dolgopolsky_a_nostratic_dictionary 2012.pdf

(33372 KB) Pobierz
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Nostratic Dictionary
by Aharon Dolgopolsky
Third Edition
Published by:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
University of Cambridge
Downing Street
Cambridge, UK
CB2 3ER
(0)(1223) 339336
(0)(1223) 333538 (General Office)
(0)(1223) 333536 (FAX)
dak12@cam.ac.uk
www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk
Third Edition
© 2012 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
All rights reserved. No parts of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without the prior permission of the
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
This is the final edition which was submitted in January 2012.
It remains unedited and unproofed due to unfortunate
death of the author. This publication is accessible on-line at
http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/244080.
Contents
Preface by Colin Renfrew
Foreword by Aharon Dolgopolsky
Introduction: the Nostratic Macrofamily
1. The Nostratic macrofamily
2. Phonology
3. Grammar
4. Grammatical typology
5. Derivation
6. The place of Hamito-Semitic
7. Using etymological dictionaries
8. The Nostratic symposium. Remarks of my colleagues and methodology
9. Alphabetical order of entries
10. Nostratic etyma and cross-references
11. A note on reconstructions
12. Was Nostratic a root-isolating or a stem-isolating language?
13. On transcription
14. On references
15. On epochs and dialects of languages
16. On infinitives and ‘pseudo-infinitives’ in our vocabulary entries
17. On indicating the meaning of words and forms
I. Indo-European
II. Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic)
III. Kartvelian
IV. Uralic
V. Altaic
VI. Dravidian
VII. Elamite
VIII. Gilyak
IX. Chukchee-Kamchadal
X. Eskimo-Aleut
7
8
26
29
30
31
36
37
45
46
46
46
47
50
51
51
52
52
60
74
75
79
84
86
86
86
87
v
3
7
Classification of the Nostratic languages
52
Nostratic etymologies
General remarks
*Ɂ, *ˀ
*ʕ, *ʕ̱
*b
ˈ
*c, *ć, *�½̄
,
*c
,
*C
ˈ
̣
*c̣
,
*ć̣
,
*�½̣
̄ ,
*c
,
*C̣
*č
*�½
*ĉ
*ĉ̣
*d
*g
*g
*ɣ, *Г
*h
*H, *ʜ, *ʜ₁, *ʜ₂
*ħ
*k
*ḳ, *Ḳ
*l, *l
,
*l
,
*L
*ĺ
‘
*m
*n, *ǹ, *ṉ, *�½, *ɴ, *N, *Ṉ
*ń
*ŋ
89
91
198
248
375
403
443
469
491
509
527
605
747
765
783
826
857
1011
1193
1304
1396
1401
1586
1659
1707
89
*p, *p
̣ ,
*�½
*q
*q
̣
*r
ˈ
*s, *ś, *s̄
,
*s
,
*S
*š
*ŝ
*t
*ṭ
*w
*χ, *
χ
*y
ˈ
*z, *ź, *z̄
,
*z
,
*Z
*ž
*ẑ
ˈ
*ʒ, *ӡ *ӡ̄
,
*ʒ
,
*Ʒ
ˊ,
*ǯ
*ӡ̂
1727
1940
1977
2021
2063
2209
2242
2290
2353
2544
2658
2697
2733
2756
2759
2765
2811
2828
List of Nostratic entries and Indo-European roots
Symbols and Abbreviations
Abbreviations of names of languages, dialects, language families, subfamilies, and script systems
A. Names of languages, dialects, and families of languages
B. Scripts
C. Names of transcription systems
Scholars and scholarly papers
Symbols of ancient and medieval sources and authors
2840
2970
3002
3038
3039
3040
3055
3002
Symbols of names of scholars, titles of collective papers, sources of information
3040
Abbreviations of grammatical, phonological, and orthographic terms, forms and classes of word,
terms of their derivational and semantic history, and signs denoting reconstructions and hypotheses
Bibliography
Transliteration of non-Roman scripts in bibliographical references
Periodicals and collected papers
3058
3607
3609
3067
Preface
v
Preface
Colin Renfrew
A
haron Dolgopolsky is today the leading authority
That the widespread distributions over space of
languages and of language families are likely to be
amenable to historical explanation has been evident
since the time of Sir William Jones (1786), and is
widely accepted today (Nettle 1999; Dixon 1997).
And the processes involved, which may include
dispersals of population and other demographic
effects, must in many cases go back before the
time that written records are available, and there-
fore into prehistory. Such distributions demand
some explanation in archaeological terms, and the
archaeological record has much to offer about social
and economic processes in early times. Indeed the
developments of molecular genetics offer the pos-
sibility that archaeogenetics may have something to
offer to the understanding of population histories.
So the possibility arises of an ‘emerging synthesis’
(Renfrew 1991; 2000b) between the fields of histori-
cal linguistics, prehistoric archaeology and molecu-
lar genetics. The possibility exists, at least in theory,
of writing an integrated history that will bring into
play data from all three intersecting fields.
In this context the challenging claims implied
by the Nostratic hypothesis are of considerable inter-
est, carrying as they do, widespread implications if
those claims be accepted. For the Nostratic hypoth-
esis as first set out by Illich-Svitych (1989; 1990; see
Bulatova 1989) and by Dolgopolsky (1973; 1998;
1999) proposes a relationship between several of
the principal language families of Europe, Asia and
Africa. The relationship implies a common origin
for these families and their constituent languages,
and presumably a Nostratic or Proto-Nostratic
homeland, occupied by the speakers of the notional
ancestral language at a date well prior to the forma-
tion of the daughter families and their languages.
The language families in question (see Fig.
1) are the Altaic family, the Afroasiatic family, the
Indo-European family, the Kartvelian family (i.e.
the South Caucasian languages) and the Dravidian
family. The matter has already been set out clearly
by Dolgopolsky (e.g. Dolgopolsky 1999; see also Kai-
ser & Shevoroshkin 1988) and is, of course, further
discussed in the pages which follow here. Broadly
on the Nostratic macrofamily, and it is a privilege to
be invited to write some words by way of introduc-
tion to his monumental
Nostratic Dictionary.
For it
is, of course, something very much more than a dic-
tionary. It is the most thorough and extensive dem-
onstration and documentation so far of what may
be termed the ‘Nostratic hypothesis’: that several of
the world’s best-known language families are related
in their origin, their grammar and their lexicon, and
that they belong together in a larger unit, of earlier
origin, the Nostratic macrofamily.
It should at once be noted that several elements
of this enterprise are controversial. For while the
Nostratic hypothesis has many supporters, it has
been criticized on rather fundamental grounds
by a number of distinguished linguists. The mat-
ter was reviewed some years ago in a symposium
held at the McDonald Institute (Renfrew & Nettle
1999), and positions remain very much polarized.
It was a result of that meeting that the decision was
taken to invite Aharon Dolgopolsky to publish his
Dictionary
— a much more substantial treatise than
any work hitherto undertaken on the subject — at
the McDonald Institute. For it became clear that the
diversities of view expressed at that symposium
were not likely to be resolved by further polemical
exchanges. Instead, a substantial body of data was
required, whose examination and evaluation could
subsequently lead to more mature judgments. Those
data are presented here, and that more mature
evaluation can now proceed.
First, however, it may be worth clarifying why
these issues are of such potential interest to archae-
ologists and to historians of culture as well as to
historical linguists — which is why this work finds
publication under the aegis of an institute for archae-
ological research. In recent years there have been
attempts towards some rapprochement between
the fields of prehistoric archaeology and historical
linguistics (Renfrew 1987; Blench & Spriggs 1997–9;
McConvell & Evans 1997; Kirch 2001), and the once
rather neglected relationships between archaeology
and language have again been vigorously debated.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin