Anthropological

Linguistics
VOLUME 44, NUMBER 1
Offprint
The Nostratic "Accusative" in *-mA: An Altaic Perspective
PETER A. MICHALOVE
Department of Anthropology American Indian Studies Research Institute
Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana
The Nostratic "Accusative" in *-mA: An Altaic Perspective
PETER A. MICHALOVE
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Abstract. The suffix in -mA has been posited as an accusative suffix under-
lying forms common to Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, and Dravidian. V. M.
Illic-Svityc and others have considered this as evidence to support the Nostratic
hypothesis, which proposes a genetic relationship among these and some other
language families of Eurasia. The Altaic component of this comparison appears,
on the basis of lllic-Svityc's work, to be the weakest part of the comparison.
However, a deeper examination of the Altaic forms shows them to be highly
informative; they ultimately support the proposal of a common origin for this
formative in all of the language families considered. The usages indicate that
the original function of the suffix was not as a direct object marker, but as an
indicator of specificity.
1. A common accusative suffix and specifier of time and space: the
data. The Nostratic theory, which proposes a genetic affiliation among many
of the languages of Eurasia, is highly controversial, largely because all of the
versions of it put forth so far contain serious flaws as well as promising ideas.
Rather than simply accepting any of the versions of Nostratic offered as com-
pletely correct, or dismissing the entire enterprise because of some, even signi-
ficant flaws, there is a third option available to us. It would be more productive
to build on the stronger elements in the theory, to recognize and reject the
elements that are simply incorrect, and most importantly, to work critically to
refme and try to remedy those elements that contain both errors and promising
material in order to see whether the mass of data produces something coherent.
The present article is an attempt to begin this slow, detailed evaluation by
examining an important morphological isogloss in the Nostratic theory.
Illic-Svityc (1976:4S-51) proposes a Nostratic suffix *-mA (where the symbol
A indicates an unrounded low vowel), indicating a marked direct object, repre-
sented by Indo-European *-m, Uralic -m, Dravidian *-m, and Altaic *-ba/-bii.
Of course, the comparison of these forms was not new. There had been a number
of previous proposals, mostly involving binary comparisons among various corn-
binations of the forms, and Illic-Svityc (1976:50-51) gives a good summary of the
literature to the time of his death in 1966. The Indo-European-Uralic com-
parison had been the most frequently discussed, and it provides a particularly
good match. The comparison with the Dravidian form also appears to be well
founded, but, since I have practically no background in Dravidian, the present
article will not pursue that comparison.
The remaining family, Altaic, appears from Illic-Svityc's treatment to
85
86 ANTHRoPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS #N0.1
present the greatest problems. AB we will see, however, a closer examination of
the Altaic material not only supports an equation with the other forms, but
turns out to be the most informative for understanding the origin of the suffix.
Of course, the genetic relatedness of an Altaic family, consisting of Turkic,
Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese, is at least as controversial as Nos-
tratic itself. However, a genetic relationship among the eastern Altaic languages
(Japanese, Korean, and Tungusic) is widely accepted; the controversy, iron-
ically, consists in trying to connect the traditional triad ofTurkic, Mongolic, and
Tungusic. AB we will see, the best evidence for the relatedness of the construc-
tion discussed in this article is found among the eastern languages (Japanese
and Tungusic), while the possible Turkic and Mongolic connections are more
problematic; and this seems to reflect the cWTent state of Altaic studies as a
whole. For an exposition of the stronger and better-accepted relation among the
three eastern Altaic languages, see the recent work ofVovin (2001a, 2001b).
In lllic-Svityc's work, the Altaic distribution of this form is limited to
Tungusic, with an unconvincing Mongolic possibility (1976:49). Since then, how-
ever, Miller (1971) and Itabashi (1988), building on the ideas of Murayama
(1957), have identified the Tungusic suffix in *-bA (with vowel harmony alter-
nants -ba - -bii., and with the consonantlenited to-w- in intervocalic position in
some of the Tungusic languages) with the Old Japanese case suffix wo.
