Ann Rev Anthropol 1988 17 309-29 Copyright © 1988 by Annual Reviews Ine All rights reserved NOSTRATIC M. Kaiser Department of Foreign Languages, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61761 V. Shevoroshkin Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The development of comparative-historical linguistics was one of the great intellectual achievements of the 19th century. The method of demon- strating relationships between languages on the basis of regular cor- respondences of sound and meaning led to the establishment of many of the great language families: Indo-European (IE), Uralic, Hamito-Semitic, etc. Already in the 19th century a few scholars envisaged wider or more remote relationships between languages. Then, as well as in the first half of the 20th century, scholars normally limited their comparisons to two languages (e.g. IE and Semitic, Uralic and Altaic, etc). In 1964 two scholars in the USSR—V. Illié-Svityé, a specialist in IE, Altaic, and Kartvehan, and A. Dolgopolsky, an Indo-Europeanist and Hamito-Semitist—independently published important articles extending the scope of these studies, using data from more than the pairs of language families hitherto studied (see 1, 2, 10). Rigorously applying the com- parative method, they produced convincing evidence for a remote relation- ship among six major language families: IE, Afro-Asiatic (=Hamito- Semitic), Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic, and Dravidian.' Together they con- stitute a macro-family known as Nostratic, from the term first suggested by H. Pedersen in 1903. ‘Dolgopolsky did not use Dravidian in his early works, but he did mclude Chukchi- Kamehatkan 309 0066-4 146/88/0915-0309$02.00310 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN Numerous articles on Nostratic have appeared in the USSR in addition to the first two volumes and the first part of volume three of a dictionary of Nostratic roots and their reflexes in the various daughter languages (14~ 16). This important work has been well received by leading lingutsts in the USSR, Western Europe, and the USA. Works on Nostratic are not often readily available in the Russsian original, and very few items have been translated (see Typology 1986), thus severely muting knowledge of the Nostratic Theory in the West Today scholars “add” to the six Nostratic languages also Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, and Sumerian (see 25) Two Russian scholars, S. Starostin and S. Nikolaev, have uncov- ered relationships in a second group of language families also, embracing North Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan, Yemiseian, and Eyak-Athapascan. This macro-family 1s called Sino-Caucasian, or Dene-Caucasian. In the USA, J. Greenberg and M. Ruhlen have proposed a third macro- family, Amerind, to which belong most American Indian languages. Greenberg (8) compares many Amerind roots, but unfortunately he pro- vides neither sets of sound correspondences nor reconstructions, Green- berg excludes from Amerind the Eskimo-Aleutran and Athapascan lan- guages. Eskimo-Aleutian has been grouped with the Nostratic languages, and S. Nikolaev has shown that Athapascan (Na-Dene) constitutes a part of the newly identified Sino-Caucasian macro-family, hence the appellation “Dene-Caucasian™ (21). Both Russian and American linguists have noticed that many stable words of Eurasian languages closely resemble corresponding words in Amerind. hence the conclusion that certain languages of Eurasia and those of the Americas are distantly related. The idea is far from new, but now has been supported by reconstructions performed on broad linguistic bases (cf data in 21, 25). At the ume of his premature death in 1966, Illic-Svityé had compiled most of the Nostratic dictionary, the first volume of which was published. posthumously in 1971 under the title An Essay in Comparison of the Nostratic Languages (Semito-Hamitic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic). In