Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • 2005 Merritt

    Hochgeladen von

    Tiziana Dieli
    25 Ansichten14 Seiten
    Will argue that the comparative method was misunder rood by historical linguists in the twentieth century. The b rder between three distinct fields - taxonomy typology, and hi rorical linguistics - have become blurred.

    Originalbeschreibung:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    Will argue that the comparative method was misunder rood by historical linguists in the twentieth century. The b rder between three distinct fields - taxonomy typology, and hi rorical linguistics - have become blurred.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    25 Ansichten14 Seiten

    2005 Merritt

    Hochgeladen von

    Tiziana Dieli
    Will argue that the comparative method was misunder rood by historical linguists in the twentieth century. The b rder between three distinct fields - taxonomy typology, and hi rorical linguistics - have become blurred.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 14
    10 Taxonomy, Typology and Historical Linguistics Mersitt Ruhlen ‘Stanford University 1. Introduction “The past decade has witnessed a. renewed interest in historical linguistics, as the various controversies surrounding Amerind, NNosiraticy and even broader proposed taxa well ast. Yet this renewed interest seems to have revealed a much the current tae of ‘confusion within historical linguistics asthe vabiy of any of the newly proposed families. 1 will argue here that the comparative ‘method was misunderstood by historical linguists in the twentieth Century, with the result that the discovery of new genetic relationships among languages effectively ground ta halt — with the sigifcane exceptions of the work of Joseph Greenberg and the Nostaticits. What is equalycistessing is tha she border Between three distin feds — taxonomy, typology and historical linguistics — have become burzed. Each ofthese field has its own goals and its own methodology, and they are not the sime. This in no way implies thar chese fields are completely disconnected from one nother. Cecily Greenberg's enormous knowledge of dischronic {ypology informed his classification of Eurasia languages in many ‘ways, most spectacularly inthe explanation of the origin of the a guage Acguston, Chins and Emergence Indo-European ablaut system and is historical connetions withthe vowel harmony systems of Uralic and Altaic (Greenberg, 2000). In the same wa, his knowledge of historical linguistics sutized trom the very frst steps in taxonomy (Grcenber, 1995) allowing him to recognize the most obvious etymologies and to weed out some Spurious ones. What characterizes his work that he used all three fields in an appropriate manner, and dd not confuse the goals and rests of these dre different fields 2, Taxonomy and Historical Linguistics “The source of «great deal ofthe current controversy and confusion in historical linguistics resides in the face that taxonomy failed 0 develop in the twenteth century beyond the obvious, and in some instances even repressed, One of the more egregious examples of| regression is Johanna Nichole’ (1992:4) rejection of the Alte family “Thvce language families of central Eurasia «share striking similarities in morphosyatactic stacture and pprosominal roots: Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, For a fng time it was assumed that these three families were related as branches of a supertock called ‘ltac +» When the cognates proved not co be valid, [Altec was abandoned, and the recived view now 1 that Torkie, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated. is unlikely, however, that this ‘recived view’ would be accepted by Roy Andrew Miller (1971, 199ta,b, Sergi Starostin {1991}, Anna Dybo, Oleg Mudeak (Dybo, Mudeak, and Searosti, 2003, or Greenberg (2000-02) and indeed the Altai failyis in 0 ‘more doubt oday than it was a century ag. 1 ca lansiicaton mull opr and mist compari. Al foarte yao “Tasca, Typology ad triclinic th cacy yy of sa el cas ferences steer pep comes Pe poctercaaby nial onc aon ow sig ae oct ci ceeaaed coer Teiunuscuvio ine wer Cereal eee a ee aes E pberntegritielinterieg pymiterarstage a wl scien Yo coos Dear (Grr 300) we fod coop aha te cman phonological.” In reality the comparative method in li tie, (leo ry ccc Old cect a cay to uaa Mee ce sees bee hee ae ‘Mined npn’ whore Pest pu 1 Tecenpuntve meted b TOONONT = eLASSEATON g g a a4 RECONSTRUCTION Hoven sour, cone SPONBences ‘Those two sae ro avery reat dee independent fone nother and it is axonomy, nor historical linguistics, that defines language families a all levels. Taxonomy proves the wherewithal for the pursuits of most historical linguist (1) the reconstruction of the procorlanguage, (2) the discovery of sound correspondences ane di Chas ad i) among the constivent languages (or families), (3) the subgrouping ofthe family, (4) the locaton of the ancestfal homeland, etc br Figure 11 have listed reconstruction and sound correspondences ax independent parameters forthe simple eason that reonstrction «can be carried out in fields such s biology where sound contspond. ences or anything analogous to them, are absent. I should abo be noted thar in biology reconstruction isi no way identified with the ‘comparative method as it sin linguists. In Fac, in discussions of the comparative method in biology reconstruction is scarcely ‘mentioned and no biologist has ever demande that Proco-Mammal be reconstructed, along with all ofthe intermediate stages leading from Proto-Mammal to all modern species of mammal, before he beieves that mammals are a vlid biological axon, has heen alleged by a numb of scholars that Greenberg has substitute forthe comparative method an entirely diffrent method for the investigation of linguistic prehistory. According 10 the din vw ie comers md do ot ne epehs mach greater than about 8,000 years” (Nichol 1992: 2). Greenberg's methods supposedly egin at this cutoff point and pradace families that are qualitatively different from those prodoced by the standard comparative method. Mack Darie ar Malcolm Ross (1996:5, 9) claim that “mulisteral comparison is not a variant of the classical comparative method of histoial linguists... Mulisteral comparison... ears only the most superficial resemblance tothe comparative method.” Goddard and Campbell (1994: 195) belive “the differences berween Greenbert's word:comparison approach and the standard historcal-tingasic method are so vast tha rational dicussion between thir respective Proponent sem almost imposible.” Hons Hock and Bran Joseph (1996: 487) allege thar “the American linguist Joseph Greenberg and some asiccates of his have chimed that long-dsance relationships can be established more effectively — and more easly = by employing an approach rrally diferent from the traditional methods. This is an approach of lexical “mast comparison’ of ‘mulilavral comparison” And according to Nichols (1990: 477) “Greenberg (1987) makes clear that he believes such groupings [as “Tamanany Typology and Hit initio Alesc, Hokan, and Amerind] cannot be reached by the standard comparative methods a wholly different method, mass comparison, is required.” In realty, no such cam i made in Greenberg (1987), for anywhere else in his writings for the simple reason that in his ‘ew the sompacaive method applies ia the same way at all levels of {exonom rom the lowest tthe highest. “Ths confusion berween the diffrent stages of taxonomy and Istria linguistics is apparent inthe following quoce from Byson (1977:271-72}: “The use of basic vocabulary comparison not simply a8 & preliminary to reconstruction but asa substtate for it ‘nore controversial... . I is clear that a far as the historical lings is concerned, [ass comparison] can in no way serve a8 8 rubeetate for reconstruction.” Bae Greenberg never chimed that taxonomy is a substitute for reconstruction. Taxonomy and reconstruction are two separate and distncr enterprises. Taxonomy identifies families ar all levels reconstruction seeks to eeconsruct the proto language of «family that has aleady boew identified by taxonomy. Ie is hard to see how one could even begin to reconstict a peato-lnguage ofa family dat hada’ yet been discovered, much less that such a reconstruction would hen somehow ‘prove’ the validity ofthat language family. A similar confusion of taxonomy with reconstruction is sen in Terence Kaufman's (1990: 23) claim thar "a temporal cing of 7000 to 8000 yeas is inherent in the methods of comparative linguist reconstruction. We can recover ‘enetc relationships that are that old, but probably no earler than thar” (ilies added), A third example of the confusion of reconstruction and classification appears ina recent vextbook (Fox, 1995; 236): “One of the most controversial developments in the whole field of reconsruction in recent yetts has been the publication of Joseph Greeaber’s clusifcation of the native languages ofthe Americas” [italics added). Many additonal quotes ‘ould be adduced, but these three more than suffice to show thar the Uistinct notions of genetic relationship and reconstruction have become almest synonymous in the minds of many linguists. Ia realty, genetic tlaionships are properties of casitiatons they are nor consequences of reconstruction, Lampe Aci, Change and Emergent Sometimes «dies exon ag reco pied a iy the traps hat Ihave called Meson Yet ret the prec matfe of toxonony sens. poorly underood: he txampl, Durie and Res (1996 6-7) have rcety chanced e camparre mood t comity of ren supe of which comeapond to what ve elle txonorny, aod et fret Kerala. Theft ump ae 1. Determine onthe strength of diagnostic evidence that se of languages are genetically related, that is, tha they constite a “family.” 2 Collet putative cognate sets for the family. (hoch ‘morpholoical paradigms and lexical tem) ‘Whar is peclia here i that the two inital steps azegiveh in reverse order. One fst uses some mysterious “diagnostic evidence? to identify a language family and then one goes out and actally looks for evidence (grammatical and lexical) 0 support the vay ofthe family. Bur putative cognate sets are the dagnostc evidence for any family. It is the recognition of grammatical and lexeal resemblances in both form and meaning that leads to she supposition that certain languages (or language families) are tenetzlly related. The eeason that such putative cognate se are the bass for detecting linguistic relationships is 3 obvious tha it often seemingly overlooked. The basis of genetic clsification — and hence linguistic relationships — is, quite simply, the abirary nature ofthe scund/mearing relationship in human language. ince any meaning can be represeated by any sequence of sounds, there are hundreds if wot thousands, of possible phonetic representations for each meaning in each langaage. If, then, a certain set of languages has the same, or similar, phonetic representation for 3 ‘word, one assumes the languages may well be related. If farther consideration of this set of languages shows additional similar words, © the exclusion of otter surrounding languages, the hypothesis of genetic eelaionship becomes virwally certain, ANY Janguage may accidentally resemble another language once, but if the resemblances continually appear in the some set of languages and not clcwher, they are hardly likly to be accident Taxonomy, Typalgy ont Hii Linge In addition 10 chanse, there are thee other possible cxplanations for resemblant words: soand symbolism, borrowing, eee ommon origin, Sound symbolic words are quite exceptional feccely because they violate the arhiterysound/meaning Friseonship, and are not used in clasifiation, though they are ite vemecly reconstructed for proto-languages Since all languages do fave sound symbole words. Boerowings can asully be recognized fy wellknown linguistic techniques, such as reliance on basic eabulary (pronouns, body parts) and outgroup comparison with Miho elated langnages. Ifthe languages concerned are never known ‘ave been in contact — or ifthe languages concerned cover entie ‘oatinents — then borrowing quit improbable In recent years historical linguists have come to regard common, origin, shat i an evoltionary explanation for linguist similarities wrihe explanation of las eso, when infact ti as Vinesnt Sarch {1984) pointed out, the detaul explanation. Instead of recognizing the simple basis of genetic clasifeation, and thus linguistic feationhips, wensetcentury historical linguists put forth Incresingygorous demands generally involving reconstruction ‘ith regula sound correspondences, before genetic clatonships Gril be acknowledged, demands in fat so rigorous that they could sever he satisfied According to Calvert Watkins (1990: 292-95), 4 genetic linguistic relationship is fist assumed, oF hypothesized by inspection or whatever. At that point must begin the careful nd above all systematic Comparison, which will lady if the hyporhesis or fupposition of genetic relationship & correct, © the constuction of the Hingis story of the langsages Concerned, inching the discovery of che attendant Sound law’, which ave « pat ofthat history... «IL boliee in indo-Eoropean, Algonquian or Austronesian, itis hecause scholars have done the necessary systematic explanation and prediced the requisite historical results, 11 do not believe in aa Amerind, Enrasiate, or [Nostatg its because scholars have so far neither done the one nor produced the ober. To spelt out: because ameogeAcqilon, Change ond Emerge Scholars have neither done the necessary systemati explanation, nor produced the requisite historical results. And there ino ater way, Bar there is another way, Ie he way that was used by the founders of comparative linguistic inthe ninctenth century, Ad isthe same method advocated, and utilized, by Gresnberg in all hs ‘works. Ths “other way” is known as taxonomy, classfeaton, mas, comparison, or multilateral comparison, To demand, a+. doce ‘Watkins, that one must eeconstract the entire protrlanguage and then explain with regular sound correspondences exactly how every word in every descendant language evalved to ity presene form i clearly far more than was ever demanded of the very familie that Watkins cites approvingly: Indo-European, Algonquian, and Austronesian, All three ofthese families were recognized eat on simply by the specific, and distinct, grammatical and levies! rmorphemes that characterize each, Reconstruction, regular $o0ad corespondences, and a complete explanation of all linguistic Pechistory was never demanded and in fact such concep as reconstruction andthe regularity of sound change fst appear ony in the second half of the ninetenth century, long afer these parcicular families were accepted by everyone. The ecen cai by Nichols (1996: 46) thc “the pilologer of [Sir Willan Joes’ hme had been trained... inthe principles of comparative method and reconstruction” i 50 wildly anachronistic ac defy explanation. The geal of an historical linguist should not be to demand an explanation for everything before he believes anything, as Watkins Jmplis. Rather a scientist should tempt to explain non-random Phenomena, for example, the prevalence of the N/M thou’ pronominal pater in the Americas, and different pronominal pattern, MIT “Ithoa" in northern Esa. Ii all well and good for ‘Watkins to demur onthe Amerind and Eucasaic hypotheses, but if ‘common origin is not responsible for these diferent pronominal pattern, whats? ‘The requirement of reconstruction with regular sound correspondences appears to have been an innovation of twentethcentury historia! inguin, I i not found, so far aa esomany Typos Hater Lingsis now, i any of the works of ninctenth-entury pioneers of ‘Comparative grammar such as Kar! Brogmana or Berthold Debrick fhe ate nineteenth century Indo-European was being reconstructed; no scholae thought he was “proving Indo-European, ‘hoch less discovering it, The Family was acepted by everyone, and {hoe was why they were trying ro reconsteuc it. Whar chen did the pioneers of comparative Indo-European take a the bass of genetic feavonship. if not reconstruction? The following, quore from Delbeck is instroctve: My stating poin is that specific result of comparative Tings that isnot in doube and cannot bein doube. Ie'was proved by Bopp and others thatthe so-called Indo-European languages were celated. The proof was prodoced by juxtaposing words and forms of similar mneaning. When one considers tht in these languages the formation of the inletional forms of the verb, foun, and pronoun agrees in essentials and likewise that an extriondinary number of infected words agree in their lexical pars, the assumpsion of ‘chance sereement must appear absurd (Delbrick, 1880: 121-2. Greenberg has been accused of having attempted to subsite taxonomy for recontrction, but shat really happened inthe twentieth century wa that historical linguists sought co substitute ‘reconstruction for taxonomy, thus confusing the goals of historical linguistics withthe requirement of geese elasifcaion. Its nor by accident that pronouns have figured as one ofthe major foci of taxonomic controversie in the ewentith century. AS Dolgopolsy showed in 1964, the fist and second-person pronouns ave the frst and third most sable meanings in language (the numeral wo" is second). The past decade witnessed an endless controversy ver the alleged Amerind NIM pater, and onl lightly Langue Austin, Change and Emersnce kes controversy over the Eurasatic MIT pattem? There have been ‘so camps. The fist camp sees both patterns 35 survivals of ewe Ailferentnguages, Proto-Amerind in the fist case and Proto-Eurasiatic inthe second. The second camp has two suyeoup. ‘The first subgroup claims thatthe alleged patterns are specious and that both pater occur in both the Americas and the Old World, the second subgroup admits che reality of the two pattems, but tempts to give 2 non-evolutionary explanation in tm of send symbolism, language universe, diffsion, et. ‘We should begin by noting that both the Eurasiatc and Amernd pronominal patems were clearly recopnited at the stare of the twentieth century by, among others, Alredo Trombet (1995), who abundantly documented che Amerind patern chroughout the Americas in an appendix ro his book and concluded: ‘As can be sen, from the mest northern regions of the “Americas the pronouns NIT’ and M “thou eich al she way to the southern tp ofthe New World, to Tierra del Fuego. Although this sketch is fa from complete, due to the insufficient materials at our disposal, itis ceninly. sufficient to give an idea of the broad discributon ofthese most ancient and essential elements (p. 208), But Trombesti knew equally well hat this American patern was absent in northern Eurasia, where a tally diferent pater, M/T, predominated, and he lamented in his book tht it clea that im and of itself the comparison of Finno-Ugric me‘ te you" with Indo-European me-and ts wort ust as much as any comparison ‘ne might make berween the corresponding pronominal forts nthe Indo-European languages. The only difference is that the common ‘origin of the Indo-European languages i accepted, while the 2 The nase family cones of Indo-European, Urls Ali, Korean Japanese Ain, Gaba Chtcht Kanaan and Ea Ake set (Genter 200-0, Taxonomy Typology an Matric ings ‘connection between Indo-European and Finno-Ugrie is denied” {fra}, Anvoine Melle aio was aware ofthe Eueasian MUT partes tlic he propened a universal explanation rather than a genetic one: “Te goes without saying that, in order to establish linguistic afiniy, sone aunt ignore everything that can be explained by general sehitens common fo all languages. For example, pronouns must fe short, clearly made up of consonants that are easy to pronounce, fd usally without consonant clusters. Ie is fr this reason shat romnoums are similar almost everywhere, without this act implying teommon origin” (Meir, 1965: 89) ‘Appaeenly unaware of Trombet's appendix on the Amecind pronominal pattem, Edward Sapir a decade lacer noted the presence OF both. fiseperson Nand second-peson M dhroughout the Americas and wrote, na personal leer, “how in the Hell are you v, realy?” (quoted ing to explain general American» 'P excep genetically?” (au Greenberg, 1987) Fran Boas was ao avare of the wiepread [American pattern, but opposed the genetic explanation given by Trombetti and Sapir: “te fequent occurrence of similar sounds for cxpresing related ideas (like the persoal pronouns) may be doe ro Shvcure poychological causes rather than co genetic relationship’ quoted in Haas, 1966) It would thos ser that a least the cealiy| fof the pattern — and its virtual restriction to the Americas — was evond dont hy the beginning of te rwenteth century: Such an assumption would, however, be incorrect, for during the final decade of the ewentith eneury there was a sharp debate, ‘or just on the proper explanation ofthe Amerind pattern — genetic ‘ non-gentic— but indeed on its very existence. According to Lye ‘Campbell (19943:47), “the la (you!) pattem is or nearly as ‘common in the Americas as Greenberg claimed . . «and his n is leo Supposed mit (Uys pattern for his Eurasia language found. abundantly inthe Americas (despite his and. Rublen’s assertions t0 the contrary)” Campbell also claims that “several ‘Amerind. groups exhibit pronoan forms (oft [you that Greenberg atributes to Europe and Northern Asia” and "then “ist person? I'm second person” by no means unique ro, diagnostic of fr ubiquitous in Americin Indian languages” (Campbell, Lareuape Auton, Chane and Emergence 1994s 3,9). Campbell's denial of the reality ofboth the Earaiaie and Amerind pronominal poters is by mo means idiosypratc “Many other scholars have endorsed this view. According 10 Nichols (1992: 261), “the rooecontonantam of personal pronouns tien out to have symbolic properties comparable, in both thei universay and their basic structural design, to those of “mama”="papa” vowabulary. .. «Specifically, personal pronoun systems the word ‘over are symbolically identi by a high frequency of nasal in their root.” In wht can only be come comical coda othe rowan conovery the al debate ofthe sweethcery wat een ‘ve schol, Nols and Campel, who bad previo een an the same si iroaly oppo enc explanation for ‘mend per ain fg opposing Ames a Wel In 1996" Neos pubised «paper wah, Dred. Fotn) rrominng hat be previous wv explanations were orn tnd thr scholars fom Tromber to Greenberg, we Mented Giferent pronominal penn dice ses of he wo wee corr “te nom paadgn == cry caer be devo ieee ender cnc Te ra pom! pe tact rr emale of ho Amen al wy come int feosraphcaly lined, though large, part of the Amer” Up. 336-357 Whar unexplained by Niche a een how she mehodslogy of “population typdlogy” an are precy oppo concutons cn the bas of the sone Maggy Sale, Agro flowing Groby 1987.3 hey ee borrowing az soure ofthe pron ili, pongo that rons se nt aap inbred p37) hie rs wekome that Nichols and Peterson ene 0h) have now independentycetirmed Geenbe’s cndsoe thatthe Amcrind putea sewenally en Ameren phcaoweren tad anaor be enn by eel Gann or boring Sion tat they fly lt har thes the Ro port Aememtraion.Cricsing Koh Cumpbel and me, sey cai hat “both ier ce only the evidence supporting tc, ims, sh nee es enough ofthat ponte evidence toc the rade “axamam, Tyla a Hat ings of the distribution of the mm pronominal system in Amerind oF Shewbore; neither side offers 4 proper survey than can capture fridenee, both postive and nepaive, without bias so that the fel in assess the distriburion and stars of this pronominal sytem” {337 In fac, this was precisely whae {had done in the 190 pers that NE&P cite (Ruble, 1994, 1995). Inthe first of hese [rss [attempted to survey all the pronominal pater chat had teen posited forall the world's language families. For fais such Indo-European or Urabe this merely entailed listing, the ‘eonstrution for those families. For families that have not beer feonsructed, such as the sub-Saharan fares, 1 listed those pronouns that have been ideatied by specials in thes families, thouzh without reconstructions. The evidence given was, therefore, either “positive” nor “negative.” In the second article, using Greenberg's 21 Amerindian notebooks, {surveyed the existence of| fouh the NM and M/T patterns in dhe Americas. Specially, 1 toked for languages in the Americas that had both first-person singular N and second:-person singular Mat the same time | also Tooked for languages that had both frst person singular Mt and sevond prion singular T. The results of this search are shown in Tables (and 23 In addition tothe enormous breadth ofthe distribution of the Amernd pater, there isa significant depth to the Amerind paren swell. As can be sey the Amend pattern has been reconstruct for many Amerind subgroups, sometimes at grea ime depths (eg ProvoAlgie,Proro-Hokan, "Proto-Penutian, Proto-Uto-Aztecan, Prowo-Tanoan, Proto-Queshuan, Proto-Chibshan, Proto-Arvak, Proto-Guahiban), while the Eurasia pattern has never been reconstructed by anyone for any American family, no matter how Shallow, except for Proto-Eskimo-Aleu, the easternmost branch of > ice the vgn ace was publ have devoped an independ ‘kaise coming rennet fron a lve of Arid (Ren, Son2 aad there of ths date ve beers in Tale Tet eae echangd bens ne, 0 ny Ewe, Bas eer ‘Reonsraced MT fo aby Anti oup. Language Action, Change nd Emergence Eurasiacc. These resus speak for themselves. Moreover, were E19 cite languages that have either fspeson Nor second person Me we would find the number of languages cited in Table 1 would increase dramatically, while citing languages with citer fse-person Mor second:person T would increise Table ? only modestly see ‘neither pronoun is common inthe Americas, Although N&P now agree with Greenberg on the facts of the iseribaton, as well as om the legitimacy of explaining these face in terms of univerals, chance, or borrowing, they da not agree wid Greenberg that the explanation is genetic: “If Amerind were a ‘enetc reality and the mm paradigm a marker of i then the marker should have a fairly even distnburion over all of Amerind and should he found only dhere™(p. 367). Yet NSP concede that “the vm paradigm is atested in all six branches of Greenberg's Amerind” (368), as Table 1antests. They objct apparently that the paradigm is not preserved uniformly in lower-level subgroups, bu "here i really no such requirement in historical nguses and thee should be no such expectation [ECP offer wo reasons sha the mm paradigm is aot a genetic. marker of Amerind. Fist, ehs paradigm in the Amevias must be ‘older than the temporal limits of the comparative method ad therefore cannot be considered generic evidence. Secondly, they Point our to examples ofthe mam paragm in the Old Word, the Vain Language (spoken on the coast of northern New Guinea) and Mongolian, and on the hass of these ro languages they projec the em paradigm back to an even caer historical connection it Asia — the “Pacific Rim distibution” — though they are unable to say whether this historical connection was die to common ign, borrowing, or something ee + Camp (197.339) incre ith ngage as Asso ladon athe the Inde fay Keene 1971 82) “axomoy, Typology a sonal Ling an ee Peper ts ot heer te Peeetheac Satter le a Seats "ame tere aaa Se gel neces Saree ee Se re el aenilas sharpie! Scena seas ora ‘ep Soe etapa ae mice elae tee pe ies ae er at il etvtle Bega mnt er ee til eee Sane ees Sc a stro Se ae oe et herein tere cin abs ieee Teak et Fa gd Aa as seas atte ae "Sal SET Te Cindi bn a San ne ager ee rag wa ‘Lencawadamng, ANDEAN: eae sa oe arta SS ht i {pag tne BQUATORAL Pr-O Nv oa re ara ne oie iat ape ana a ies ter ae i eee IO a A fie a una Se eee Es SKIMOALELT: Pekin oy Sik map er eae ay yor SSS pn ARN: Soe on na talc lane’ mln Cao ou he Lange Acqlition, Chang and Emerge Let us dispense fine with the Mongolian example, N&P consider Mongelian nant. ‘me,’ am ‘hoe be an example ofthe nV paradigm,” ise’ a variant of the mm paradigm, The problem het is thatthe“ of ca is an accusative make, not = second-person pronouns the second-person marker is éa which derives from Classical Mongolian cima, This stem contains cb “thou, itself deriving from Prots-Alaic “as comparison with the plural pronoun 22 "you" indicates (lichSvitych, 1976: 49), While ‘most linguists would consider the comparison of an accisative fending with a second-person marker a rather serious error, apparently NSCP do not, for in response to a similar rites by Campbell (1997: 34) thei reply was chat in sampling we do not Purport to give accurate descriptions of the histories of langusge Families; we want ro make meaningfl comparisons ofthe frequency (of mam systems in the Americas vs. eewhere” [p. 609). Mont linguists, however, will have a diffeuit time considering the comparison ofan accusative maker with a pronoun a “meaning comparison,” when the ata history ofthe fem swell kaown As for the sole New Guinea example, Campbell (1997: 346) is certainly correct that "chance congruence berween parts of New Guinea and pars of Amerca is a much mote plausible acount than thar there i a mysterious historical connection between jus these two regions that defies bods ie and space and i beyond standard notions of language change associated with the comparative method.” IF one considers the hstarical implications of NSP’ Pcie Rim theory, one immedhately encounters contradictions, For example, [N&P claim that “the languages of eastem North America and specially chose of eastera South America presumably descend from calir colonizasons” (p.369), that is, earlier than the later migration thar spread the N/M pattem throughoue westeen North gad Seuch America. Accortingy, NEP conaldar she Agouaiie family to be the result of an easier migetion because it lacks the ‘racial N/M pronoun system, But Algonquian’ closest kin —Wivor nd Yurok — are (or were) spoken om the California coast and Pal Prouls (1985) has reconstructed the N/M paragon for Proto-Algic Taxonomy, Typology and Mariel Linge Te (eAlgogsag, Wipe, and Yok) and Agongian inc «Meet pepenon Sze Pow agc posed the NIM ree ES C913) tooghe ss simly means that pein Manon Amin’ Rat wc hls sem seaboard overa Sige pronoun and move thee SEE i ay Wr a York an warm vaca into a nee migration ote Ames? OF core as aoe kes ce ats one Sods abundant resembles oe ‘gong anal the ter Aner groups 8 western a mt gong es oral Asin ND Np ln the secon peron Amoi proa "mpl (H97 make ube fae ovens an trace of NEP aril naling pain ou that snore . sree sence ofthe NM parr a case North and South Mt hr bra grey exaguaed by NED onthe bas of ¢ anna ample Bar what ely urs Campbel hat be PSs NEP he very alle 4 3p of i Ove wie Maviyciinte borrowing iden, and univers wan eplunasons NEP have Tt themes (and Canpbel rec semanig posible explanation which Campbell notes we tins stn denying borrowing of pronoun aterm NSP i SHANE oo neal ain” [ifocon| and thus i, pehars Grech inerrention of dir ‘Sl stor Sa eo oly on pase extn: prec laos Seer rom a omen snes” (p34). And NEP wage dno fc nro nkmown Morel proces tit 1 See ute, oa sgl trea development of sme ee Nine Kd of Share ory” (37, tals aed 20 Tac ty anyone Nori the alpen to Campal 08 me and eat the sry gueson “Something happened. We doo Perfect append, bur th doen pred ean oa nd where" el). Wha append ste sine pee 5 forthe rg ofthe en-pson pronoun chat placed Nn Alain a8 Lanegedcgeition, Change and Emerge cxplaaton — a singe population iter dhe Americas wit Ret pesxaonsnn, Goel ll teeoecr so et ot South America around 11,000. years ago according, tt archaeological record (Klein, 1999) and left in its wake traces of se Criginl NIM pare and numerous otter diagnostic Amerind wit 4. Lexical Evidence the evidentiary val of proms sb of pronouns been sep unde the in sncent decade the vale flee evidence har comet be ened dscounedby many schol, who ofen re oe dpaagngy the landey Tat approach Acordng to Ged end Campbl (1998195), “Greenbew’s clanifcaion [of American dan langage) i 4 colifeation of hiv fdgemens of iepctonal simlargy and i thos, in prince, shir” Robert Rankin (1952: 330) protaime shat “he days are gone when “words In cd pry pay Anan si anole.” "The realty jn the opposite, Scholars uch 3 Rankin, Goddard and Campbell have become 0 apelin arrow sabe, preosepied with smal ebions langage fice toch at Algona, Siowan, or Mayan that they are eonware what to ar wiped he Aen ad wh re ne words they have not even reached the wordcomparion sa _much less surpassed it, ea r A sing eal lemcn fom she Amex fay arate his pein. Ar shown in Ruhl 1994, there «plethora of frm throughout North and Sout America withthe shape Val’ andthe Inaning “chi, son, daughter’ or the ke. Fachermor, «cael nals of hundreds of sch forms sages thatthe fis vowel of ths occ was orignal created withthe gender of the cid ith Finding masculine ender, mina, and india se “hs Pro Amand uschae ads morphol compos ot “Fi am athe Fa he! on an 7 No ean Anerind language preserves all hee grades of “avon, Tyla and Histor ings ‘this root ntact, but a number do preserve two (ey Tigue fe 00! ire Ganaher?, and even more preserve one All hee grades ae, tor ner preserved elsewhere, for example inthe Tucano numer poe nie ene (ase mio “one (fem) nia “one tindet.) (acon, 1949) this case al three grades are cetained in what is the general Amerind word for ‘one’ (Rublen, 1995D), From the Tndrede of examples given in Rublen (1994), Table 3 gives one etl of each grade of the root for each of the 13 Amerind

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen