":

srt Dl? L:, h.cfk"'le 4 Prel.lrlo'(J-

fJ..EL/:.-VANT TI::.-XTS
V.M. Illlt-Svltyt A Comparison Of the Nostratic Languages. (VOl. I,
Moscow; vol. 2, Moscow 1976; vol. 3, part I, Moscow, 1984). Concerning the
author aM the publlcatlon or his work.
By R. Bulatova
Vladislav Markovlt Illit-Svltyt was born on September I 2,
I 934 1n Klev. In 1957 he graduated from Moscow State
Unlverslty wlth a major in Slavlstlcs. From 1957 through 1966
he worked in the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Soviet
Academy or Sciences. In 1963 he successfully defended hls
doctoral candldate dissertation, entitled "Nominal accentuation
in Baltic and Slavic. The fate of the accentual paradigms. The
dissertation was published ln Moscow in 1963 ( 179 ppJ. 1111e-
Svttyt died on August 22, 1966.
Before occupying himself with problems ln the area or remotely cognate
languages, Ill!t-Svttye was the author or a series of articles ln Slavic,
Balto-Siavic and Indo-European Unguisticsl, as well as the relatively
small, but highly significant book rmennaja akcentuactja v baltljskom i
slavjanskom (Moscow, 1963) <translated 1nto English as "Nominal
Accentuation ln Baltic and Slavtc, MIT Press, 1979). In th1s book we can
already discern the characteristic traits or the 29-year old III1C-Sv1tyf's
talent }or research: sc1ent1f1c boldness, consistency or purpose, an
astonishingly rapid associative ablltty, consummate mastery or data, and
a skill for far-reaching analysts or the mater1aJ2. A constant
V.M. Illlt-SvHyes scholarly lHe was his interest in problems related to
Indo-European root structurel, an interest which grew out or his
I for a Ust or Ill!t-SvltyC's publ1shed works up to 1966, see V.A. Dybo's
article "Pamjat1 V.M. 1111C-Sv1tyea, ln Soyetskoe s!ayJaoovedenle 1967,
1:76-77.
2 V.A Oybo. "PamjaU V.M. Illte-SvltyCa, p. 72.
J See Illlt-Svltyes articles 1n Yoprosy jazykozoanlJa 1959, 2; 1961, 4;
VOprosy SlayJaosl<ogo jazykozoaoiJa VOl. 5, MoSCOW, 1961, etc.
...
cstssausraction with the state or Indo-European reconstruction. A
tendency in 11ngu1st1cs to construct equally probable and
arbitrary proto-systems was attributed by Ill1C-Sv1tye to an over-
estimation or the possib111tes or the method or internal reconstruction,
when applied without strict control by external comparison.
This conclusion in fact led Illte-Svttye to the inev1tab111ty of moving
beyond the bounds of one language ramuy and to the necessity of comparing
a set or language ram111es.
To the solution of this problem Ill1C-Svttye brought to bear a superb
mastery or all the tools or comparative-historical analysis and successful
experience 1n the tlelds or comparative historical phonology and
accentology. In the ccxrse or Just a few years he not only assimllated and
critlcally evaluated the avallable material on five large language ram1l1es
<not including but also produced an important series of
works on the Alta1c, lk'alic, Kartvellan, and Hamito-Semitlc languages,
f1111ng in gaps in the comparative grammars or these language groups.
Examples or Ill1C-Svityf's timely and innovative wort< were his articles
on the AI laic dentals (*I,* d, a> and velars (* k', * k, * In the Urst
or these works he gave a detailed proof of the existence of Proto-Ttrt1c
initial d and *8. disproving the establlshed viewpoint in Turkology,
according to which only the voiceless dental * I was possible in Turkic in
initial position. It was he who proved the triadic system of inltlal stops
in thereby determining the Proto-Altaic system or stops. It was
also he who proposed the Proto-Altaic status or a long vowel series.