his foreword Illi-Svityé (14, pp. 44-45) emphasizes the importance of a broader comparison, not of two or even three families that reveal mutual relationships, but, in this case, of all six, as already indicated in the works of Pedersen, Collinder, Poppe, Menges, and others. Binary comparisons tend to lead to distortions (phonetic and semantic), whereas in multi-language comparisons each language acts as a control on the others. The more controls, the more reliable the results. Archaisms and innovations are reflected differently in different languages. Archaisms inNOSTRATIC 311 the six languages mentioned above, projected on the level of their parent languages, constitute the main basis of Nostratic reconstruction. NOSTRATIC SEMANTICS AND GRAMMAR An important methodological basis for the Nostratic Theory is Dol- gopolsky’s article on language relationships and the difficult question of separating borrowings from genetic cognates (first published in Voprosy Jazykoznanija in 1964, and translated into English in Typology 1986). The problem concerned IIlié-Svityé as well, as may be deduced from his early article on Semitic borrowings in Indo-European (11). Based on the material of more than 250 languages, Dolgopolsky’s study shows that there is a hierarchy of stability of lexemes—i.e. certain lexemes are more resistant than others to replacement by other lexemes (in the same language) and to borrowing into other languages. When two lan- guages come into contact, certain words are easily borrowed (cultural items), while others are seldom, if ever, subject to borrowing. Dolgopolsky composed a list of the fifteen most stable lexemes, which we repeat here: 1. ‘I, me’; 2. ‘two, pair’; 3. ‘thou, thee’; 4. ‘who, what’; 5. ‘tongue’; 6. ‘name’; 7. ‘eye’; 8. ‘heart’; 9. ‘tooth’; 10. verbal NEG (negation and prohibition); 11. ‘finger/toe nail’; 12. ‘louse’; 13. ‘tear’ (n.); 14. ‘water’; 15. ‘dead’. An additional ten can be deduced from the material of the article. Thus, when testing a genetic hypothesis for several languages, it is necessary first to compare the most archaic and stablest elements, such as personal pronouns, some particles and suffixes, as well as the stablest lexical items (words for body parts, ‘water,’ ‘name,’ words for parasites, etc). If the languages demonstrate phonetic similarities in words with these meanings, one can then proceed to establish phonetic correspondences and, finally, reconstruction of the proto-language. The following are Nostratic recon- structions from Dolgopolsky’s hierarchy of stable lexemes: [1] Dolgopolsky's most stable word, the first person pronoun: (@ ‘T TE *me-, Kartvelhan (Kart.) *me/*mt: Semito-Hamitic (= Afro-Asiatic, AA) ‘mu ‘T’ (an Chadic), *-mt verbal suffix of the Ist ps. sg. preserved in Cushine; Uralic (Ural ) *my; Altaic (Alt ) languages Turkic *bi (<*mi, of oblique form *ma-n- alongside the less archaic *ba-n-), Tungus (Tung ) *br (oblique *mi-n-), Mong. *bi (oblique form *mi-n-) The Nostratic proto-form 1s reconstructed both by Illié-Svityé and Dolgopolsky as **mi (14, p 16, 15, pp 63-66, 6, p 73 and Table A on p 112. etc) (6) ‘me’ (oblique stem built by addition of the suffix **-nV to **m): IE *me-ne-; Kart. *me-n-; Ural. *mi-nV-; for Alt , see a, above. (0) ‘we’ (inclusive, 1 e. ‘we and you’) IE *me-s (original *me- m Armenian mekh ‘we, Gothic (Goth.) -m ‘Ist ps pl verbal ending’); Kart. *me-n- (reconstructed on Georgian data), *m- ‘verbal marker of Ist ps pl mnclusive), AA: Chadic *m(n) ‘we (inel.)’; Ural *md-/*me- ‘we’, Dravidian (Drav ) *ma-/*ma- ‘we’, in the Altac languages we find a312. KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN semantic mnovation *ma- > *ba- (oblique stem *ma-n) ‘we’ (exclusive. 