NOSTRATIC AND GERMANO-EUROPEAN

Toby D. Griffen
1. INTRODUCTION
In the past few decades, comparative linguists have been examining en-
tire language families and the reconstructions of their protolanguages
to achieve insights into relationships among families, as in the work of
Levin (1971) on Indo-European and Semitic. This has resulted in a
growing number of theories that combine these families into larger fam-
ilies, such as the Lislakh suggested by Hodge ( 1978) to account for the
relationships between Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic.
As noted by Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1988a), the comparison of lan-
guage families in search of common sources has been particularly in-
tense and has yielded particularly impressive results in the work origi-
nated in the USSR by such investigators as V.M. Illit-Svityt and A.B.
Dolgopolsky. Indeed, the Soviet-American Conference on Language
and Prehistory held at the University of Michigan in 1988 was domi-
nated by the subject of Nostratic.
2. NOSTRATIC
Nostratic is a combination of several language families heretofore con-
sidered distinct. Strong evidence has been presented for including Indo-
European, Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic), Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic, and
Dravidian (Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988a). Moreover, an increasing
body of data is being collected to support a close relationship (at least
through borrowing) between Nostratic and some other families, in-
cluding Sino-Caucasian (Starostin 1988) and even Australian (Blazek
1988).
A concise summary of the Nostratic theory with supporting data can
be found in Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1988a). While some morphologi-
cal evidence is provided, the most extensive evidence is found in the
comparison of the phonological systems of the participant language
families. For example, the following correspondences are presented to
support the reconstruction of the labial obstruents:
GENERAL LINGUISTICS, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1989. Published by The Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park and London.
140 GENERAL LINGUISTICS
Wonls with **p'-
[58] **p'i'Ywe or **p'[i]"we 'fire' > IE paXwor or *paxwor (Ht.
pahhuwar 'fire', Grk. pur 'id', Anglo-Saxon fyr 'id'); AA *p"w 'fire';
Kart. *pxw- 'warm'; Ural. *piwe 'warm, hot' (13, p. 353) **'Y is a sta-
ble Nostr. uvular fricative: **-'Yu- > IE *-xw- > Anatolian -[*hw]-;
see the section on laryngeals, below. v
[59] **p'unja 'to plait' > IE *pen-, *spen- 'to plait, weave'; AA *pn-
'to rotate, spin, wind'; Ural. *puna- 'to spin, twist/roll, rotate (tr.)';
Drav. *put;t- or *pot;t- 'tie together' (13, p. 354). For IE *e,
see the section on Vowels, below.
Words with Nostratic **p-
[60] **pelHi 'to shiver, shake, be afraid' > IE *pelH-/*pleH- 'to
shake (tr., intr.), be afraid'; (Grk. pelemidzo 'I shake', OE eal-felo
'baleful, dire' all incorrectly booked by Pokorny [23, p. 801] under
IE *pel- 'to pour'); AA: *plH 'be afraid'(> 'to be in awe'); Alt. *peli-
'get scared' > Turkic *peli-g 'easily frightened', Tung.: Nep.
Evenki hal- 'to not dare' (h < *f); Ural. *pele- 'be afraid'; Drav.
*pirV- 'shiver, shake, be afraid' (15, p. 98ff).
[61j **put'V 'hole'> AA *p
1
wt 'hole'; Kart. *put'- 'hole'; Alt. *piitV
'hole; vulva'; Ural. *putV 'rectum'; Drav. *pott-'hole' (13, p. 340;
using additional data Dolgopolsky reconstructs **pU[H]t'E).
Wonls with Nostratic **b
[62] **bari 'take' > IE *IY'er- 'take, bring, carry'; AA *br- 'to seize,
catch'; Alt. *bari- 'take' > Turk. *bary- '(obtain) property', Mong.
*bari 'grab, seize'; (?) Drav. *per 'pick up, gather' (*a > e before
rE) (14, p. 176ff). This entire entry has been translated in Ref. 18,
i>- 36.
[63] **berg/il 'tall' > IE *bherg"-/bhreg"- 'id'.; AA *brg 'tall'; Kart.
*brg-e 'high, tall'; Ural. *pEr-kV 'tall';(?) Drav. *per- 'high, tall' (14.
p. 177). (Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988a:321-22)-
The obstruent system reconstructed for proto-N ostratic is presented
in table 1.
1
The symbols p', t', k' represent the glottalized consonants,
and pc, tc, kc represent heavily aspirated consonants. Once again, 'Y is
used for the uvular fricative.
As we can see in table 1, the obstruent systems of the various language
families correlate strongly. This correlation holds not simply in the kinds
of systems (which could be a typological coincidence), but even in the
precise lexical items, as demonstrated in the extended quotation on the
labials, above.
At first glance, the Indo-European obstruent system appears to be
compatible with those of the other Nostratic languages, affording a reg-
ular set of correspondences. However, this similarity is misleading, for
there are problems in the traditional reconstruction from the work of
---------------------------------
TOBY D. GRIFFEN 141
Table 1: The Obstruents of Nostratic
Nostr. IE AA Kart. Alt. Ural. Drav.
**p'- *p *p *p',*p *p' *p *p
**-p'- *p *p *p *p/*b *pp/p *pp/v
**p- *p/*b *p1 *p/*b *p *p
*p1
**-p- *pl*b *pi *p!(p/b) *b *p *pp/v
**b- *bi' *b *b *b *p *p
**-b-
*bh
*b *b *b *w *[pp]/v
**t'- *t *t'(t) *t' *t' *t *t
**-t'- *t *t' *t' *t *ttlt *t(t)
**t- *d *t *t *t *t *t
**-t- *d *t *t *d *t *t(t)
**d-
*dh
*d *d *d *t *t
**-d-
*dh
*d *d *d
'!'8
*t(t)
**k'-
*k,l,kw *k' *k' *k' *k *k
**-k'-
*l,k,kw *k' *k' *kl*g *kklk *k(k)
**k-
*g,g,gw *k *k *k *k *k
**-k- *g,g,gw *k *k *g *k *k(k)
**g- *g *g *g *k *k
**-g- *g *g *g *-y
0
**q'
*k,l,kw *k' *q' *k *k *k
**-q'-
*l,k,kw *k' *k' *k *kk *kklk
**-q- *x *x *q *kl*g *k *k
**--y- *-y *-y *-y *:0/*-y *-y 0
Grimm (1822-37), Verner (1876), and others (compare Brugmann
1972).
The traditional Indo-European reconstruction included in table 1 is
based upon some outmoded assumptions. First, since Sanskrit was the
oldest written Indo-European language, the early comparatists assumed
that it maintained the most conservative system. Hence, the reconstruc-
tion is heavily weighted toward Sanskrit (and the other classical lan-
guages-Latin and Greek). Second, these researchers believed that
the original Indo-European language was spoken by a 'race' that came
from the East, further bolstering the position of Sanskrit. Finally, they
believed that language degenerates from a pure to a corrupt form. If
the earliest written (= pure) form was Sanskrit, then the others must
be degenerate and hence more innovative in their systems.
Linguists have recently determined that the traditional reconstruction
is unlikely at best. No attested language precisely maintains the system
represented in the reconstruction (although Sanskrit may be closest to
it). Thus, some linguists have devised typologically more plausible sys-
tems, relying upon a glottalic realization of what has traditionally been
142 GENERAL LINGUISTICS
reconstructed as the tenues *p, *t, and *k (see Gamkrelidze 1976;
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1973; Hopper 1973; Bombard 1979, 1986).
According to Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1987, 1988b), though, the
glottalic reconstruction actually makes matters worse. Not only is the
glottalic system not found in any reflex of Indo-European, but it creates
an unworkable situation between Indo-European and Nostratic, al-
though their correspondences appear otherwise to be regular. The
problem is that the glottalic system for Indo-European with the opposi-
tion *t/th, *t', *d, for example, would have to correspond to the Nostratic
system with **t', **t, **d. Such a reversal of the glottalic and the tenuis
or aspirate (see Bombard 1986) would simply not occur.
This leaves us with an apparent dilemma. On the one hand, the tradi-
tional Indo-European obstruent reconstruction is based upon faulty as-
sumptions and maintains a system unattested in any language. On the
other hand, the glottalic reconstruction is likewise questionable and ef-
fectively blocks Indo-European from consideration as a Nostratic lan-
guage family, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Of course, this is not
a true dilemma, since the two alternatives are by no means the only
imaginable solutions. A more reliable alternative is found in Germano-
European.
3. GERMANO-EUROPEAN
In the book Germano-European: Breaking the sound law (Griffen
1988), a new hypothesis is presented for the relationship between Ger-
manic and the other Indo-European languages, and this leads to a new
reconstruction for the protolanguage: Germano-European.
The traditional shift from Indo-European to Germanic operated
along the fortis-lenis scale, as it would be effected through the feature
of aspiration (realized physiologically in the width of the orifice of the
larynx and acoustically in a ratio of high to low frequency energy
emission-see Griffen 1985: Chapter 5). But from the standpoint of
phonetic plausibility, the traditional concept of the shift along this scale
is backward, for in phonetic environments conducive to lenition (a de-
crease in the aspirate fortis-lenis scale), it requires provection (the in-
crease). Such a regular pattern of change would not have occurred.
To reconcile the correspondences between Germanic and Indo-
European while maintaining phonetic plausibility, a hierarchy of pho-
netic expectations for change in an aspirate fortis-lenis system is devel-
oped in the Germano-European hypothesis. These expectations, or
tendencies are as follows:
TOBY D. GRIFFEN 143
1. Where accent is not a factor, intervocalic consonants may change
to the lenis.
2. Where accent creates a position of fortis strength, intervocalic
consonants either do not change, or change to the fortis.
3. A consonant in a position of strength (as in word-initial position)
may change to the fortis. (Griffen 1988:174)
When we apply these tendencies to the correlation of Germanic and
Indo-European, we reconstruct a system with, for example, an aspirate
*t\ a tenuis *t, and a lenis *d. From this reconstruction based upon these
tendencies (and normal generalizations to other environments), we can
conclude that the Germanic obstruents have developed along expected
parameters from the protosystem, while the other Indo-European lan-
guages have experienced a shift also along the expected phonetic pa-
rameters. Thus, the relationship between Germanic and Indo-European
could more accurately be described through an Indo-European shift
from Germano-European (including a nonshifted Germano-Armenian
group).
These developments are represented in table 2, in which the numbers
in parentheses correspond to the tendencies noted above, and (G) refers
to the generalization of a tendency beyond its initial environment.
2
This reconstruction is a product of current dynamic phonetidpho-
nological research. The primary determining factor is whether or
not a particular change in a particular system could be supported by ten-
dencies observable in the phonetic substance (and not simply from typol-
ogy). The Germano-European reconstruction not only satisfies the pri-
mary requisite of phonetic plausibility, but it is also better supported by
the norms of areal linguistics, the findings of language typology, and the
physical evidence of anthropology (see Griffen 1988: Chapter 5).
This reconstruction has been developed completely independently of
the Nostratic theory. Nonetheless, as demonstrated below, the obstruent
system of Germano-European correlates more precisely with that of
Nostratic than do either the traditional system or the glottalic system.
4. CORRELATING GERMANO-EUROPEAN AND NOSTRATIC
With the new reconstruction of Germano-European replacing the
traditional and glottalic reconstructions of Indo-European, the proto-
system of this family enters into Nostratic in a manner that is far more
precise and, for the phonetic plausibility underlying the obstruent rela-
tionships, far more credible. In table 3, we see how precisely Ger-
144 GENERAL LINGUISTICS
'Iable 2: Germanic and Indo-European correspondences
Reconstruction Germanic Indo-European
*ph- 'foot' Got fotus 'foot' (3) Lat pedis 'foot (gen.)'
*-ph-
nephod- Ole nefe 'nephew' (3) OP napat- 'grandchild'
'grandchild,
nephew'
*p- paita- 'goat skin' Got paida 'garment' Grk baite '(goat)skin
garment (lG)
*-p- deu-p- 'deep' Got diups 'deep' Ill byth6s 'deep' (1)
*-pV- uper 'over' OHG ubir 'over' (1) Av upara 'the upper' (2/1)
*b- ber- 'to carry' Got bairan 'to carry' Skt bharati 'carries' (1G)
*-b- terb- 'to wind' OHG zerben 'to turn' Skt drbhati 'winds' (1)
*th- threi- 'three' Got tlreis 'three' (3) Olr tri 'three'
*-th- yeth 'year' Got witlrus 'yearling' (3) Hit witt- 'year'
*t- tyo(u) 'two' Got twai 'two' Alb dii 'two' (1G)
*-t- set- 'to sit' Got sitan 'to sit' OCS sMc!!ti 'to sit' ( 1)
*-tV- khry.t6m 'hundred' Got hund 'hundred' (1) Lat centum 'hundred' (2/1)
*d- de(i)- 'to nurse' Got daddjan 'to nurse' Skt dhaya-b 'nourishing' (1G)
*-d- beud- 'to observe' OS biodan 'to present' Skt bodhar 'knower' (1)
*kb- khyon- 'dog' Got hunds 'dog' (3) Toe ku 'dog'
*-kb- thakh- 'to hush' Got llahan 'to hush (3) Umb 'silent'
*k- kir- 'to call, Got kara 'care' Grk 'voice' (1G)
to cry out'
*-k- sak- 'to track' Got sakjan 'to seek' Olr saigim 'to seek' (1)
*-kV- sek- 'to cut' OHG.sega 'saw' (1) OCS sekyra 'ax' (2/1)
*g- ger- 'to jut forth' Ole grQn 'mustache' Grk 'upper lance
point' (1G)
*-g- steig- 'to climb' Got steigan 'to climb' Skt steighnoti 'climbs' ( 1)
mano-European adheres to the obstruent classifications of Nostratic.
As seen in table 3, the Germano-European obstruent system is iden-
tical to that of Nostratic with the one exception that the fortis obstru-
ents of Germano-European are aspirated while those of Nostratic are
glottalized. A closer examination of the data, however, shows that this
difference is minor, and indeed it may be reconciled by parallels in
Germano-European and other Nostratic language families.
As noted above, the Altaic fortis obstruents are realized as strongly
aspirated (especially in Turkic). According to Kaiser and Shevoroshkin,
lllic-Svityc had already shown that 'it was possible to reconstruct a Tun-
gus *x- derived from an earlier *kh- (=[k'], i.e. a "strong", aspirated
stop). Many Tungus words beginning with h- and x- (<*x-) corre-
sponded to the words in k- (and x-) in Turkic languages' (1988:318).
5
Thus, the Altaic languages have undergone the same development of
fricatives from aspirates as has Germano-Armenian.
TOBY D. GRIFFEN 145
A further convergence between Germano-European and Nostratic is
found among the labials of Mongolian. The strongly aspirated Altaic *p'
changed in Mongolian to *f > *h > 0, and this process apparently gen-
eralized to affect Altaic *p as well. The spirantization of *p' to *f mimics
the development in Germanic and Armenian. Moreover, the loss of oc-
clusion that ultimately affected the Mongolian reflexes and also the Tur-
kic reflex of *p' parallels the loss of labial occlusion in Armenian and
in Celtic.
The correlation of Germano-European and Nostratic, however, is
most clear from the nature of the glottalic feature compared to aspira-
tion. The physiological activity associated with the glottalic feature in-
volves an emphatic ejection through the vocal cords. From the stand-
point of the dynamic phonetic processes involved, this ejection through
the glottis may be seen as a type of aspiration. Indeed, Starostin finds
external evidence to support the reconstruction of the fortis obstruents
as aspirates rather than as glottalics:
Thus the external evidence seems to indicate that consonants tra-
ditionally reconstructed in Nostratic as glottalized (emphatic) had,
in fact, been voiceless aspirates-and this also may better explain
some of their reflexes in Nostratic daughter languages. (Starostin
1988:13)
With this adjustment to the Nostratic theory, the proto-Germano-
European obstruents are identical to the proto-Nostratic. Nor does the
adjustment necessarily have to come in Nostratic for the correlation be-
tween these two protosystems to be exact. On the type of system that
may have preceded the *th - *t - *d triad of Germano-European, the
aspirate could have developed from the fortis articulation of the tenuis
Thble 3: Nostratic and Germano-European obstruents
Nostratic
**p'
**p
**b
**t'
**t
**d
**k'
**k
**g
Germano-European
*ph
*p
*b
*th
*t
*d
*kh
*k
*g
146 GENERAL LINGUISTICS
(Griffen 1988:163-64). Not only would this fortis articulation fit more
closely with the glottalic, but it would match the following suggestion of
Kaiser and Shevoroshkin:
Thus, Nostratic triads of the type T' T D remained unchanged
in AA and Kart., but became Th T D in Alt. Apparently the situation
was quite similar in IE: a triad IT D can be reconstructed (instead
of the traditional T D Dh), where I represents a tense row of conso-
nants, T a weak row, and D-a "breathy-voiced" row. This interpre-
tation fits Nostratic and IE data well, and it is supported by borrow-
ings from Semitic into IE and from IE into Kartvelian. (Kaiser and
Shevoroshkin 1988a:323)
While the Germano-European hypothesis does not maintain *D as a
'breathy-voiced' row as such, this realization nonetheless did develop
into voiced fricatives and murmurs that one could classify as 'susurratae'
(Griffen 1988:24).
It is not necessary, however, to adjust the reconstructions so that
Germano-European fits exactly into the Nostratic system, feature for
feature. The extremely high degree of correlation between the two is
demonstrable from the fact that the correspondences in lexical items are
regular and predictable. Moreover, the phonetic similarity between aspi-
ration and glottality makes any conceivable development leading to the
various reflex obstruent systems of the Nostratic languages-including
Germano-European-phonetically plausible. This is the necessary crite-
rion: the regularly predictable correspondence among sounds in lexical
context relatable through phonetic plausibility.
5. CONCLUSION
The Germano-European reconstruction thus provides an obstruent
system matching that of Nostratic so closely that the former language
family can be interpreted as a relatively conservative branch of the latter.
Because of this strong correlation, both hypotheses-the Germano-
European and the Nostratic-are significantly strengthened. Nor is this
correlation a result of circular reasoning, for Nostratic was developed
completely independently of the Germano-European hypothesis, and
the Germano-European hypothesis was developed completely indepen-
dently of Nostratic.
For Germano-European, the closeness of the fit provides external
evidence that bolsters the findings from phonetic internal recon-
struction. After all, one could argue against the Germano-European
obstruent reconstruction for relying upon phonetic substance never
TOBY D. GRIFFEN 147
heard by a phonetician. The external evidence provided by Nostratic,
however, shows that if indeed the Germano-European languages are
descendent from the common source of Nostratic, then it is this recon-
struction and only this reconstruction that will provide the necessary
connection between the common source and the Germano-European
languages.
For Nostratic, the closeness of the fit provides internal evidence that
bolsters the comparative reconstruction of the proto-Nostratic obstruent
system. Since, from the viewpoint of Nostratic studies, the Germano-
European languages are definitely a part of Common Nostratic, this
new reconstruction reconciles the Germano-European system within
Nostratic and delimits the position of the daughter group.
Just how closely the phonetic reconstruction of Germano-European
satisfies the requirements for unambiguous inclusion in Nostratic can be
found in the hypotheses of Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (1988b). Rejecting
the glottalic theory of Indo-European, they suggest an alternative based
not primarily upon the internal reconstruction of that family, but upon
the reconstruction needed to account for its relationships within Nos-
tratic. They note the following:
If the traditional T - D - Dh system is to be discarded on typo-
logical grounds, whatever replaces it must be able to explain fur-
ther developments in IE and account for borrowings from Proto-
Semitic.
A close examination of the Semitic data shows that IE interpreted
Semitic voiced stops either as a voiced aspirated or as a plain voiced.
Clearly we need to reconstruct a system where these sounds were
close. One possibility is to assume a I (fortis) - T (lax) - D (after
Rasmussen), where T and D share the features + lenes. (Kaiser and
Shevoroshkin 1988b: 19)
They then make the same observations noted in the previous section by
this researcher (on the basis of Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988a), particu-
larly regarding aspiration in Germano-Armenian and in Altaic and the
loss of the labial occlusion in Armenian and Celtic and in Turkic and
Mongolian.
There is thus a convergence of the internal reconstruction from pho-
netic plausibility in Griffen ( 1988) and the external reconstruction from
comparative evidence of Nostratic in Kaiser and Shevoroshkin ( 1988a,
1988b). The result of this convergence is strong evidence for the
Germano-European obstruent system as well as for the inclusion of this
language family in Nostratic.
-
148 GENERAL LINGUISTICS
NOTES
I. This table is derived from the individual order tables for initial position and the com-
bined table for intermediate position in Kaiser and Shevoroshkin (I988a). To provide a
more consistent description, the individual Altaic languages are replaced by the recon-
struction for Altaic, which Kaiser and Shevoroshkin supply in footnotes to their tables.
2. This table is reorganized from the one in Griffen (I988:I83-84), so that it might
be more easily compared with table I in the previous section. The forms cited (except for
the obstruents) are in accordance with Pokorny (I959).
3. Kaiser and Shevoroshkin reconstruct proto-Altaic *k' for the fortis, although they
note that Illic-Svityc reconstructed *k.
REFERENCES
Blafek, Vaclav. I988. 'Australian elements in Dravidian lexicon.' Paper presented at the
Soviet-American Conference on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor (Michigan),
October I988. Available through the University of Michigan, Department of Slavic
Languages and Literatures.
Bomhard, A.R. I979. 'The Indo-European phonological system: New thoughts about its
reconstruction.' Orbis 28, 66-IIO.
Bomhard, A.R. I986. 'The aspirated stops of proto-Indo-European.' Diachronica 3:I,
67-79.
Brugmann, Karl. I972. Elements of the comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic lan-
guages. Trans. by J. Wright, 2nd ed. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Gamkrelidze, T.V. I976. 'Linguistic typology and Indo-European reconstruction.' In: Lin-
guistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, vol. 2, ed. by A. Juilland. Saratoga:
Anima Libri.
Gamkrelidze, T.V., and V.V. Ivanov. I973. 'Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der
gemeinindogermanischen Verschliisse.' Phonetica 27, I50-56.
Griffen, Toby D. 1985. Aspects of dynamic phonology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Griffen, Toby D. 1988. Germano-European: Breaking the sound law. Carbondale: South-
ern Illinois University Press.
Grimm, Jacob. 1822-37. Deutsche Grammatik. 2nd ed. GOttingen: Dieterich.
Hodge, Carleton T. I978. 'Lislakh.' In: The fourth LACUS forum, ed. by M. Paradis,
4I4-22. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam.
Hopper, PauiJ. 1973. 'Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European.' Glossa 7:2,
14I--66.
Kaiser, Mark, and Vitalij Shevoroshkin. I987. 'On recent comparisons between language
families: The case of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic.' General Linguistics 27: I,
34-46.
Kaiser, Mark, and Vitalij Shevoroshkin. I988a. 'Nostratic.' Annual Review of Anthropol-
ogy I7, 309-29.
Kaiser, Mark, and Vitalij Shevoroshkin. 1988b. 'Nostratic and proto-Indo-European
"Glottalics".' Paper presented at the Soviet-American Conference on Language and
Prehistory, Ann Arbor (Michigan), October 1988. Available through the University
of Michigan, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
Levin, Saul. 1971. The Indo-European and Semitic languages. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Bern: Francke.
Starostin, S.A. I988. 'Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian.' Paper presented at the Soviet-
TOBY D. GRIFFEN 149
American Conference on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor (Michigan), October
1988. Available through the University of Michigan, Department of Slavic Languages
and Literatures.
Verner, Karl. 1876. 'Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung.' Zeitschrift fOr
vergleichende Sprachforschung 23:2, 97-130.
Foreign Languages and Literature
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Edwardsville, Illinois 6 2 0 2 ~ 1 4 3 2