The well-known Kartvelianist, G.A. Klimov, author or an etymological
dictionary or the Kartvelian languages (of which Illi(:-Sv1ty(: was the
edltor), observed that Illle-svuye came to Kartvellan studies at a crucial
period in Kartvellan comparative-historical grammar, when the canons of
traditional Kartvellan 11ngu1st1cs were beginning to be reevaluated as a
result of the appl1cat1on of new methods or research and an expansion or
the basis or comparison, the latter principally due to the inclusion or data
4 See voprosy Jazykoznao1Ja 1963, 6; EumologlJa ,1964, Moscow, Nauka,
1965.
2
.
rrom Svan. Traditional Kartvel1an 11nguistics had not admltted the
possib111ty or an initial kinship between Kartvel1an and Indo-European
languages. Against this background, Ill1t-Sv1tyt's studies, guided as they
were by the 1dea that 1t was necessary to seek ror external comparisons
between Kartvel1an and Nostratic languages, struck a new note. Ill1t-
Svltyt proposed new solutions ln the determination or the Proto-
Kartvellan root structure, making a contr1but1on to working out the
problem or Proto-Kartvellan ablaut. He was the Urst 1n Kartvel1an
studies to draw attention to prothetic consonants 1n Svan. Ill1t-Sv1tyt
provided a rel1able reconstruction or Proto-Kartvel1an prototypes, a by-
product or which was the appearance or a set or new
etymologies, as well as the rertnement or existing ones. Mastery of the
Sem1t1c material allowed h1m to adduce additional evidence for ancient
contacts between the Kartvel1an and Semitic language ram111es. Ill1t-
Sv1tyts work 1n Kartvel1an comparative-h1stor1cal grammar went beyond
the 11m1ts or Kartvelian 1nto the area or Caucasian languages 1n general
and still further. This work presupposes an 1n1tial cognate relationship
between Kartvel1an and Indo-Europeans.
Ill1t-Sv1tyt 1n errect la1d the foundations of Ham1to-Sem1t1c
comparative phonologv6. In an article on Chadlc consonantism he first
gave an exact description or the comparative phonology or Chadlc on the
basts or data from 12 languages, representing all the baste groups or th1s
large On the basts or regular correspondences he reconstructed the
s See Ill1t-:Sv1tyt's review or T.V. Gamkrel1dZe's and G.A. Matavar1an1's
boOk 1n Yoprosy Jazvkoznan1Ja 1966, IV, as well as hls article caucas1ca
1n btmo!og1Ja prtncipy reconstrukc111 metodika 1ssledoyan1Ja. Moscow,
1965.
6 V.M. I111t-Sv1tyt. '0revnd1e 1ndoevropeJsko-sem1tSk1e Jazvtcovye
kontalcty 1n Problemy tndoevropeJskogo Jazykoznanua ltJudy po
srayoltel'no-JstortCeskoJ grammaUke 1odoeyropeJsk1x Jazykoy. Moscow,
1964; rz 1stor11 tadskogo konsonantizma: lab1al'nye smytnye 1n JaZyU
Alr1U. Moscow, 1966; as well as unpubl1shed materials.
3
_I
@
Proto-Chad1c system or labial stops and examined 1ts connection w1th the
corresponding Proto-Ham1to-Sem1t1c system.
Ill1t-Sv1tyt's s1fllt1cant contributions to Indo-European 11ngu1stics
include h1s proof of the complementary distribution or the Indo-European
velars wlth respect to Nostratic vocal1sm7. In a work dedicated to Indo-
European-Semmc language contacts tsee footnote 6) Ill1t-Sv1tyt not only
ident1Ued a strat11n of ancient borrowings from Sem1t1c into Indo-
European, thereby del1m1t1ng the domaln or possible genetic comparisons
between these two language groups, but also proposed new data for solving
the question or the Indo-European homeland.
Ill1t-svuye strengthened and refined the reconstruction of tnl1c
vocalism 1n the 11ght of external comparative data&.
The crowning achievement of his schOlarly career was to be the attempt
at genetic comparison of remote language groups, which resulted in the
compUation of a comparative-h1stor1cal grammar of the six major
language groups of the Old World: Indo-European, Ham1to-Sem1t1c,
Kartvel1an, tral1c, Dravidian, and Altaic. Ill1t-svuye managed to publish
his 'Materlaly k sravn1tel'nomu slovarJu nostrat1teSkix jazykov'9
("Materials For a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages),
which includes a dictionary of 600 Nostratic roots, alphabetically
organized according to the reconstructed proto-forms and in
the daughter languages and their proto-languages.