Itabashi (1988) points out three functions of the suffix in Old Japanese:
definite direct object marker, exclamatory marker, and prosecutive case suffiX.
Whiie the use of the accusative suffix to indicate a (definite) direct object is
obvious, the exclamatory usage is less significant because it may be onomato-
poetic. However, the prosecutive function is of particular interest and merits
further discussion here. It expresses specificity of time or space, or a point in
time or space through which something passes, as in (1) and (2).
(1) nagaki yo wo (Old Japanese)
long night PROSECUTIVE
'duringthelongnights' (Itabashi 1988:200)
(2) nagi nQ kaFa be wo (Old Japanese)
Nagi GENITIVE river side PROSECUTIVE
'along the Nagi riverside' (Itabashi 1988:201)
For Tungusic, Itabashi illustrates the same functions. The use of the accusa-
tive to specify time or space (what Benzing calls the accusative of "zeitliche und
riiumliche Erstreckung" [1955:1097]), as in (3) and (4), parallels precisely that of
Old Japanese.
(3) bu ala-Ci--l-la-w dolboni-wa (Ewenki)
we wait-DURATIVE-INGRESSIVE-PRETERITE-1PL night-ACC
'We started to wait all night.' (Konstantinova 1964:49)
2002 PETER A. MICHALOVE
87
(4) mi duente-we pulsi-he-mbi
1
(Nanai)
I forest-ACC walk-PRETERITE-1SG
'I walked through the forest.' (Benzing 1955:1028)
This construction, of course, corresponds exactly to the Indo-European accu-
sative of extent of time or space, as in (5)-(7).
(5) makrits hodous (Greek)
long-ACC-PL road-ACC-PL
'over long roads'
(6) ga-tva tri-n ahoratran (Sanskrit)
go-GERUND three-ACC complete.day-ACC-PL
'having traveled three complete days' (Whitney 1973:92).
(7) man-kan lJUR.SAGTeQ8ina-n sara pa-un (Hittite)
CONDITIONAL-PARTICLE mountain-Tehsina-ACC up go-1SG-PRETERITE
'I would have gone up the mountain Tehsina.' (Friedrich 1974:120)
In Uralic, the use of the accusative to indicate not only a definite direct
object, but also specificity of time and space, is primarily seen only in Balto-
Finnic. Yet this usage is not a borrowing from Germanic, but clearly an indigen-
ous one, since the expression of time and space exactly parallels the complex
expression of the direct object in Balto-Finnic. Karlsson (1999:105-6) cites Fin-
nish usages such as those in (8) and (9).
(8) Ole-n ollut Suome-ssa viiko-n (Finnish)
be-1SG PERFECT Finland-INESSIVE week-ACC
'I have been in Finland for a week.' (Karlsson 1999:105)
(9) Viren juokse-e kilometri-n (Finnish)
Viren run-3SG-PRES kilometer-Ace
'Viren will run a kilometer.' (Karlsson 1999: 106)
Here the extent of time and space is expressed by the accusative in -n ( < * -m ),
formally now the same as the genitive in -n. These constructions have negative
counterparts, as in (10) and (11), with the negative length of time or space in the
partitive, mirroring the expression of negative direct objects.
(10) E-n ole ollut Suome-ssa viiko-a (Finnish)
NEG-1SG be PERFECT Finland-INESSIVE week-PARTITIVE
'I have not been in Finland for a week.' (Karlsson 1999: 105)
(11) Viren e-i juokse kilometri-ii (Finnish)
Viren NEG-3SG run kilometer-PARTITIVE
'Viren will not run a kilometer.' (Karlsson 1999: 106)

88 ANTHRoPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 44NO.l
Karlsson also illustrates the imperative use of the uninflected (nominative) form
to indicate definite amounts of time and space, as in (12) and (13), again paral-
leling the expression of the definite object of an imperative verb.
(12) ~ Suome-ssa IJiikko-0!
be-IMP Finland-INESSIVE week-NOM
'Stay a week in Finland.' (Karlsson 1999:105)
(13) Juokse-0 kilometri-0!
run-IMP kilometer-NOM
'Run a kilometer.' (Karlsson 1999:106)
(Finnish)
(Finnish)
Thus, the use of the accusative of time or space in Finnish follows the same
intricate pattern as that of a direct object, indicating that this is an indigenous
usage, even though it is confined to Balto-Finnic. We will discuss the absence of
this usage elsewhere in Uralic in section 4.
Returning to Altaic, Itabashi (1988) points not only to the Japanese-
Tungusic parallels, but also to possibly related fonns in Turkic and Mongolic.
These are evidenced most clearly in derivatives from the inteiTOgative forms,
such as Old Turkic nii-mii 'thing, something' from nii 'what?', kim kim-mii
'whoever it is' from kim 'who?'; and Written Mongolian ken ba 'whoever' from
ken 'who, which', yam bar ba 'whatever' from yam bar 'what?, what kind?'
This combination of functions suggests that the use of the suffix to indicate
a definite direct object is secondary, and the earlier Altaic accusative in *i-gi,
which is preserved in some form in all of the Altaic languages except Japanese,
confirms this suspicion. Itabashi (1988:211) proposes that the exclamatory
usage must be the original function, and he appears to claim that the variety of
usages cannot derive from an earlier function that is not represented in the
attested languages.
But we can indeed propose such an original function. In phonological recon-
struction, we can compare forms like Greek thermos, Latin formus, and Gothic
warm-jan, and posit an initial consonant in gwh_, although none of the attested
forms preserves all of the voiced, velar, labial, and aspirate features that we
reconstruct for the original form. For the Altaic suffix in -bA, the combination
of definite direct object, exclamatory, and prosecutive functions as a group sug-
gests an original function as a marker of specification.
In this case, the Turkic and Mongolic usages, if they are related to the
Tungusic and Japanese fonns, imply a semantic development in those lan-
guages from specificity to its apparent opposite, generality. This development,
although quite possible, makes these fonns less secure than their Tungusic and
Japanese counterparts.
The function of specificity seems to be the one from which it is easiest to
derive all of the attested usages, and it is certainly easier to imagine the accusa-
tive of specificity of time or space from an original marker of specificity than
,......
2002 PETER A. MICHALOVE
89
from an exclamatory usage. Thus, we do not need to suppose, as ltabashi does,
"that the prosecutive function and the exclamatory function are two different
functions in origin, since each tends to exclude the other" (1988:201). In fact,
their complementary distribution (in Japanese) is strong evidence in favor of a
common origin.
Interestingly, Vertes (1960), considering only the Uralic languages, in which
the accusative in * -m has a more restricted scope of usage than the Altaic form,
concluded, primarily on morphological evidence, that the original Uralic func-
tion of the suffix was not to mark a definite direct object. (See Wickman [1955]
for a good summary of the distribution and usage of this formative.) Vertes sees
the origin of the Uralic suffix in a deictic or determinative element of the same
origin as the first-person pronoun, or rather possessive suffix, since the posses-
sive suffixes frequently serve to indicate specificity. Analogously, she sees the
accusative suffix -t, found in Hungarian and some Khanty dialects as well as in
the Balto-Finnic pronominal accusative, as a deictic element of the same origin
as the second-person possessive suffix. While this explanation of the origin of
the Uralic accusative formative is highly speculative, it is not inconsistent with
our thesis for Indo-European and Altaic, which, as we will see below, share a
first person pronominal marker with Uralic. But what is significant for our pur-
poses is that the Uralic data alone indicate that the Uralic accusative suffix
originated, not as a marker of the definite direct object, but as some sort of
deictic or determinative element. This is in line with our view of the marker as a
specifier in origin.
2
Bomhard and Kerns (1994:185-86) reach a similar con-
clusion, reconstructing *-m (without the following low vowel) as a Nostratic
"accusative of specification."
2. Denasalization of *mAin Altaic. While Itabashi has clearly shown that
the Altaic suffix in * -bA is not isolated within Tungusic, the comparison of this
form with Uralic and Indo-European (and possibly Dravidian and Afroasiatic)
leads us directly to another apparent problem in Illic-Svityc's formulation: the
phonological aspect. The development m > b, or even vice versa, is an un-
remarkable phenomenon, and one that would not require a great deal of com-
ment in itself. But if we suppose, as appears to be the case, that m is the
original phoneme at the Nostratic level, and that denasalization occurred at
some point in the development of Altaic, then the common occurrence of initial
m- in attested Altaic forms means that an inherited m- was denasalized only in
a particular environment, but not in others.
The problem is identical to that of the first-person pronoun, with Uralic
*mi and Indo-European oblique *me-, but Altaic *bi. Vovin (1998) addresses
this problem and correctly shows that, in the well-known suppletive pattern of
the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic first-person pronouns, the form in bi
is original. The oblique forms in *mi- have only secondarily developed anini-
tial nasal by assimilation to a following nasal in the form. To remain within
90 ANTHRoPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 44NO.l
Tungusic, for example, this paradigm is illustrated by Ewenki, which has
nominative bi, but accusative mine, dative mindu, and so on.
This state of affairs leads Vovin to conclude that the "[Proto-Altaic] personal
pronouns are unrelated to the Indo-European or Uralic personal pronouns"
(1998:269). In the same passage, Vovin also rejects an equation of the Altaic
"accusative" discussed in this article with the Indo-European and Uralic forms
on the same basis. Indeed, to equate the Altaic forms for the first-person
personal pronoun and for the accusative suffix with their Indo-European and
Uralic counterparts, we would have to establish a specific phonological environ-
ment in which Altaic inherited m-.
Illic-Svityc (1976:50) proposes that initial m- was denasalized in mono-
syllabic forms in Altaic; the accusative or specifying formative was undoubtedly
a free form originally, and so represented an initial *b-. This is a promising idea,
although one that does not completely reach the mark. Altaic still contains a
large number of monosyllabic forms with initial * m-, so we must look for a more
specific environment in which the denasalization occurred. I propose, on the
basis of the data below, that Altaic denasalized inherited initial * m- to * b- in
monosyllabic forms with a short vowel, but that initial * m- remained in mono-
syllables with a long vowel or diphthong. A further constraint is that the de-
nasalization either failed to occur or was reversed in forms with a subsequent
nasal.
The positive evidence for this development is scanty. We have the first-
person personal pronoun and the accusative suffix discussed above. Illic-Svityc
(1976:70) proposes one other example, the demonstrative pronoun reflected in
Turkic as *bu, as, for example, in Old Turkic bu 'this (one)'. He adds an incoiTect
reference to Mongolic, and no attestation at all in the other branches of Altaic.
For Uralic, lllic-Svityc compares it to mu, mo 'other' (attested only in Finno-
Ugric, e.g., Finnish muu 'something else') and a Kartvelian demonstrative pro-
noun, with possible correspondences in Afroasiatic and Indo-European. On the
basis of the Uralic form, Illic-Svityc posits a Nostratic long vowel. He must
therefore assume an unexplained vowel shortening in the Turkic forms, since
we have short u in Y akut and Turkmen bu. Because of the phonological and
semantic problems, as well as the lack of good Altaic attestation outside of
Turkic (and the absence of Uralic attestation in Samoyed), this comparison
seems extremely unreliable for our purposes.
But there is significant negative evidence in Altaic for the development.
That is, if initial * m- developed to Altaic * b- in monosyllabic forms with short
vowels and no subsequent nasal, then we should not fmd initial m- in this
environment in Altaic. Since Altaic vocalic length is reflected only in Turkic and
Tungusic, and since initial * m- developed to b- in Proto-Turkic in all cases
(leaving no cases of initial m-in native Turkic forms), the Tungusic languages
are our best source of data.
Cincius (1975) cites a large number of monosyllabic Tungusic forms with
--- ----- ----
2002 PETER A. MICHALOVE
91
initial m-. Disregarding the interjection ma., forms attested in only one
Tungusic language, and of course forms identified as loanwords, we find that the
remaining '1\mgusic monosyllabic forms with initial m- can be classed into the
following three categories. (The numeral in parentheses after each fonn is a
reference to the page number in Cincius [1975].)
