Russian glosses translated into English, and the other by evaluatingvirtually all of the etymologies that involve Afro-Asiatic. Their treatment ofthe individual etymologies is brief but surely useful.Murtonen's frequent comment 'l.u/turwort" calls for some clarification.Lurking behind it, I suspect, is the notion shared implicitly, if not explicitly,

by many linguists that the vocabulary to be identified in a remote protolanguage must have consisted of such basic items as no human populationcould fail to express by some word or other --e.g. external parts of the bodyand some simple motions. Such words would be least liable to get dislodgedfrom the vocabulary by subsequent bilingual contacts, while on the otherhand any word serving to express some higher development of culturewould easily diffuse ihrough trade or the immigration of individuals -- i.e.through bilingual contact. This model is plausible, except insofar as it leadsto the absurd conclusion that a proto-language community had no culture.nothing to differentiate it from the rest of mankind. That becomes a selfdefeating hypothesis, weakening our motive to do linguistic research, sinceour curiosity to trace languages as far back as possible springs in large partfrom a hope that we shall thereby discover things about the life of ourremote predecessors at various stages, things that we either share with themor do not share -- including the intangibles that are inaccessible toarchaeology. Take that away from linguistics, and you are left with the barebones (so to speak) of languages. Without involvement in a culture, materialand immaterial, they are much less interesting.My most serious reservation, however, concerns what both Kaiser andMurtonen have symbolized, negatively, by omitting asterisks. Any readerwho stops to think will, presumably, take everytbing cited by Kaiser orMurtonen to be a reconstruction, not a form on record in any actually knownlanguage. So, for economy, they have excusably dispensed with thousands ofasterisks. But is it quite true? Are the Kart[velian) words (whether whole orpartial) mere reconstructions, or are they quotable from texts (transliteratedfrom the Kartvelian or Georgian alphabet) and from oral recordings? Beingignorant of the languages of the Caucasus, I am puzzled as to this importantpoint, but am led on to a more general reflection: We must not confuse the

data with any and all interpretations built upon the data. Everyreconstruction has standing only as an interpretation.!

lSee my article, "The Romance and Indo-European Models of Comparative Linguistics,"TlJe T.IJirteentilLACOSForum/986, pp. 549-557.

-Jd-


25/37

2

What 1s conspicuously lacking, and would need much more space thanKaiser's twenty-three pages and Murtonen's seven, is the data -- i.e. thewords known to exist in certain documented languages -- on which thereconstructed Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Altaic, Dravidian, and otherproto-language forms are based. Those data are indispensable if each of usis to arrive at an informed opinion about the trustworthiness of thereconstructions that lllich-Svitych used for his subsequent reconstruction ofNostratic. Some researchers -- e.g. lndo-Europeanists -- might be willing toaccept the Indo-European reconstructions as well established, but not theAfro-Asiatic, either because they themselves are ignorant of non-IndoEuropean languages or because they know enough about Afro-Asiatic studiesto be suspicious of all or most Afro-Asiatic reconstructions. Anyhow,reconstructed forms have no validity except by reference to actualforms: so any discussion is simply up in the air i f it is limited toreconstructed forms and their attached meanings, which -- for all that weare told -- may also be merely reconstructed.

Well informed opinions. furthermore, will often disagree methodicallyabout how a particular reconstruction should be formulated. What IllichSvitych gives as "IE. gl!eihl!-/ gl!iehl!- 'be healthy, live'" (# 168 ), is *k'0Iq-according to Gamkrelizde and Ivanov.2 It might be argued that for thesecondary reconstruction of the remote Nostratic either formulation isusable, or whichever happens to be more compatible with the non- IndoEuropean languages. Here Illich-Svitych gives "Ural. koja 'fat, fatty"'.A danger which my experience warns me of in the method of IllichSvitych and other Nostraticists (including my friend Allan Bombard) is thatby relying mainly on what they judge to be Indo-European proto-forms,

Afro-Asiatic proto-forms, etc., they overlook the most revealingcorrespondences which show up between particular languages, verydistantly related on the whole. E.g. the Old English feminine noun [?] eortJan'earth' (accusative/genitive/dative)3 most closely matches the Arabic/ / .feminine 1-6.) I (?arqan} (accusative): but its diphthong eo (surely

accented, though the accent was never written) recalls rather the alternating(f/:)} in Hebrew f j ~ (?erec}, f j ~ (?:Srec).

I think it is premature to speculate whether such fine, precise2HH.QoeaponeRcaotA A3biK .....H.QoeaponeAllbl (Tbilisi. 198-t). II , 46).3The initial consonant. though unritten. Yas formerly pronounced as it still is inGerman l'llnle. The alliterative versification of Old English. like other early Ger.maaiclanguages, implies that in such verses as se slDihtiga eor6an w o r ~ t e ] 'the Almightywrought earth' (!JeoJYulf 92) a consonant sound began. the two alliterating words thatare written with different initial vowels; see "The Glot.ta.l Stop in the GermanicLanguages and Its Indo-European Source," G e D e r J / l i D K U i s t . i t : . ) ~ 2-t (1984), 233-235.


26/37

3

resemblances can be traced back to a proto-Nostratic source. But in any casethey are too substantial to be sacrificed or shunted aside until someonefigures out an Indo-European proto-form for(?] eornao and an Afro-Asiaticproto-form for the Arabic and Hebrew words. For these words, and quite afew others documented in a number of Indo-European and Semiticlanguages, have more to them than even the best of Illicb-Svitych'sreconstructions.One of the best of his is #S, to which I would add the closest actual

correspondence, Aramaic p j ~ (baraq) : Sanskrit m (bhrat) 'heflashed, made lightning; it gleamed' (present m ~ { b h r ~ j a t e ) 'he/itgleams, flashes'). The attestation of this Aramaic verb-form. however, issomewhat uncertain -- perhaps only in later Syriac -- while this tense of theISanskrit verb is rare altogether but attested in 3T lll' ( a b h r a ~ ) with theprefix {a-) expressing past time and regularly optional in early Sanskritpoetry. The fullest morphological correspondence, although semanticallyvague or detached, isLatin l'ulgus 'flash of lightning' Hebrew r i P - " 1 ~ (b:>rqat) 'emerald'(a rare, probably archaicequivalent of l'ulgur) Saul LevinState University of New York at Binghamton ( 13901)

-------- ----


27/37

Dear Hal,

3291 s. S 9 r i r ~ Branch Rd.Bloomington, nr 47h01July 30, 1989Proper reaction to (:nore aucropriate than response to) Murtonen' scomments on Tilic-SvityC would take- a book. I confine my remarks to a

few samples of what needs to be said, preceded by some prefatory- comments.Preface. My work on proto Lislakh bases has been going on fa r sane

years, and about seventy bases mve been presented in material publishedto date. 1ihile many of these have been discussed in IE terms, they are LLbases and are i:D be found or expected elsewhere in the phylum. Many moreare given in ar t ic les in press; others are in an advanced state of readiness, while hundred of raw base f i les await analysis. Any discussion byme of AAs (Lis-ramie) or LL wil l be done in terms of such bases whereverI have found them to be reconstructable. As the presentation of a singlebase can be 1 to 40 pages, i t i s clear that priority (for me) JI!USt be givento the 'PUblication of them as LL units and not just as part of one 1 s cri i -cism of- IS or anyone else. LL as a ph;ylum has been given sunport by astuqy I made arJi presented to the African Linguistic Conference (U of I,1989). For th i r t y Omotic sets (most with reconstructions) from Benderwe have the following number a cases where cognates can be cited:Omotic30 Egyptian Semit ic26 22 Berber14 Chadic29 Cushitic2) Indo-Eu.rore an28 -Due to the unevenness of the data, one cannot draw s ta t i s t ica l conclusionsas to the relative claseness of the branches, but the IE showing, by any

c ~ u n t , i s impressive.The LL bases must be understood in terms of consonant ablaut, so thata base l ike - ~ H l b - 1 may have forms such as -

LL baseHb-1**b-lH*"l'cb-Nl

Like:cy- reflexesb-1 IE w-1b-r , w-rb-n, w-n

Base**bH-1MbE-lH**bH-Nl

Reflexesb?-l , bh-1b?-r, bh-rb?-n, bh-n

Base- l : ~ N b - 1**Nb-lH-r.Nb-Nl

Reflexesm(b)-1m(b)-rm(b)-nNote the ablaut se t 1 - lH - Nl , usually" represented by 1 - r - n. ~ ; a t ealso that a l l glottalizedJ emphatic/ aspirated consonants are secondary,as are many nasals. These nine variants are usually treated as separateroots, which results in confusion. Needless to say, there are a greatman;r questions raised by the bases deduced and the ablauts thereof. Onedoes not yet know of any connection between *"..-k-p 'hand, seize ' , !:-'-*ic-b'sole (of foot), foot, **g-b ' s ide, hand, or others where there i s bothsemantic and phonetic similarity but no known derivational track betweensuch similar but divergent forms. Despite the problems, I consider consonant ablaut to o!fer the best a:9Proach at present and do(not accept as usefu l comparisons in IS where b and p are asummed to correspond between AAsan d IE . (Beyond U. I ha've no opinion.) CoruDnant ablaut helps in sortingout such items as **h--1 ' carry' , with, inter-al ia, derivatives Aram. bar(**b-lH), Heb. ben (**b-Nl), Akk. ma: ru ( **Nb-lH, w.i.th unexplained longvowel.), a l l 'son 1


28/37

Hodge 2 -d-

Many of IS's roots are not (yet?) re:9resented in rrry base f i le , butthose tha t are show that work on them must be brought to publi::hable formbefore an overall assessment of IS may be made. As things sta.m, I thinktha t an entirely new set of Nostratic CO!!lparioons needs to be compiled (Ithink Bombard would agree), using the consonant ablaut approach (o f llhichI believe I art the only practit ioner, though otr.ers may use the term).The IS material could 'be fed into th is , but fresh data wou2.d be preferable.To me, IS is history.Cormnents on lfurtonen's co!II!!lents. 6. 1tv' derivation is -**b-w (negative)plus *"J-1-C 'eye, see ' . a. **b-1 'carry ' has widespread reflexes, e.g . ,

- ~ H l - b - 1 Eg. n-b-3 'carrying-pole' , Ak.k. waba:lu ' carry' , **b-lH Ch. bare'g ive ' , ~ ~ H - 1 Eg. f-3-? ' l i f t ' , ~ ~ H - l H IE - ~ h e r - 1ca!T'J'. 9. Probablyfrom ~ ~ - b - 1 1to swell, be(come) high', with affix. 10 . The H referenceshould, I think, be to a, 'Which is correct. 12. AAs b does not corresoondto IE p. 1.3. There is a base ~ ' 1 - l i b - 1 ' l iquid, wet ' , but M's semantics deserve consideration. 16. I think of swelling = growing. 18 . Probably'bronn 1 from 1burning 1 ( **b-1 ' to burn' ) [There is considerable horn.oconsonantism a.mong LL bases. J 19. See 16, with '?.cb-1 - ~ b - y . H an affix.20. Same base as 13, as per M. 21. Probably same base **b-1 1to damage',as in 1. There is an **1-b ' to pierce' (discussion in press). 22, 23 N.C.24. **b-1 ' to burn', as in 18. Disagree with M. 25. (no M) Probably - ~ ~ : - b - k1to bend . ~ k yields b o ~ and ~ g h . 2a . H-b-g 'b ig ' , as in 17(where the IE is from **bH-NkH). 29. **b-1 15\vell' again (Han affix).30. ~ ~ ' to bind' . **NdH yields IE ~ n d h - . 31. Probably *'*b-w ' foot,place plus -alH-k (fran :!-*1-k ' to go') . 32. Base **b-1 'carry' as in 8(see Preface). The l is primary, contra M. 33. IS mixes - ~ A - k - 1 'cut ' and*'-*S-1 ' cu t ' , which must at this point be kept separate. mule the existenceof **S has been doubted (e . g ., by BOhm), I continue to use i t , a t least adinterim 42. S-n ' to know' is from (facti t ive) ~ l - * S plus -al-C 'eye, see ' ,i . e . , **S-Nl-c. 60. M is right l'Bre. Ease -1Hld-(l) 'hand'.

One could go a l l the way through this way, but I would rather see asizable and viable set of LL bases vrhich are available for comparison anduse. I'm working on i t . Yours// ; q - - - ~ ~ & ~Carleton T. Hodge


29/37

DEBATING THE ISSUESMEMBERS RESPOND TO EDITORIAL ON RECONSTRUCTION.

The f i r s t of what should prove to be many l e t t e r s was from IgorDiakonoff . There could hardly be a more exper ienced or a u t h o r i t a t i v e voicera i sed in t h i s mat te r . We a re honored by one of our founding f a th e r s who i sprobably soon to announce publ i ca t ion of a book or monograph on proto-AA.After h is l e t t e r , which he sa id I could have t he p leasure of typ ing , theothers wil l be presented without comment -- e ~ c e p t one. Paul Benedict has asuggest ion fo r co l l abora t ion between/among eMperts on Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dene,and/or North Caucasic to work t oge the r on t e s t ing th e Dene-Caucasichypothes is . We herewith i nv i t e Nikolaev, S t a r o s t i n , Pe j r o s , Pul leyblank andothers to con tac t Benedic t o r myself to e ~ p l o r a p o s s ib i l i t i e s .Oiakonoff ' s l e t t e r :

" And now to my answers to your EDITORIAL ESSAY in MT5 which Igra te fu l ly received yes terday C7 J u n e - HFJ ( the postage mark was 6/4 /89!>.Quest ion 1-2. I do no t th ink t h e re a re na t iona l d i f fe ren ces between

the d i f f e r e n t h i s to r i ca l l i ngu i s t s but t h e re does e x i s t a di f fe rence betweenpeople who use a bad t e c h n i ~ u e and othe rs who use a b e t t e r t e c h n i ~ u e .Quest ion 3 . Insuf f i c i en t t r a in ing in IE methods i s obvious in someof th e work being done.Question 4. Dif fe rences among Indo-Europeanis t s . I th ink they a reunimpor tant . We can anyway no t recons t ruc t the ac tua l phone t ic s of piEwhich, moreover, was not A LANGUAGE, but a d i a l e c t c l ~ 1 s t e r -- and thed i f f e r e n t so lu t i o n s a re a mat ter of descr ip t ion . I a l so th ink t h a t theproblem of IE laryngeal& can and wil l be solved when we ge t down toNost ra t i c roo ts .Question 5. 'How many matchings


30/37

-28C ~ r o t o - S e m i t i c - HFJ and a word from Iraqw and c a l l it PC C ~ r o t o - C u s h i t l c -HFJ and take them both and ca l l them ~ A A . But i f your Arabic gloss i s

s u ~ ~ o r t e d by other Semit ic languages and the PS word i s cor robora ted insevera l fami l ies of the AA ~ h y l u m , you can use the s o l i t a ry word from Iraqw,al though it may no t be as convinc ing as you wish.Quest ion 7a. Only q u i t e obviously o n o m a t o ~ o e i c words can be k e ~ t outof the c o m ~ a r i s o n s . I t i s q u i t e ~ r o b a b l e t h a t many ro o t s wi l l ~ r o v e to havebean onomatopoeic in d e e ~ an t iq u i ty -- Gazor-Ginzberg even t h inks t h a t a l lwords ware o r i g i n a l l y o n o m a t o ~ o e i c -- bu t once they a re p a r t of thevocabulary , they a re sub jec t to the common laws of phonet ic change. A smallnumber of onomatopoeic words a re cons tan t ly renewed from c h i l d r e n ' s speech.This answers a l so the ques t ion 7b. CCan't r e a d - HFJ / t s ' u b - / should not beregarded a s onomatopoeic .Question 8: A conclus ion of the type 'CaJ in language X cor respondsto CaJ in language Y, so the phoneme was CaJ in the pro to language i s , ini t s e l f , a NON SEQUITUR, because a phoneme in language X may correspond tosevera l ~ h o n e m e s in th e pro to languaga . Onemust be esp ec i a l l y ca re fu l with vowels, because we do not know A PRIORI whatkind of i n f luences may have been produc t ive in th e h i s to ry of languages(apophony, s t r e s s , secondary noun-format ive models, t ones , etc .> Yourques t ion about t i l - J and t i r - J ' eye ' in Chadic e tc . cannot be answeredwithout sys temat ic i n v es t ig a t io n .Question 9 dea l s with compar isons of two l anguages only ; under suchcondi t ions it cannot be answered, cf ques t ion e.Question 10: Semant ic improb i l i ty . One should ce r t a i n l y keep thesemant ica l ly improbable 'matches up ' ** out of ourl i ngu i s t i c r easonings . The gr e a t ques t ion , of cour se , What i s semant ica l lyprobable and what i s not . I have s tud ied pr i m i t i ve th ink ing not only on thebase of l i n g u i s t i c da t a , but a l so on the base of mythology. The fol lowingcan be regarded as a provis iona l ru le-of- thumb:

A> Pr imi t ive th ink ing lacks ab s t rac t io n s . I f you ge t an a b s t r a c tnot ion as th e supposed meaning of th e word in th e pro to language, you have~ r o b a b l y made a wrong conclLlsion. Do not look in the proto!anguage fo r wordswith such semant ics as (a round o b j ec t ) , {beauty) , . , ( lns t . rument l ,e tc .

S) Pr imi t ive th ink ing i s metaphor ic or metonymic.C> F'unct ionl semant ic connect1ons a re fa r more impor tan t than

connect ions by s imi l a r i ty . You cannot connect a word fo r 'palm' in onelanguage with ' cabbage ' in another and ' on ion ' in a th i rd on the ground t h ~ ta l l t h ree a re green and a l l t h ree a re p lan t s . But i f you f ind t h a t the samegloss means ' da t e ' in one language and ' f i g ' in another , yo u can comparethem, because both f r u i t had th e same soc ia l ro l e in the d i f f e r en ts o c i e t i e s , viz . t h a t of supply ing sweet in the d i e t . Or you can compare thename fo r ' henna ' in one language with the name of a qui te d i f f e r en t plan t inanother , i f th e l a t t e r was a l so used fo r dying t e x t i l e s . Und so wei te r , asyou say . **Your defense of the S i r ene des Gleichklangs on p.35 i sunwarranted. Antoine M ei l l e t 's dictum t h a t , fo r l i n g u i s t s , not s i mi l a r i t ybut regu la r d i s s i mi l a r i t y i s impor tant , i s th e base of a l l sound l i ngu i s t i ccompar isons .Of course t h e re do eMist exot i c and seemingly improbableconnect ions; but it i s b e t t e r . t o leave ou t an actua l connec t ion which youcannot make p lau s ib l e by the means you have a t hand, than to indulge indisorder ly compar isons .Quest ion 11a: The answer l i e s in your formulat ion of the ques t ioni t s e l f . By the way, one does c la s s i fy Greek with Armenian


31/37

-29any di f fe rence? - HFJQuestion l ib : Does it m ~ k e any di f fe rence whether the sharedinnovat ions


32/37

June 17, 1989Dear Hal, .

I t was a great pleasure, as alwars, to look over the la tes tissue of MT. I see that you are s t i l l in fine fe t t l e , and I esp.appreciated rour contribution on methods of recon. You asked forsome comments and here are some of my thouShta.

-3D

5. one match up makes a correspondence, esp. i f i t f i t s withinan o v e r - a l ~ r a m e w o r k , e.g. one mi&Qt have several for /p / and /p / ,/t/ and / t / , etc. but perhaps onlr one for /qj and /qf. I f insteadof the las t , the one l ikel r match up indicates /q / and /zero/ we'da l l l ike to see another example, no? ( I ' assuming a /q / is present).

s . The point here is tbat thla ~ e l ' J I & D 1 o - a t t e s t e d nose 1 rootcc ta in l1 cannot be set up for PIE but neith!r can ~ '2!, excludec:UThis point appears often to be overlooked. In ST we work with oaalanguage, basicallr , Chinese on one side of the fence as opposedto 200 or more on the other, TB side, and at times i t can be shownthat onlr one language/group bas preserved a PST-level, hence alsoPTB-level, root, e. I FACE, with.:. P.TB-l,.,el a-mel (the suaebodr-part a - prefix as in s-na U l l d e r l ~ nose - see under 13)maintained onl1 1n Kuk1-lfaga (Lushai hl:lel) ~ a aJiawD b7 the perfectChinese cognate: Archaic m ~ a n or prob. s-illan (tlW archaic !lindialects reflect the s - ) , with -ian


33/37

-2 -

13. This also a big problem in AN- see Blust 's recent workon Ai roota, which factors out the equivalents of br i - / , in this~ case loppin atfAelements and endin! rather with the l ikes ofI \ -ot . Significantly, these ' roots ' (Blust admits that they areunlike roots as we normally think of them) have very few t ies tothe mainland families of AT: Kadai and Miao-Yao, or. to Japanese,rarely involving Swadesh-list items (as noted also by Blust) . I ti s clear that the ~ s t bulk of roots in AT are disyllabic, much

-3(

as those in ST are monosyllabic. As for the ST nose' form, I 'venow shown ( for thcoaiq, baaed on ta lk at ST cont. in Vancouver,.1988) that the PST (a-)11& root basical ly 11eant 'headwaters, la terapplied {only in TB) to 'nose' as snot h e a d w a t e r ~ , also that PTB*s-nap 1 snot' basically meant 'sth& soft ' ;nei ther ~ o a t bad anybasic connection with nose' or the l ike and i f one wants to citea TB or ST form here he has only PTB *(-}nam smell ' (*e"naa ast r . vs. *m-nam as in t r . ) , with both * - n ~ ~ i t - ~ variants in j:.q. (the picture {but none app. represented i ~ n e s _ e ... , - ~ . J - . * > - ~ - r~ - { - c ;15. The dishonesty coes about when one i s aware of the - ~ a , ~ nabove but appears to sut ter a loss of meory ( l ike sa.e of our rWashington polit icians on the stand) and goes on cit ing, in sup-


34/37

M. L. Bender401 Emerald LaneCarbondale, I l l . 62901rI

Dear Hal,

June 19, 1989-Jd

Although I was one of the f i r s t supporters of your newsletter ,which has evolved {so far) into "Mother Tongue", I have not writtenyou anything for publicat ion. I am now doing so {does th is qualify asa "performative speech act"?) .I am glad to see tha t you are taking my advice,which from the

s t a r t was to turn the newslet ter into a refereed journal so tha t a tl eas t a par t of the scholar ly community wil l take it seriously. I tseems tha t it needed a lo t of other voices added to my own to bringth is about- but in th is case, perhaps the consensus should prevai l{unlike with issues such as the val idi ty of proto-forms for which weprabably do not want to take votes and declare the at ta iners of majori t i e s the "correct .ones"!) .There i s no unanimity among your c r i t i c s as seen by the dif fe r ing views of such renowned scholars as Diakonov and Lehmann, amongorhers in recent i ssues, despite the seeming existence of a "HarvardSmithsonian" axis . I am content to include myself among the f r iendlyc r i t i c s who may keep some of the -frankly speaking- crackpots who are

at t racted to such a st imulat ing enterprise under reign. We should welcome diverse opinions from within our own ranks.For example, I think there has been too much "talking past oneanother" on the "s imilar i ty" question. Right now, in my Central Sudaniccomparisons, I came across the item mbata for "bed" in Kresh, Aja,Sara-Mbay, and "Jur-Beli" . I suspect th is is a loan from somewhere toa l l of these {can anyone ident i fy i t - maybe English?).iihy? Because itis too s imilar in a l l four cases! I l ike much be t te r for comparativepurposes things which show some diss imi la r i t ie s - especially i f theyf i t a pattern I 've already noticed in the same languages. I sn ' t th iswhat the c r i t i c s are saying? Are they real ly saying that one shoulddisregard s imi la r i t ie s al together? I don' t b e l i ~ v e so.

At the Michigan meeting I presented a paper in which I t r ied tot e s t the role of chance when one undertakes "global etymologies". Therevised version I sent to Vitaly for publicat ion is much di f fe ren t - andI hope, much improved. Recently I had an exchange of correspondencewith JOhn Bengtson about a purported mathematical argument in supportof "global etymologies". I think the argument does not support g. e . ' sa t a l l , and I s t i l l think you guys are wasting a lo t of time pi l ing upmore and more of these "s imilar i t ies" whose signif icance i s a mixedbag of chance, diffusion, universals , and even some genetic re la t ionships. All those 17-plus in ters t ing and di f f i cu l t questions you ask inthe l a s t MT should make you real ize tha t it doesn ' t make sense to goabout picking out s imi la r i t ie s among a l l world language phyla in sucha superf ic ia l way.


35/37

-2 -33

Not t h a t I 'm ag a i n s t "Nos t ra t ic i sms" : con t ra ry to most o f them,I th ink Afrasian belongs to a Eurasian phylum, b u t I do not quest ionthe wisdom nor even the methods o f t hose working in these in ter-phylumcomparisons. I am n ot qua l i f i ed to say "Sino-Caucasian" makes senseo r t h a t the case i s s e t t l e d fo r "Amerindian", bu t I do th ink t h i s i sthe d i rec t ion we should be going- plus microscopic work in such areasas Cen t ra l Sudanic and Nile-Saharan more g en e ra l l y - n ot "world e ty mologies" .

Regarding S t a ro s t i n ' s "new glo t tochrono logy" : what he presenteda t Michigan i s , in my humble opin ion , worse than the o ld glo t tochronology (which I used to do- and still do in a very l imi ted sense asa h e u r i s t i c and re la t ive-chrono logy dev ice) . Theore t i ca l ly , it makeslittle sense , and p ra c t i c a l l y , it i s a nightmare unless one has unl imi ted r esea rch-as s i s tan t suppor t .

F i n a l l y , a word regard ing your p e s s ~ m ~ s m about Omotic.I d o n ' t know how one f i e ld t r i p you a re planning to Ethi op ia w i l l add t h a t much. For one t h ing , persons a l ready a t work therehave added to the data base cons iderab ly (of course we d o n ' t have access to a l l o f it y e t ) , For ano ther , I have a l ready done a pre l iminary Ornotic l ex ica l - segmenta l phonology recons t ruc t ion (copy s en t toyou recent ly) and have tw o o t h e r vers ions in pre ss . F ina l ly , knowingthe p re s en t unse t t l ed condi t ions in Eth iop ia , you may not be ab le tog et o u t to th e areas where the g r ea t e s t data gaps are and it w i l l betough to f ind speakers o f most o f these ra re v a r i e t i e s in Addis Ababa.Simi la r ly , i n Nile-Saharan, a lo t o f good work i s now being done inse l ec t ed fami l i es (notably Nubian and Nilo t i c ) and I expect much morefrom the Bayreuth meeting in Aug.-Sep. than you do from t hose o f us

who a re still in the t renches working on micro-pro jec t s whilekeeping our eye on th e l a r g e r pic tu re as w el l .So r ry , it i s t ime to q u i t when my eloquence dr i e s up and I s t a r tni tp i ck ing . Keep it up- you a re a t rue pioneer , and MT can become animpor tan t journa l o f an impor tan t organizat ion if we face up to th etough t ask o f organ iza t ion-bu i ld ing .


36/37

-.::4ANNOUNCEMENTS1. 4th NILO-SAHARAN LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM in Bayreuth. The veryimportant topic of Nile-Saharan and i t s deeply divided branches anddi f f icu l t reconstruction i s avai lable th i s summer in Bayreuth, FRG. A number of ;cod papers are scheduled, especial ly thosetha t probe the taxonomic posi t ions of Songhai and Saharan, as well as the

Kadu;li problem where a group of languages previously classi f ied as N-C arenow t reated as N-S. Some readers misunderstood my statement tha t 11 i t couldbe argued tha t the grea tes t benef i t obtainable would be from theconversations over refreshments and discussions af te r papers. This i sbecause most of the world 's N-S scholars will be there and nona of them cangive more than a smidgen of her knowledge in ordinary conference papertime. 11 I meant to s t ress the great value of talking with th i s ; roup ofspec ia l i s t s , not to denigrate the qual i ty of the pape rs - - for heaven'ssake! I t i s a great opportunity for talking about things and pickingpeople 's brains . Anything run by Franz Rcttland i s l ikely to be warm andfr iendly in atmosphere, so good communication i s l ike ly. For more detai l swrite to Professor Franz Rottland, Lehrstuhl AFRIKANISTIK I I , Univers i tatBayreuth, Postfach 10 12 31, 8580 Bayreuth, FRG.2. CUSHITIC AND OMOTIC CONFERENCE IN TORINO. Under the inspireddirect ion of Giorgio Banti a conference on Cushitic and Omotic languages andhistor ies was arranged for Turin, I t a ly , for early summer. Due to the largeresponse and the formidable log i s t i cs of a big in ternat ional conference,Giorgio and his colleagues moved the date to around November 1, 1989. Therewill be many very ;cod papers and the added t r ea t fer Westerners to meet theSoviet delegation whose prowess a t Afrasian l inguis t ics has not yet been ful ly real izedby non-Europeans. For more information write Professor Giorgio Banti ,Univers i ta ' di Roma "La Sapienza", Dipartimento di Studi Glottoantrolcgici ,Piazzale Aldo More 3, 00183 Roma, I ta ly .

3. What was to have been a conference on the INDO-EUROPEAN SUB-STRATUM, tobe held in Yugoslavia, has been transformed into a conference on THETRANSFORMATION OF EUROPE. I t will be held in Dublin, Ireland, a t Universi tyCollege Dublin in September. Part ic ipants will include l inguis ts ,mythologists , archeologis ts , and physical anthropologists. I t i s anticipatedtha t a number of papers cr i t ica l of Colin Renfrew's hypotheses will bepresented. One may write to Professor Maria Gimbutas, % Karleen Jones Bley,2143 Kelton, West Los Angeles, Cali forn ia , 90023.

4. A conference which has now ended would be a good one to check up on. I tabout t ranscr ipt ion and the IPA and a discussion of the revis ion of the IPAand related matters l ike a standard ASCII code for phonetic symbols. Allth i s from our good colleague, Kay Williamson, whose l e t t e r unfortunatelyconsumed FIVE months in gett ing from Nigeria to Massachusetts! For moreinformation about the conference, and more par t icular ly the resu l t s , write


37/37

-3 5tc Carolina Henton, Linguist ics Prc;ram, Universi ty C a l i ~ c r n i a , Davis, CA9o616, u.s.A.

t:i. Rebert Blust has had ~ u b l i s h e d his beck AUSTRONESIAN ROOT THEORY: ANESSAY ON THE LIMITS OF MORPHOLOGY. By John Benjamins. Studies in LanguageC c m ~ a n i c n Series , 19. A m s t e r d a m / P h i l a d e l ~ h i a , 1988, 190 ~ a g e s . According tcthe blurb, "AnAlysis cf the Austronesian root suggests thAt there i s a levellanguage s t ructure intermediate between the phoneme and the morpheme,which has d i f ~ e r e n t surface real izat ions in d i ~ ~ e r e n t languages cr language

~ a m i l i e s . " Paul Benedict and I are both excited about the beck which is~ c s i t i v e l y on target fer cur discussions cf segmentation among other things.I t will be reviewed in MOTHER TONGUE.

6. Jan Wind, Edward G. Pulleyblank, Eric de Grcl ie r , and Bernard H.Bichakjian are the edi tors cf STUDIES IN LANGUAGE ORIGINS, VOLUME 1. Alsoproduced by John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989, 331pages. Theedi tors are the heaviest hi t t e r s inside the beck which contains some veryuseful and thought-provoking ar t i c les . I t will also be reviewed in MOTHERTONGUE.7i John Bender-Samuel's bock en Niger-Congo, which we high-lighted in MT-6,

has now come cut. The bock remains exciting tc me because cf the severalimportant changes in in te rna l taxonomy about which a number scholars arein agreement. The taxonomic appel lat ion NIGER-KORDOFANIAN i s now moribundbecause Kcrdcfanian was bean downgraded ~ r o m a coordinate half cf the greatphylum to cna of three equAl branches - - Manda, Atlantic-Congo, andKcrdcfanian. I t occurs that a Niger-Ccngcist might be the best person tcreview Robart Blust ' s bock.8. According tc Kay Williamsen, Ben Elugbe's forthcoming beck COMPARATIVEECOID i s "an important detailed reconstruction cf a New Benue-Ccngc groupwhich should be c ~ in te res t tc a ll working en Niger-Congo reconstruct ion.The price is net yet fixed, but i t will net be very expensive

mother tongue newsletter 8 (august 1989)

Documents