Ill1e-sv1tyts overall conception regarding the examination or remote
kinship prOblems among language fam111es of the Old World changed
somewhat 1n the course or working through h1s materials. At r.trst he
proposed to glve a comparative grammar or the Nostratic languages,
accompanying 1t w1th an extensive index or etymological congruences. It
7 V.M. Ill1t-Sv1tyt. 'Genezis 1ndoevropejsk1x rJadov guttural'nyx v svete
dannyx vndnego sravnen1ja 1n J!roblemy sravnttel'nol grammatlk1
1ndoeyropeJsktx Jazykoy. Tez1sy dokladoy, Moscow, 1964.
8 See Teztsy dokladoy oa VsesoJuznoJ konrereocu rtooo-ugrovedoy y
Ueyske. Uevsk, 1967.
9 See btmolog1Ja 1965 Moscow, Nauka,!96 7.

was during this time that he wrote the Introduction and part or the
Comparative Phonology (both preserved in a rough draft written ln pencU).
However, the increasing scope or his etymological research convinced
Illif-Sv1tyf or the necessity or forming this section into a separate
etymological dictionary, including more than 600 entries.
Ill1f-Sv1tyf worked wlth great speed, as H seeking to accompl15h as
much as possible in the small Ume alloted him to Uve. He intended to
include ln the etymological dictionary all the roots he had identified, and
agonized over the solution to the problem or how to compress all 600 or
these Un his data rues there are more> into the one volume or
approximately 500 pages which had been granted hlm ln the plan or
the Institute for Slavic Studies. In writing up the etymologies he tried
to take into account their alphabetical order, in order to ensll"e run
publlcauon or the complex text. Thanks to this, the t1rst published part or
the dictionary ( b- /) represents an Integral whole, rather than disparate
etymologies.
Slava, as Vladislav Markovlf was known to his friends and colleagues,
perished at the height or his work on the Nostratic dictionary, at a time
or supreme concentratlon and (Jlobil1zat1on or all his strength and powerful
intellect. He was completely engulfed in the project, which occupied all
his waking hours. Thus, on that fateful Sooday, the 21st or August, 1966,
in the town or Zagor)anska)a near Moscow <where he had rented a room with
hls and son in a decrepit Uttle wooden house), as he was walking
home wlth a can or kerosene, lost 1n his thoughts, he started across the
road before verifying the now or trarrtc. The inexperienced driver or the
oncoming vehicle was unable to avoid a collision. Vladislav Markovif's
in)urles were severe, including a fractured skull. A local hospital outside
or Moscow, especially on a Sooday, was unable to provide the appropriate
neurosurgical aid, and on August 22nd Vladislav Markovif was no more.
He left behind him the first 24 typewritten pages or the etymological
dictionary, 288 etymological entries in rtnal handwritten copy, rough
drafts or an additlonal 65 etymologies, and inltlal entrles ror the letters
r-j. In addltlon there were numerous card rues or materials and
b1bl1ograph1es, folders, and envelopes containing various materials. It is
5
@
d1ft1cult to bel1eve that all or th1s could f1t 1nto a small room which
served not only as a study, but also as a bedroom and dining room.
Slavas work was by the most scrupulous exactitude and order,
which entered into all aspects or his research. We, ror example, were
struck by the fact that the IntrodUCtion to his etymological dictionary,
which was written by hand and contained many hundreds of bibllographical
references, proved when checked to contain not a single mistake or
inexactitude Un the text itself there was only one misprint>.
Consequently 1t was possible ror a person with no previous expertise in
the field, such as myself, to orient themselves in his materials without
dirrtculty.
Ime-svitye, OybO, and I were friends ror many years; none of us were
Muscovites and therefore we did not live in Moscow itself. We worked
together CI from 1956, Slavja from 1957, Oybo from 1958) in the Institute
for Slavic Studies (Academy of Sciences, USSR) in the Slavic Unguistlcs
sector, headed by Professor Samuu Bor1sovte well known ror
i hts remarkable ab111ty to attract talented Unguists, including O.N.
Trubaeev, S.K. Sllllljan, A.A. Zal1znjak, N.l. Tolstoj, V.N. Toporov. Slava was
favorite pupil. He was in fact loved and deeply respected by all
his colleagues not only for his immense talent and hard work, but also for
his humanity, spiritual generosity, patience, commitment to principles,
and self-effacing modesty. He was a true friend: althOUgh he himself Uved
. tn a small rented room, he touchingly and effectively concerned himself
with Oybo, who fOIJld himself without work upon the completion or his
graduate studies and was forced at times to spend the night at the train
station. It was Slava who brought Oybo to the Institute and persuaded
to give him a position. At the same time, Slava was close to
very few people, opening up to almost no one. He had a nne sense of humor
and or self-irony. He wrote poetry and drew well.
Slava worked atone, only occasionally discussing Unguistlc matters
with V.A. Oybo, hts regular opponent, whose remarks often inspired Stava
to deepen and strengthen his arguments. When, for example, he wrote his
1nnovat1ve works tn Altaic l1nguist1cs, he would bring them for
discussion to the appropriate groups of scholars at the Institute or
6
.
Linguistics or the Soviet Academy or Sciences, withOut knOwing anyone
there. He would be greeted with a mbctW"e or wariness and ridicule: as 1f
to say, who is t"is Slavist to intrude into an area outside his expertise?
Dybo and I were present at one such discussion in the Turkological sector
and were able to observe hOw the attitude toward Illie-svuye changed in
the course of the discussion. The level or his professional competence
convinced and impressed even the strongest sceptics. In Kartvelian
studies 1t was the same story.
After Slava's death no one (not even S.B. believed that 1t was
real1stlcally possible to bring hls work to publ1cat1on without the author
and the help of specialists. The horrible sense or loss had. 11terally
devasted Dybo and myself. All that guided us in OW" blind grief was the
insuperable need to do something ror Slava, to atone tor the sense of gullt
we felt toward him: for the fact that we had nat been wlth him in his flnal
awful hours, nor done anything to save him (I was on vacation with my
ch1Jdren in the south, whlle Dybo was at home in a small town outside
Moscow, also wlthout any knowledge of what had happened).
I studied the card t11es, papers, drew up an inventory, had the ready
etymologies typed, and then proofread them. Dybo immersed himself 1n the
material: unravelling changes in Illie-svuyes texts, which resulted from
the author's discovery of new solutions to many fundamental problems in
Nostratic comparative historical phonology.
A crucial problem, which required a good deal or painstaking work, was
the compos1t1on or tables or phonetic correspondences, which would serve
as a key to the enure contents or the dictionary. Ill1e-Svitye had !'Ot had
Ume to make these tables. It was a sight to behold as Dybo (whOse
schOlarly interests were Plfl)ortedly limited to Indo-European and Slavic
accentology, but which actually extended tar beyond) would be alternately
elated by his success in following Ill1e-svuyes steps, then fall into dark
despair when he was unable to make the necessary connections. With his
enormous scholarly potential, V.A Dybo was severly tried by the etrort
required to enter into the volume or material bequeathed by Illle-svuye.
Wh1le comparing the materials or Ill1f-Sv1tyes preliminary publlcations
with the text or the prepared dictionary, Dybo discovered a number of
7

divergent readings reflecting changes in the reconstructions of vowel and
consonant systems, which were inevltably made by his colleague in the
light or advances in hls research. Dybo grouped these changes and gave an
analysts or them in the introductory Edltor's Preface <vol. I, pp. III-
XXXIVl. These changes concerned the introduction or a Nostratic I, a more
precise statement or the reflexes or Nostratic /, reconstruction or the
laryngeal 'i, etc. Complete tam1liarlty with the material complied and
developed by Ill1f-Sv1tye, and 1ts direct comparison with original
sources, which was carried out by Dybo and hls volooteer assistants, gave
Vladimir Antonovie grounds for emphatically aff1rm1ng the proto-language
status or the reconstructed proto-system tvol. I, p. XXXV). . his
methOdically rigorous and materially rich investigation, Illlf-Svitye had
convinced as formidable and demanding an opponent as Dybo. From this
tlme forth, Dybo became a flrm adherent or the Nostratic hypothesis, and
contlned to susue develpments in the fleld of remote k1nst\1p between
language fam1lies. In fact 1t is Dybo, or Ill1e-Sv1tye's
work, whO has led Nostratic studies from being a one-man fleld into the
area or collective research.
At the Institute or Ungulstlcs (Academy or Sciences, USSR> there
worked a scholar named A.B. Dolgopolsty, who shared Illie-svuyes
interests, but with whom Vladislav 'Markovle malntalned contact
reluctantly. Impulsive, hasty and careless, Aron somehow dld not favorably
the thorough and taciturn Illif-Sv1tye. I was once witness to a
conversation or theirs on the balcony of the Lenln library in Moscow. Aron
po\J'ICed upon Illle-svuye, asking questions, which Slava
anwered almost through hls teeth. When the conversation had ended; Slava,
sighed with reller, and sald: Im afraid to tell h1m anything more than I
have to; otherwise he'll pmllst\ 1t tomOITow without checking u-. In tact
Just such a thing had recently ocC\I'red. Dolgopolsky, who had taken up
Nostratic studies long before Illle-svttye, had come to the conclusion
that immediate comparison was insurt1cient to solve the question or
genetic kinship w1th1n the Nostratic languages. He placed great !\Opes in a
mathematical methOd or analysts which would contlrm the theoretical
probabllity or non-trivial cotnctdences. The results or hls investigation

.
in this direct1on were otrered in the article The hypothesis of the
ancient Unship or language ram1lies or Northern Eurasia from the point of
view or probab1l1ty" Un yoorosy Jazykoznan1Ja I 964, 2). But an
acquaintance with the prel1minary results achieved by Illit-svuye, and
w1th his posit1on on the glven question, compelled Dolgopolsky to take a
more optlmistlc stance regarding the poss1bl1ty or derlvlng a system or
regular correspondences between Nostratic languages by means or
immediate comparison or the roots or the proto-languages or the
respecuve daughter rammes. By the Ume or the 7th Intemattonal
Congress or Ethnography ln 1964, Dolgoposky had prepared a paper titled A
hypothesis regarding the ancient kinship or the languages or
Eurasia (the problem or phonetic correspondences>-, a prelimary version or
which he had shown to IlUe-svuye. The latter had made many add1Uons
and correcuons. Aron took all or these into full account, but om1tted to
indicate their author.
Therefore, when the question arose as to including Oolgopolsky 1n the
work on Ill1e-svuyes manuscript (since 1t was apparent that hls
knowledge would be or help), the idea was opposed by almost all members
or the sector, including myself, remembering as I did Slava's reaction to
Oolgopolsky. But I was eventually persuaded otherwise, the decisive role
being played by the op1n1on or Vladimir Nikolaevie Toporov, who always
seemed to be the embodiment or higher wisdom. It must be adm1tted that
the general s1tuat1on surrounding Slavas scholarly legacy was begiming
to wear on all or us. There were even demands made to remove me from the
enterprise. But w1th Ume everything settled down; and those who ,anted
to work on Slava's book began to work reguarly and according to a general
plan.
When Aron Oolgopolsky, surrounded by a crowd or pupUs, appeared at our
Institute, there was some tension at Urst, as we got used to one another.
I was afraid, that Aron, whlle passionately declaiming something to his
entourage, might at any moment plunder Ill1t-Sv1tyes card rues. later,
however, when our workslte was sttuated temporarlly in Arons
apartment, I was astonished at how, in the midst or the chaos which
always reigned in hls study, he was always able to infall1bly locate the
9
([)
necessary piece or paper or book in the heaps or materials which la'f plied
in the corners or the room.
In the course or Ume we developed a mutually sausractory collaborat1ve
procedure, thanks to the unflappable Dybo, and became more procluctlve:
Dybo and Oolgopolsky worked through the materials, constantly checking
and discussing them, while 1t remained ror me to keep the whole hOuse in
order, as well as to serve as chief dispatcher, passing on and receiving
In time Aron and I became friends. He proved to be a
capable or great self-sacrmce, a selfless worker, ready to perrorm any
amount or labor in the interests of science.
And so, the ideas (and rirst attempts) at studying remote k1nsh1p among
known languages, which began w1th H. Pedersen, B .. Colllnder, K. Menges, J.
Angere, F. K6ppen, et al., and in our country w1th A.B. Dolgopolsky, were now
firmly grounded 1n reallty. But the first decisive success 1n the field or
Nostratic 11ngu1stics was dUe to V.M. Illit-svuye, who in 1964in a brler
set or proposals enUtled The genesis or the Indo-European series or
velars in the llght of extemal-comparativist data" (5 pp.) brllliantly
solved one or the rllldamental problems or Indo-European consonantism,
wlth thl aid or lhllc and Altaic correspondences ... Acknowledgement of
the exceptional character or this short article was not slow 1n coming
from the veteran or Indo-European-lk'allc comparative studles, B.
Collinder, who wrote in a work appearing in 1965: "lllie-Sv1tye's research
marks decisive success in the fleld or Indo-European-lk'al-Altaic
Ungulstic comparlson. .. Some may obJect that the runber or reliable
etymological comparisons is insufflcient to assure run demonstrative
proof. But in answer to the sceptics we may w1th Orestes exclaim: I
advise you; don't love the sun and stars too much; descend w1th me into the
misty klngdom.IO
A Nostratic quatrain was foood among Slava's papers after the title page
or the grammatical portion or "Opyt. V.A. Dybo bel1eves that 1t was
clearly intended in 1ts first var1ant as an epigraph. That the text was
10 Konferenc1Ja oo sravnltel'no-tstorteeskoJ grammat1ke tndgeyrooeJsktx
Jazykoy C 12-14 <fekabrJal PredyarJtel'nye materta!y Moscow, 1972, p. 4.
JO
1
intended for such a P'Jl)OSe was consistent with Otr common response to
analogous efforts by Schleicher and Hirt, which we then considered, as I
st111 do, not methodological errors or even absll'd1t1es, but quite
successful attempts to give synthetic and laconic expression to the
results achieved at a certain point in time in the reconstruction of the
proto-language (V.A.. Oybo). We have adopted these Nostratic verses as the
epigraph to the flrst volume of the Dictionary, Just as they are a f1tt1ng
epigraph to his scholarly llfe as a whole. (These llnes are also inscribed
on Slavas tombstone).
wetei kll\la
palh - na weta
da ?eJa ?ala
pele \Uba wete
Language is a ford across the river of T1me,
It leads us to the dwell1ng place or those whO are gone;
But he w111 not be able to come to this place,
Who rears deep water.
Among Slava's papers I came upon an index card with a sketch-map or the
homelands of the compared language groups. After careful examination or
several. versions, this map was included in vohme one (p. 45).
The Urst vollllle or apyt sravnenija included an introduction, sections
eon the history or research into connections between Nostratic
groups and "S\I'Veys or works on the comparative grammar or the various
language ram111es, a bibllography, tables or phonetic correspondences at
various levels Urom Nostratic to the compared language groups), and the
begiMing or the dictionary itself (from IJ through K, with 245
etymologies all told).
It had seemed to us that the most d1ff1cult part would be the
preparation or the dictionary tor publlcauon; after au, we had finally put
the boOk together, had Checked all the examples, and had done everything
whtch Dybo, wlth hls demanding standards, had set out to do. But 1t turned
JJ

out that we were to encounter incredible difficulties in having the boOk
pUblished. Nostratic- was 11'1 oofamUlar word and concept, il'ld was
viewed as something from the realm or fantasy. Slowly il'ld persistently,
with the aid of renowned sholars, who more 11kely sympathized with the
tragedy or the author than fully ooderstood the signUlcance or his work,
we cleared the way for the book's publlcation. Even then 1t sat for almost
two years on the pUblishers shelf without any action being taken. We were
told that there were no properly quallfled compositors. some more Ume
passed as we sought in vain to have the boOk brought to press. At about
that time a division for offset printing opened up at the Academy's
publishing house. But there too, no one wanted to spend the Ume on a book
so dUficult to prepare (payment being made on a piece-work basis). We
managed to make Otr way into the galley room, to convince the young
women whO wcrted there and their superiors that they need only prepare
. the Russiil'l text, and that I would handle the Latin text and the tables,
since I knew hOw to use a ver1typer. Within three and a half months the
. book was ready, and almost nve years after .the author's death 1t came out
,. in an edition or almost 1,800 copies. These were quickly sold il'ld the book
. . became a collector's 1tem.
The boOk was fully appreCiated by those capable of accepting iMOVative
works. In his review VJafeslav vsevolodovie Ivanov wrote: 'The basic
difference between V.M. Illif-Svitye's book and earlier or contemporaneous
attempts at external comparison or the major language fam111es or the Old
World is the exceptional strictness or his method, which is reflected in
the selection or material (all possible doubts and obscurities, coonected
in part with the descriptive character of the words or with their isolated
position within a given family, are carefully noted by the author), the
thorough elaboration or systems or phonological correspondence and
observed semantic shifts (for which the dictionary frequently indicates
parallels from such well-known languages as Slavic), and in the
completeness or the preparatory analysis of the data within each of the
compared language fam1l1es. The following selected examples are
12
intended only as illustrations of the new perspectives, detades ahead of
thelr time, which Illie-svuye has opened up to us in his work'''
At the end of 1972 we held a conference, intended to coincide w1th the
appearance or the first volume or Ill1e-svuyes Nostratic work. We were
compelled to use the title 'A Conference on Hlstorlcal Comparative Indo-
Etropean Grammar' (see footnote 10), since 'Nostrauc was stlll an
unfamiliar term and might have made 1t difficult to organize the
conference. The conference itself was notable in that, along w1th well-
known scholars such as V.V. Ivanov, T.V. Gamkrelidze, V.A. DybO, A.A.'
Zaliznjak, A.B. Dolgopolsky, V.N. Toporov, I.M. Diakonorr, v.v. and
others, there also appeared a younger generation, which had formed around
A.A. Zal1znjak, A.B. Dolgopolsky, V.V. Ivanov, and I.A. These were,
in the main, graduates and students of the Department or Structtral and
Applied linguistics (OCIPL) at Moscow State lklivers1ty, who had received
fine training in the theoretical and practical tools or linguistic analysts,
and been schooled in sclentlfic inquiry into languages rrom different
famllles. Their names included: AN. Golovastikov, G.M. Kellerman, N.S.
Panova, V.J. PorxomovskiJ, S.A. Starostln, V.A. Terentev, E.A. Hellmsky.
They (along wlth S.L. Nlkolaev, I.I. Pejros, O.V. Stolbova, O.A. Mudrak, Anja
Dybo, AI. Mllltarev, D.P. Ldeiner, and J.I. Testelec) formed the core or the
Nostratic Seminar, which since 1972 has been constantly led by Vladimir
Antonovie Dybo .. This seminar became the informal research group in
which Nostratlcs has fiOlrished.
v. A. DybO's optimal plan had called ror the publication of volume two or
'Opyt wlth the remaining etymologies from I to J (about JSS entries all
told) worked up to the level achieved in the first volume. However, in
Slavas archives there remained only another I 06 etymologies in more or
less finished form. For the other, approximately JOO entries, he had
selected material ror the card rues, which still required additional
authorial work within the guidelines of Ill1e-Sv1tyes original concept
and style, as well as the addition of new material which had appeared
since 1966. Thus, the second volume would have included a mixture or
11 ti.imolog1Ja 1972. Moscow, Nauka, 1974, pp. 162, 164.
what Illif-Svltye had dOne 1\lmself and what had been done by others.
Further, the scholars involved in the project were also involved in thelr
own research obl1gations and could no longer work wlth the same intensity
as before; as a result, preparation of volume two or 'Opyt threatened to
drag on for many years.
I decided that it was Oll' obllgat1on above all to publlsh that which had
been done by Slava, and insisted on the publication or vol.ume two in the
form which 1t eventually took: 106 etymological entries (for J,m,n, with
scattered etyma for various other letters), as well as indexes to volumes
one and two. Dybo dld not agree with this approach. S.B. turned
to A.A. Zallznjak to arbitrate the decision and Zaliznjak suppported my
proposal.
Nonetheless this volume also took five years to publish.
Notwithstanding the broad pos1t1ve response to volume one, the
difflculties involved in poubllshing volume two did not diminish. once
again we were forced to prepare the book for press oli'Selves. Nor did the
administration of the Institute help us meet the costs of P'blicauon: 1t
was necessary to issue a subscrlption edmon, i.e., an edition atOll' own
expense, with S.B. Bemltejn ttrning the money over to the bursar at the
Instltute. The whole process proved to be exceedingly time-consuming.
We )Mere to sell the entire ed1t1on ( 1,900 copies) Oli'Selves. Fulfllling the
function of bookstores turned out to be no easy matter, indeed 1t was an
impossible task. A half-year was spent issuing announcements to all the
research centers and the comtry, and in ma111ng COilltless
numbers or packages to all parts of the country. In order to rettrn the
money to S.B. BemStejn, we were compelled to sell the books at a higher
price. I was helped by dozens or colleagues, but voltJne two has yet to
reach all or 1ts readers, nor has the enUre ed1t1on been printed. The book
has made 1t overseas only through personal channels.
It's sad to acknowledge that Slavas books have met with a fate as
difficult as that wh1ch befell their author. Ill1e-sv1tye dedicated his
f1rst book ('Nom1nal accentuauon) to Dybo and myself, and we have

(?)
1
I
devoted ourselves utterly to the publ1cat1on or the schoarly legacy or Oll'
friend.
A sense or the response 1n schOlarly circles to Illle-Svityes work, as
well as or positive and criUcal reacuon to the publ1cat1on or the Urst
two volumes or opyt, can be gained by reading V.A Dybo's Iaconte
foreword to the third volume. In 1977 the Institute ror Slavic and Balkan
Studies or the Academy or Sciences or the USSR held a second conference
on Nostrauc Ungutsucsl2, intended to co1nc1de w1th the publ1cat1on or
volume two.
In February or 1978 the Department or Language and literature (OL.Ja) or
the Academy or Sciences or the USSR proposed to V.A. Oybo that he appear
at 1ts next session w1th a report on Nostratic research 1n our country. We
were extremely apprehensive, since we expected an assault from the
scholarly establlshment. We were 1n doubt as to the appropriate rorm ror
the paper: to speak on a popular level (as V. V. Ivanov proposed) would have
lert the door open to easy attack. Dybo chose the right approach: hls
strict academic expos1t1on or the baste postulates or the Nostratic
conception, accompanied by examples prepared on a blackboard, set the
tone or possible d1scuss1on at a high level. No one dared to conduct a
polemic w1th Oybo on such a level. Nostrat1cs received orrtc1al
recognttlon rrom the hlghest academic organ 1n the Ueld or phllology--the
Bll'eau of the Department or Language and literature or the Sovtet Academy
or ScleRces. It was recommended that Nostratic studies actually be further
developed. Oybo's paper was publtshed ill Proceedings or ot Ja 13.
Oybo envisaged the third volume as a cont1nuat1on or the Nostratic
dictionary 1n the form begun by Ime-svttye and demanded by todayts level
of comparative hlstortcal 11ngu1st1cs. or thts volume only the rtrst part
has appeared. It consists or 25 etymological entries ( p-q), prepared from
Illte-svttyes data rues, but wtth the addition or a large body or material
12 Konrerenc1Ja. Nostrat1Cesk1e jazyk11 nostrat1Cesl<oe Jazykoznanle.
Teztsy dokladoy. Moscow, 1977.
IJ V.A. Dybo, "NostratieeskaJa glpoteza. Utog11 problemy)." Izyest1Ja AN
SSSR. Ser1Ja llteratury 1 Jazyka Vol. 37, 5, 1976.
15
.J

which has appeared since his death. This segment or the dictionary was
the coUecUve effort or a group or YOtl\9 scholars working \1\der Oybo's
direction (for a 11st or their names, the Preface). The absence or A.B.
DolgopolskiJ, who in 1977 emigrated to Israel, was sorely fell
Although this portion or the dictionary 1s no longer the work or ..
Dybo insisted on leaving him as author on the title page, thereby
underl1n1ng Slavas priority in this field or research and the dtrect
continuity between his work and that or his continuers and successors.
lrttt1fCA feJ
(/A, of
7 d., .fG,( ti'c;,t
Ji<; ,./ (4 """)


Ill