The first category consists ofform.s with a long vowel or diphthong. Since it
is precisely vocalic length that we propose blocked the denasalization of these
fonns, it is not surprising that this is the largest group.
m 'e 'to set up a fishing net' (p. 533). This form goes back to a diphthong, as
indicated by the Nanai fonns mia.- 'set up a fishing net', mfa.c'f- 'catch fish
with a net'.
me- 'to awaken' (p. 534). This is also the reflex of a back diphthong, as
indicated by the e in Ewenki mel- 'to awaken'.
mi- 'to cut' (p. 535). This may represent a front diphthong on the basis of
Manchu mejje- 'to crumble, unwind, tear, etc.'
mir '81Tow' (p. 537). This form may best'be omitted, as it is isolated in
Arman Ewenki. The Nanai fonn mora.lt- 'crossbow' does not belong here.
mo 'wood' (p. 540)
mu I 'water' (p. 548)
mu II 'rim (of a shaman's tambourine)' (p. 549). This is likely a Mongolian
loan.
mub- 'to intercede for' (p. 549)
mej- 'to stagger' (p. 564). The Ewen fonns mei-- meji- indicate vocalic
length.
mek- 'to obtain' (p. 565). This fonn is isolated in Ewenki. The Oroch, Udehe,
Ulchi, and Nanai forms cited by Cincius (1975) under this lemma repre-
sent a different, bisyllabic form.
men 'one's own, suus' {p. 568). This fonn, of course, also includes a following
nasal.
The second category consists of fonns with a short vowel and a subsequent
nasal.
man 'flock' (p. 526) and mo ne 'impudent' (p. 544). The second form is
attested in Ulchi as mo ne, but in Manchu simply as mo, and Cincius does
not list it in any other Tungusic languages. If we take the Ulchi combination
as a single form, as Cincius does, then the initial m- would be expected to
remain because of the bisyllabic structure of the form, as well as the
following nasal. It is the shorter Manchu fonn mo that raises questions here
and suggests the only possible counterexample to our rule. However, Stefan .
Georg (p.c. 2000) has suggested that Manchu mo (in the construction mo
seme 'saying "mo"') may be an onomatopoetic form, unrelated to Ulchi.
The third category consists of fonns with a short vowel and no subsequent
nasal.
92 ANTHRoPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 44NO.l
This is precisely the environment in which we would expect initial m- to be
denasalized to b-, so that any forms of this shape would be true counter-
examples to our rule. The only such form listed in Cincius (1975) is mit 'we
(inclusive)' (p. 539). This form, of course, is inseparable from the singular
bi 'I' and takes its initial m- from the oblique forms of that pronoun.
Indeed, the inclusive plural is attested with an initial' b- in Oroch and some
dialects of other Tungusic languages.
This rule, then, allows us a phonological justification for the equation of the
Altaic specifier in *-bA with the co!Tesponding Indo-European and Uralic forms
in *-m. But before leaving the issue, we should clarify that the long vowels" we
have been speaking of as blocking the denasalization are only long vowels in
Tungusic. Starostin (1995) shows that long vowels in Tungusic usually co!Tes-
pond to short vowels in Turkic, while long vowels in Turkic co!Tespond to short
vowels in Tungusic. In addition, both languages share a large number of forms
with short vowels.
3. Loss of the final vowel in Altaic. A further phonological question is
raised by the final vowel in the Altaic form *-bAas opposed to the vowelless -m
found in Indo-European and Uralic. As we have seen above, it is best to consider
the suffix as an originally free form, which would require a vocalic element.
Thus, the form takes the shape CV in Japanese (which requires an open-syllable
structure in any case) and Tungusic, where it is still orthographically a separate
word in Manchu (as are all case suffixes in written Manchu). Similarly,
ltabashi's comparison with Written Mongolian ken ba 'whoever' and yam bar ba
'whatever' (1988:216) shows the form remaining as a free form. The evidence
from these languages supports the view that -bA remained a free form until
relatively late in Altaic, which explains why the final vowel was retained even in
those cases where it is now exclusively a bound form, such as the Ewenki suffix
-bs (intervocalically -wa), or Old Turkic nama 'thing, something', where the
form appears graphically to be a bound form. The Turkic form also indicates
that bA became a bound form only after the phonological development of word-
initial m- > b-in Turkic.
In Indo-European and Uralic, the accusative suffix functions only as a
bound form, and shows evidence (especially in Indo-European, of course) of
having developed into a bound form much earlier. Significantly, it is these cases
in which the final vowel has been lost, while it remains only in Altaic, where the
form continued as a free form until considerably later.
4. Further developments in Indo-European and Uralic. This information
from Altaic leads us to answer two further questions about the use of the suffix
in the other languages. First, why was the marker of specification, which came
to indicate a definite direct object in Uralic and Altaic, generalized to refer to
2002 PETER A. MICHALOVE
93
any direct object in Indo-European? At first glance, this may appear to be a
trivial question, since such a generalization is hardly an unusual morphological
or semantic development. In fact, the Old Japanese accusative suffix wo, mark-
ing a definite direct object, has come (in its modem fonn o) to indicate any direct
object in Modern Japanese.
lllic-Svityc (1976:50) proposes that in Indo-European, the accusative of the
definite direct object was generalized to all the objects in the masculine and
feminine genders, while the neuters, for which direct object is the unmarked
function, further generalized the accusative fonn to the nominative. This is good
reasoning, and it may well have been a factor in the development of the Indo-
European accusative. But in light of the typological research that has occurred
since that time, we can add a further reason. Indo-European is unusual among
the languages of the world in having a marked nominative. It is typologically
even more unusual for a language to have a marked nominative and an un-
marked direct object case, although there are some cases of this structure
attested. Hence it is not surprising that Indo-European should have developed
an overtly marked accusative.
And finally, why was the accusative of specification of time and space lost in
most of Uralic when it was retained to the east and west in Altaic and Indo-
European? A likely explanation is that many of the Uralic languages have
secondarily developed a profuse system of spatial cases, replacing the accusative
of space or time, so that the various Uralic languages express the extent of time
or space in a number of separate manners. Many of the Uralic languages that
express specificity of time and space through grammatical case do so with
different case suffixes, which only secondarily acquired that function. For ex-
ample, Udmurt expresses the concept with the dative case, as in ki:k nunal-lt 'for
two days'; Hungarian uses the terminative case for the same function, as het-ig
'for a week'.
Of course, the development of secondary local cases does not guarantee that
specificity of time and space will be expressed by novel means; the original
marking by the suffix *-bA is retained in the morphologically rich northern
Tungusic languages, as we saw in the Ewenki example above, not to mention in
Finnish, as we have also seen. But where elaborate secondary systems of spatial
cases do occur, they provide a structural reason for the varying means of ex-
pressing specificity of time and space, as in Udmurt and Hungarian. Structural
explanations such as this for the loss of the accusative of time and space in most
of the Uralic languages, or for the generalization of the accusative to express
even indefinite direct objects as in Indo-European, provide a rationale for the
specific developments we fmd, and add further support to the idea of a common
origin for the form in these languages.
Thus, a closer examination of this suffix, especially the Altaic material,
which originally appeared to be the weakest link in the correspondence, serves
only to support its status as an inherited morpheme, common to Indo-European,
,........
94
ANTHRoPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 44NO. 1
Uralic, Altaic, possibly to Dravidian and, with much less assurance, to Afro-
asiatic.
Perhaps the most persuasive aspect of this isogloss is not simply that we
have a common accusative suffix, or a common specifier of time and space, but
rather that we see the agreement of these functions across all three of the lan-
guage families we have considered here. In evaluating proposals of language
relationship, many scholars have emphasized the importance of morphological
evidence as particularly significant in establishing a common genetic origin,
much as Bopp (1816) established the Indo-European relationship once and for
all on the basis of verbal morphology. I agree entirely with the importance of
morphological parallels. But in addition, this article has tried to show that a
consideration of the entire package of phonological, morphological, syntactic,
and semantic components of a reconstruction is necessary to understand the
form's origins and development.
Notes
Acknowledgments. Many thanks to Fabrice Cavoto, Stefan Georg, and the two
reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article. Of course they
bear no responsibility for the conclusions stated here.
Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used: 1 = first person; 2 = second
person; 3 = third person; ACC = accusative; IMP = imperative; NOM = nominative; PL =
plural; so= singular.
1. The modem notation <e> used here for Benzing's <a>.
2. Fabrice Cavoto (p.c. 2000) has kindly pointed out that Diakonoff (1988:64-67)
considers mimation in Semitic as having a determining function," similar to a definite
article, and that in Old Akkadian, where it is most clearly attested, it is absent in the
status indeterminatus and often in proper names. Whether this feature can be
attributed back to Afroasiatic as a whole and is comparable to the other markers of
specification discussed here is questionable and, like the Dravidian case, will not be
pursued further in this article.
References
Benzing, Johannes
1955 Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik.
Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 11:949-
1099. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.
Bomhard, Allan R., and John C. Kerns
1994 The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship.
Bopp,Franz
Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 7 4. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
1816 Ober das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit
jenem der griecheschen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen
Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Andreiische Buchhandlung.
Cincius, V. 1., ed.
1975 Sravnitel'nyj slovar' tunguso-man'czurskix jazykov: materialy k etimo
logiceskomu slovarju. Vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka.
2002 PETER A. MICHALOVE
95
Diakonoff, I. M.
1988 Afrasian Languages. Translated by A. A. Korolev and V. Ya. Porkhomov-
sky. Moscow: Nauka.
Friedrich, Johannes
197 4 Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Erster Teil: Kurzgefasste Grammatik. 3d ed.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Illic-Svityc, V. M.
1976 Opyt sravnenija nostraticeskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kartvelskij,
indoevropejskij, uralskij, dravidijskij, altaijskij). Sravnitel'nij slovar'. Vol.
2. Moscow: Nauka.
Itabashi, Yoshizo
1988 A Comparative Study of the Old Japanese Accusative Case Suffix wo with
the Altaic Accusative Case Suffixes. Central Asiatic Journal32(3-4):193-
231.
Karlsson, Fred
1999 Finnish: An Essential Grammar. 2d ed. London: Routledge.
Konstantinova, 0. A.
1964 Evenkijskij jazyk: fonetika, morfologija. Moscow: Nauka.
Miller, Roy Andrew
1971 Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Murayama, Shichiro
1957 Vergleichende Betrachtung der Kasus-Sufflxe im Altjapanischen. Studia
Altaica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Starostin, Sergei A.
1995 On Vowel Length and Prosody in Altaic Languages. Moscow Linguistic
Journal1:191-235.
v ertes, Edit
1960 Beitriige zur Frage des flnnisch-ugrishen bezeichneten Akkusativ-objekts.
Acta LinguisticaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 10:181-94.
Vovin, Alexander
1998 Nostratic and Altaic. In Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence, edited by Joseph C.
Salmons and Brian D. Joseph, 257-70. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory
and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory 142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2001a Japanese, Korean and Tungusic: Evidence for Genetic Relationship from
Verbal Morphology. In Altaic Affinities: Proceedings of the Fortieth Meet-
ing of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIA C), edited by
David B. Honey and David C. Wright, 183-202. Bloomington: Research
Institute for Inner Asian Studies.
2001b North East Asian Historical-Comparative Linguistics on the Threshold of
the Third Millennium. Diachronica 18:93-137.
Whitney, William Dwight
1973 Sanskrit Grammar, Including Both the Classical Language, and the Older
Dialects, of Veda and Brahman [1889]. 2d ed. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Wickman,Bo
1955 The Form of the Object in the Uralic Languages. Uppsala: Almqvist and
Wiksells.