1e. ‘we without you') Ihé-Svityé reconstructs Nostrauc **ma ‘we (inclusive)’ Asis evident, the East Nostratic languages (Urahie, Dravidian, Altarc) better preserve the original Nostratic vocalism Here, as in most other cases, the reconstruction of Nostratic vowels follows that of Urale Nostratie **mi > Ural *mi, Nostratic **ma > Uralic *ma Proto-Uralic preserved all Nostratic vowels, namely, **a. **a, **e, 9, yey ‘The orginal meaning of **ma ‘we (inclusive)’ has been sporadically preserved in West Nostratic Kartvelian and Chadic of the Afro-Astatic (AA) family The reconstrucuon of this proto-ineaning on the Nostrauc level 1s indirectly corroborated by Ilhe-Svityé’s reconstruction of the counterpart of the above pronoun, namely, ‘we (exclusive)’ (d) ‘we (exclusive) IE ne-/fnd ‘we’, Kart *na-) ‘we’. tn- object marker (‘us’), exclusive in Svan, AA *nah-nu ‘we’ (exclusive im Chadic), Drav *na-m ‘we’ (with a secondary meaning of inclusivity, *-m 1s a plural marker) Here as well we find that the archare meaning (‘we (exclusive)’) has been preserved in West Nostratic, namely, in Kart and Chadic of AA In this respect it 1s interesting to recall that several scholars hhave raised the question of whether IE *ne had an archaic meaning of exclusivity, though Watkins characterized this hypothesis as “at best unprovable” (ef Ivanov in Ref 24, p 62) Now this thesis can be strongly supported by the unequivocal evidence of two more Nostratic languages [2] Second person pronoun (#3 per Dolgopolsky’s hierarchy of lexical stability) (a) ‘thou’ IE *t (as in Anatolian), *ti, AA *-t{, Ural *u (oblique stem *ti-), Drav (2) Brahut -ti verbal suffix of the 2nd ps sg (cf postverbal *-tu in Cushitic); Alt Mong *t-, all from Nostr **t's Note the parallelism between IE and Ural in oblique forms im *ti There also was a pronoun in *S- (Kart *si- and *se- oblique stem; Turkic and Tungus *si- < Nostratic **S) ‘thou') which might be a phonetic variant of #11 See Refs 14, p 6.6.p 112 (6) you’ (plural) TE *-te verbal affix of the 2nd ps pl. (°) AA *1(V), Ural *ta, Alt ©) Mong ta, all from Nostr **t’a See 14, p 7 AA *t- instead of the expected *V' < Nostr **t’1s typical of grammatical words (see the section on phonology, below) Apparently this transformation took place in unstressed position, which 1s confirmed by TE *t ‘thou’ (according to Dolgopolsky, IE *1, *u in unstressed position did not undergo diphthongization) 3) ‘who, what’ (Dolgopolsky’s #4) IE *k“o-. *k*1- ‘who, what’, AA *k’(w) and *k() ‘who’, Ur *ko/u- ‘who’, Alt languages Turkic *Ka-, Tungus *xa- < **k'/q‘a-, *xo- < **k‘jq‘o- interrogative pronoun, all from Nostr **k’o or **q‘o ‘who’ Regarding deglottahzation in AA see [2] above, ef IE *kwas See Ref, 14, p 355ff West Nostratic labiovelars (K*) and/or clusters of the type Kw regularly correspond to East Nostratic sequences of the type KU (where U =o, u, or i) Only in Kartvehan has the distinction between Nostratic **q’ and **k’ been maintained In AA the *k’(w) 18 more archaic than *k(w) The former 1s a weakened deglottalized variant of the former, a process widespread in AA auxihanes The (a]..[o] alternation 1s a frequent phenomenon in Nostratic languages and remains to be explained [4] ‘heart’ (Dolgopolsky’s #9). TE *kerd- ‘heart’, Kart *m-k’erd- ‘chest’, AA Chadic *k’Vrd- ‘id’ On the matenal of IE and Kart Ilit-Svityé reconstructed Nostr **k’Erd-. where E = **a, **e, or **1 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov consider the Kartvelan word a borrowing from IE This 1s clearly unacceptable. This cognate set belongs to the most stable words and as such 1s not subject to borrowing and, if the word had been borrowed into Kartvelian from IENostraTIC = 313, *kert’- (per Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's new transcription for IE), then it should have yielded Kartvelian *kert’- The phonetic correspondences between the IE, Kart., and Chadic forms are precisely those expected from the theory of genetic relationship. Only IE *kerd- requires further explanation: The expected form *kerdh- was modified due to the root constraint which disallows the coexistence of T (any votceless stop) and D* (any voiced aspirated stop) Thus the IE development was Nostr. **k/Erd- > PIE *kerdh- > IE *kerd- (cf, for more details, Ref 18). These examples demonstrate the existence of exact correspondences between sounds, on the one hand, and meanings, on the other, for many of the most stable lexemes present in the proto-languages considered by Illié-Svityé and Dolgopolsky as members of the Nostratic macro-family. Nostratic reconstructions are not limited to a single semantic group. The following examples bear witness to the breadth of reconstructed mean- ings in Nostratic: Nominal Affixes {5] **na origmally a locative particle > JE *en/*n; AA *-n; (2) Kart. *nu, *n, Ural *-na/*-nd; Altaic *-na. (6] **-NA marker of ammate plural > AA *-an; Kart. *(e)n; (2) Ural. *-NV; Alt, *na/*na. {7] **-V marker of manimate plural > AA *-it, Kart *-t-, Ural. “1, Alt *t Verbal Affixes [8] **s(V) marker of causative-desiderative > IE *-se-; AA 8V-, *-3; Alt *-su/*-sit, ~sa/*-si; Dray *c- (Nostr **s > Drav *c). [9] *#'V- marker of causative-reffexive > AA *tV- (Nostr. (> AA *t’, but in auxih- ary morphemes AA *t), Alt ; PTurkic *-t-, Ural *-t(t)-; Drav *-tt- Affixes Used in Word-Formation [10] **-k’a diminutive suffix > IE *-k-, Kart *-k’ (*-ak’- and *1k), Ural. *-kka/ *-kka, Alt, *-ka/*-ka, Drav.. Kuruh -kan, [11] **1{a] suffix of collective nouns > Kart. (?) Svan *al, ?) Ural *-la; Alt *-I(a), Drav *-1. Parucles [12] **ma prohibitive particle > IE *mé; AA *m(y), Kart. *ma/*m6; Alt. *mi-/*ba-; Dray. (13] **k’[o] intensifying and copulative particle > IE *k"e; AA *k(w); Kart. *kwe, Ural *-ka/*-ka, Alt *-ka. Body Parts [14] **a’iwlV “ear, hear’ > TE *kleu- ‘hear’; AA *k(w)l id’.; Kart *q’ur- ‘ear’; Ural *kille- ‘hear’, Alt *[k‘Jul- ‘ear’, Drav *kél- ‘hear’ [15] East Nostratic **k'/q’awinga ‘armpit’ (the only tnsyllabic word) > Ural *kayga(-lV); Alt. *k‘awinr; Drav. *kavunka. This reconstruction appears to be in- correct the word in question is a compound, **k’/q’awin-galV (**-1- > Ural. *-1-, etc) This interpretation 1s confirmed by non-Nostratic languages. Man, Kinshup. [1] **kalU “female m-law’ > IE *g16u-, AA: Sem *kI()); Kart.: Georgian kal-; Ural. *kala, Alt, *kali(n); Drav. North Drav. *kal- [17] **kjq(tld *kin’ > TE *kel-, AA *K(w)], Alt’ PTurkic *kiil; Drav *kal. rav (2) South314 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN Animals [18] **k’q’wnA ‘wolf. dog” > IE *kw6n-/tkun- ‘dog’. (°) AA *k())n ‘dog, wolf” (* unclear, should be *k), Ural *kuna ‘wolf’, (°) Alt *k'ina-. cf Tung *xmada “dog” [19] **gurHa ‘antelope’ > AA *g(wyrH. Alt’ PMong *gira (“i < **uH). Drav *kir- Nature [20] **wete ‘water® > IE *wed-. Ural *wete. Alt PTung *odV, Drav *6tV-'*wetV “wet [21) **kiwE ‘stone’ > AA Chad *kw-. Ural *kiwe, Drav *kw-a. [22] **burV ‘storm’ > [E *b'er-.(?) AA *bwr-, Ural *purV-, Alt *bu/orV, Spatial Terms (23] **qant’V ‘front side” > UE *Xant- (for *X. see the section on Laryngeals. below). AA *xnt (*nt < **nt’), °) Ural *[eJNte- ‘first’. ‘face’, Alt *antV- Actions and States (Verbs) [24] **5eqV? “eat’ > IE *saX(w) ‘satiated’, (°) AA *zy- (<*zuy- °) “be fed, be abundant’, Kart *3ey- “become sated’, Ural *sé]yE (<"s[e]yu). Alt "36 [25] *fiamo ‘grasp’ > TE *tem-. Ural *homV-/(?)*iamV-. Dray *iamV- Qualities [26] **k'ut’V “ttle” > AA *k(w)t'/*k(w)t’/*kt, Kart *k’ujot’-, Drav *kudd- (27] **eil{}hu ‘smooth’ > IE *g'clH-/*s"leH-/*8"loH- ‘shiny’, *gleH-d"- ‘smooth, shiny’, 0) AA *glh “bald’, Kart (°) Georgian glu-, Ural *kili]V ‘smooth, shiny’, Alt *gilu/a- “smooth, shiny (28] **berghi] “high. tall’ > IE *b'erg!-/*b'reg'-. AA *brg. (°) Kart *brg-e, Ural Samod *pleltfkV}.(°) Drav *pér- The examples cited above allow a glimpse of Nostratic grammar—e.g. pronouns (#1, 2, 3), grammatical affixes (#5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11), and particles (#12, 13). Illig-Svityé had intended to write a special volume on Nostratic grammar. Materials for a grammar of Nostratic are present in his com- parative tables (14, pp. 6-18) together with the alphabetical listing of grammatical words/formants in the dictionary proper. Nostratic emerges as a rather well-developed language and in appear- ance 1s much closer to East Nostratic languages than to West Nostratic. The verb stood at the end of the sentence (SV and SOV type). The Ist ps. was formed by adding the Ist ps. pronoun **mi to the verb; similarly, the 2nd ps. was formed by adding **ti. There were no endings for the 3rd ps. present, while the 3rd ps. preterit ending was **-di (14, pp. 218-19). Verbs could be active and passive, causative, desiderative, and reflective, and there were special markers for most of these categories. Nouns could be animate or inanimate, and plural markers differed for each category. There were subject and object markers, locative and lative enclitic particles, ete. Pronouns distinguished direct and oblique forms, animate and inanimate categories, notions of the type ‘near’: ‘far’, inclusive : exclusive (see 1c—d]), etc. Apparently there were no prefixes. Nostratic words were either equal * Here “g” 1S a post velar vorced stop.NOSTRATIC 315 to roots or built by adding endings or suffixes. There are some cases of word composition (cf **k’/q’awin-gulV ‘armpit’, **p’erV-CujXV ‘finger/toe nail’, **puRa-gaCa ‘flea’, etc). Nostratic lexical suffixes were discussed in Dolgopolsky’s articles in Etimologija (3-5). Illit-Svityé reconstruction of Nostratic morphology and syntax can best be illustrated by the poem found in his archives and used as an epigraph to the Nostratic Dictionary: “8K elHa wet’e-1 saK’u-n kihla Tongue time-of water-of _ path/ford Kala-i palhV-k’V na wete gone-of dwelling-to us lead(s) ga da Pa-k’'V aejV ala he but there-to come(s)__no(t) jak’o pele tuba wete which-who _fear(s) deep water “Language is a ford through the river of time, It leads us to the dwelling of ancestors. But he doesn’t arrive there Who fears deep water.”? Before turning to phonetics, the most elaborated form of Nostratic reconstruction, a brief comment on the structure of Nostratic words is in order. The examples given above show that the structure of lexemes was CVC(OV, while for grammatical words and formants it was CV(CV), -C. Constant clusters occur only intervocalically, and there is no limitation with regard to the type of consonants in the cluster, although statistically the sonorant+stop was most common. This word and formant structure 1s typical of East Nostratic languages, as well as archaic IE lexemes [of the type HiC-, HuC-, not HeiC-, HeuC- (cf 22) or IE roots of the type CVCCV-, not just CVCC- (cf 20)}. The several hundred Nostratic roots/words reconstructed by Illit-Svityé and Dolgopolsky reveal a rather primitive society of hunters and gatherers who had no bows and arrows, no domesticated plants or animals [except the dog: Nostr. **K’tijnA (K’ = k’ or q’) means both ‘wolf’ and ‘dog’ and thus reflects the process of domestication]. However, there are words indicating that the Nostrats had some weaving and building techniques (see #49 below), and that they used a type of protected dwelling (see **p‘alqV in Ref. 16; cf also **giilV ‘dwelling’: Ref. 13, p. 341, s.v. Zili8te). "Tn a few mstances words in this poem have been modified by further developments in Nostratie Theory.316 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN Archaisms of Nostratic lexics can be seen in the absence of color terms, almost total absence of terms for emotions (**luba meant ‘thirst’ in Nostratic but became “love, desire’ in TE *leub"-: Ref. 13, p. 340), and the relatively high frequency of descriptive words (onomatopoetic, etc). THE NOSTRATIC PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM A summary of phonetic correspondences between the Nostratic languages are presented by Dolgopolsky (2) and in tabular form in Illié-Svityé’s dictionary (14, p. 149ff). Here we provide an overview of Nostratic pho- netic correspondences and supply some examples. In an article in 1978, V. Dybo, Illié-Svityé’s friend and editor of his posthumous dictionary, discussed “several non-trivial correspondences in the Nostratic material,” correspondences discovered by Illié-Svityé in the early 1960s. Dybro notes (7) that Illit-Svityé’s predecessors (Collinder et al) had managed to discover many fine lexical correspondences among IE, Uralic, and Altaic languages, such as IE *g|Ou- ‘brother's wife’ ete: Ural. *kilii female relative by marriage’: Alt. *kili(n) ‘younger brother’s/son’s wife, sister’s husband’; JE *kes- ‘cut’: Ural. *ka/eca ‘knife, spike’: Alt. {sisi ‘cut’; IE *kap-/*ghab"- “grab, take, hold’: Ural. *kappV ‘grab’: Alt. *k‘ap/ba- ‘grab’, IE k“o- ‘who’: Ural. *ko/u- ‘who’. These scholars based their observations on phonetic and semantic similarities. The comparisons took on new significance after Illié-Svityé added more sets and showed that IE roots with labiovelars (*k", *g", *g") corresponded to roots in East Nostratic languages (Uralic, Altaic, Dravidian) where the initial guttural was followed by a labial vowel: 29] IE *k*er- build. make’. Ural *ku/orV ‘weave, baste (in sewing), fasten together’ [V = vowel of unclear quality) Alt *KurV- ‘build’ (K = k‘ ork) Drav *kurV- ‘weave, tue™ (30) TE *k*el- “kin, family’ Ural *kula ‘rural commune, village, dwelling, house’ Alt *Kula ‘house(hold)': (?) Drav *kal ‘family, crowd’ GIIJE "g*e1H- “be healthy, live’ Ural. *koya ‘fat(ty)’. 0) Alt Kalmyk xoj6 ‘nounshing. plentaful’ ( = (1). [32] IE *gYen- ‘wife, woman’. Ural *kunt ‘one of wives (in polygamy)’ 33] IE *g!eHli- “hght colored or illummated’: Ural *kojV “dawn, sun’ (?) Alt. *gia-b- an ‘dawn’. {34] IE *g™er- “burn (verb), hot, live coals’ (2) Alt. *gur(V) ‘live coals; catch fire’ Similarly, Illié-Svityé has shown that IE palatal gutturals and plain gutturals have specific correspondences in Eastern languages. For IE roots with a palatal guttural (*k, *g, *g") we always find a front vowel (*a, *e, or i) after the initial K in Uralic, Altaic, and Dravidian. The few examples that follow have been taken from a long list of cognate sets:NOSTRATIC 317 [35] TE *fer- (in derivatives) ‘rime, frozen snowcrust, ice”: Ural. *kirV, *kir-te ‘frozen snowerust’. Alt. *kar(a) ‘rime, hoar-frost’, ‘first snow’ (36) IE *Kes- ‘cut’: Ural. *ka/eéa ‘knife, spike’: Alt. *k‘Gsd ‘cut’ 37] (°) IE *gerH- ‘old, decrepit’: Drav. *kir(a) ‘old’. [38] IE *gJou- ‘brother's wafe’ (palatal *g indicates an underlying root *el-): Ural *kalé “female relative by marnage, sister’s husband’: Alt. *kili(n) ‘younger brother’s/son’s vwafe; sister's husband’: Drav. *kal- ‘father’s brother's wife, aunt’, {39] IE *é'elH-/*@eH- ‘shiny, light colored’: Ural. *kiJV ‘smooth and shiny’, Alt *gilu/a 4d’. (See #27.) [40] IE *gPerH./*hreH- ‘dawn, to shine’ Alt. *gEra ‘dawn, morning light’ We have shown that IE *K” corresponds to East Nostratic *KU and TE *K corresponds to East Nostratic *KE-. Finally, in cases where IE has a plain *K, East Nostratic cognates show *Ka-: [41] IE *ker- ‘to burn, fry; fire’. Ural. *karpe > *korpe ‘burn’ Drav *kar(V)- ‘scorch, bbe singed, burn’ Ural. *karpe can be reconstructed as a pre-proto-form according to this rule: *a may change to *o in a closed syllable before *r, *1, or *f (as, for instance, 1m Ural. *polta ‘burn’ < *palta, where *-a- 1s reconstructed on the basis of *-a- in the related Ural root *pala ‘burn') [42] IE *ken- ‘be born, young’: Drav *kan- ‘give birth’ [43] IE *gem- ‘grab, take, squeeze’ Ural *kamo- (in *kama-lV, etc) ‘hollow of the hand, handful’ [44] IE *gemb- ‘a growth, tumor; lip, mushroom’: Ural *kampV ‘mushroom’ [45] IE *g'er- and *g'erH-/*g'reH- ‘thorn, spike, branch, comifer’: Drav *kar(a) ‘thorn, spike’ According to Illié-Svityé and Dolgopolsky, the original Nostratic vocal- ism was preserved in East Nostratic languages. In West Nostratic (Indo- European, Afro-Asiatic, and Kartvelian) there developed an ablauting process. Hence, Nostratic **KUC- > IE *K*eC-, **KEC- > *KeC- and **KaC- > KeC-. Thus, IE guttural stops were in complementary dis- tribution in accordance with the nature of East Nostratic vowels and preserve traces of the original vowel quality: Labiovelars preserve round- ing, palatals preserve frontness, and the velars (plain gutturals) the “neu- tral” a, For the most part all Nostratic vowels become [e] in IE, but in certain environments other developments were possible. As we shall see later, adjacent **? preserved the Nostratic vowel quality, and Nostratic **| and **u underwent diphthongization to *ai, *au or, in certain positions, *ei, *eu. Illi¢-Svityé explains the subdivision of IE languages into Centum and Satem as a merger of *K and K in the former and of *K™ and *K in the latter. Reflexes of Nostratic Guttural Stops (Initial Position) Sets 29 through 45 show that there were no distinctions between the different guttural series in Uralic and Dravidian in word-initial position. Several Nostratic gutturals merged in Uralic and Dravidian *k-. The318 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN situation was different in Proto-Altaic. Here two gutturals have tra- ditionally been reconstructed: *k- (as found in Tungus, Mongohan, and Turkic) and *g- (as in Tungus and Mongolian, but Turkic had *k-). Ih Svityé (12. p. 338ff) demonstrated that it was possible to reconstruct a Tungus *x- derived from an earlier *kh- (=[k‘], 1.¢. a “strong”, aspirated stop) Many Tungus words beginning with h- and x- (<*x-) corresponded to the words in k- (and x-) in Turkic languages: Tungus *xii/6Idi *hot’ (Nanay xuldi. Ulchi hildt) Turkic Turkish kil, Tuva xil ‘ashes’, Tungus *xaba- ‘swell’ (x- in Nanay and Orok, h- in Ulcht) Tuva xavan ‘swelling’, ete. For such words Hlé-Svityé reconstructed a Proto-Turkic *kh-, which in fact has been sporadically preserved in some Turkic languages. For Mongolian, Illié-Svityé reconstructed *k-. which was the result of the merger of the two gutturals *kh and *k. Thus, Ihé-Svityé arrived at the following correspondences: Tungus *x- Turkic *kh- Mongolian *k- < Proto-Altaic *k‘ Tungus *k- Turkic *k- Mongolian *k- < Proto-Altaic *k- Illié-Svityé also noticed that in sets where Tungus and Mongolian words had *g-, the Turkic cognates had *kh-, and not *k-. For example, Written Mong golbiirge ‘lizard’: Turkic *khala- ‘id° (as m Tuva xeleske, Azer- bajdjan kalaz, Karagas kheleska); Written Mong. gere ‘witness’: Turkic *khard- “id” (Tuva xereci); etc. Illi¢-Svityé reconstructed Altaic *g- based on the correspondences Tungus *g- Turkic *kh- Mong *g- Owing to these reconstructions, he arrived at the triad of *k‘. *k, *g for Proto-Altaic, corresponding to TE *k/*k/*k", *g/*g/*e", *gh/*ahyeg?®, Afro-Asiatic *k’, *k, *g, and Kartvehan *q’/*k’. *k, *g (sce Table 1). In Uralic and Dravidian there existed only *k-. The secondary features in cach member of the IE triad were an inner-Indo-European development, the result of regressive assimilation of the vowel quality to the consonant. le 1 Intl velar stops Ural / Noster 1E AA Kart Turk = Mong Tung Drav mg kee eg +k: *K = *k eR tke aK +k Hy aay Sys * *« “ +k eee a apege ap ae ak * *e 4 Notes 1 Tn the West Nostra languages. non-insual stops have the same reflexes —see Table 4 2 For Altare. one would reconstruct *'. *k'. *k.*NosTRATIC —-319 As was shown above, each IE series of stops (K, K, K”) was determined by the quality of the Nostratic vowel (preserved in East Nostratic) which followed the initial stop. The Kartvelian consonants *q’- and *k’- reflect the ancient Nostratic consonants **q/ and **k’, Kartvelian being the only language to preserve these consonants as distinct phonemes. This is an example of how Nostratic linguistics permits us to distinguish innovation (palatal, velar, and labial stops in IE) from archaism (Kartvelian *k’/*q’; cf also Nostr. **k, **q > Kart. *k, *q). There were two additional velar stops in the Nostratic proto-language, **q and **g. By including these phonemes we obtain the following system for Nostratic: Velars Post- Velars Glottalized ke q Voiceless k q Voiced & g For the moment we postpone a discussion of **q and **g. These con- sonants were highly unstable and in the daughter languages either were spirantized (> *x and *y, respectively), or disappeared altogether, with the exception of Kart. *q. These consonants are treated below in the section on laryngeals. We now cite examples containing velar consonants in initial position. In the East Nostratic languages the reflexes of these consonants in intervocalic position sometimes differed (see the section below on refiexes of inter- vocalic stops). Moreover, we have avoided the reconstruction of the Proto- Altaic triad *k‘, *k, *g, citing instead individual Altaic proto-languages. Tvanov and Dolgopolsky refuse to accept the reconstruction of the Altaic proto-language. Ivanov assumes that what Illié-Svityé reconstructed as Altaic was actually Proto-East-Nostratic. Nevertheless, Helimsky (9) maintains that there was a proto-Altaic language, only it was older than Uralic or Dravidian; i.e. there existed a Uralic-Dravidian language con- temporaneous to Proto-Altaic (cf the possible existence of an IE-Kart- velian linguistic unity contemporaneous to Proto-AA). The following sets are a typical, but by no means exhaustive, representation of the material collected to date. Note that the data confirm the correspondence between TE “secondary” features and East Nostratic vowels—i.e. IE K: ENostr. KE; IE K: ENostr. Ka; IE K”: ENostr. KU. Roots with Nostratic **k’- [46] Nostr. **k‘udh ‘tail’ > 7 TE *kaud- (Lat. cauda/cdda); ? AA *k’dr; Kart. *k’wad-/ *kud-, Alt. *k‘udi-rga > Turkic *Kudu-ryk; Mong "kudu-rga ‘tail strap’ Ihé-Svityé reconstructed Altaic *khudi-rga ‘tail’ (14, p. 327M).320. KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN [47] Nostr **k/olV ‘round’ > TE *k*el- ‘round, revolve’, AA *k’(w)I ‘round, revolve’, Kart *k’wer-k’wal- ‘round’, Alt *KolV- “mix, rotate’ > Mong *koh- ‘revolve’ (caus ). ?)Tung *xolo- “rotate:revolve’. @)Ural. *kola “eircle’. (?) Drav *ku/il- “round, whirl" (14. p 326i) [48] Nostr **k’aéa “cut” > IE *kes- ‘cut’. AA *k’s ‘cut, beat, break’, Kart *k’ac- ‘cut’, Alt *k‘asa ‘cut’ > Turkic *kas(a)- ‘cut’, Proto-Korean *kes- "break’, Uralic *kaéV/*keca ‘knife, sharp point’, ?) Drav *kace- ‘bite, string’ (14. p. 32081) [49] Nostr **k’adV ‘weave’ (using wattles, etc) > IE *ket- (Slav *koti- ‘wicker, wattle’, note that the exact IE correspondence to Nostratic **k’adV would have been *ked"-. which became *ket- due to root constraints), AA *k’d- ‘build’, Kart k’ed- build’. Drav *katt- ‘te together, build, woven thing, vessel” As IIhé-Svityé indicated, this root reflects one of man’s earhest cultural achievements —weaving, essential in building and pottery Dravidian in particular shows archaic semantics (14, p 316M) Roots with Nostratc **4q'~ [50] Nostr **q‘fiw]lV ‘hear’ > IE *kleu- ‘id’, AA *k’wI “hear’, Kart *q’ur- ‘ear’ (*r can emanate from Nostr *{ or **/1H;), Atl *[k‘Jul- ‘ear’, Ur *kiile ‘hear’, Drav *k@l-“1d" [13, p 366] Asis sometimes the case in very archaic and stable words, there are slight exceptions to the regular rules Kart and Drav data indicate Nostr. **1, but Ural pomts to **1 Kartvehan also might indicate a cluster of **{ and laryngeal. also present im one variant of this root m IB, namely, *kleuH-, as im Gmc OHG Ahiliit > German laut Note also the long vowels in Uralic and Dravidian, indicating compensatory lengthening after simplification of Nostratic consonant clusters [51] **a’arV “smell. reek’ > IE *ker-m- ‘reeking plant’, AA *k’r- ‘to smell”, Kart *q(a)r- ‘to reek’ (13. p 354) Roots with Nostratie **k- [52] **kum: ‘wife, woman’ > TE g"en- "id. AA *k(w)n/*knw. Alt Turkic *kuni ‘one of the wives (in polygamy)’ (14, p. 306ff) [53] **kalU ‘female in-law” > IE *BJOu- ‘sister-in-law (brother's wife)’; AA *ki()) “sister-m-law, bride’. (?) Kart *kal- ‘woman’, Alt *kali(n) ‘wife of younger brother or son, sister’s husband’ > Turkic *kahin ‘daughter-in-law’, Tung *kali(n) ‘brother- m-law’, Drav *kal- ‘father’s brother's wife, aunt’ (14, p 295ff) [54] **kamu ‘grasp grab. squeeze’ > IE *gem- ‘grab, take, squeeze’, AA *km- “grab, take, squeeze’, Alt *kamu- ‘seize, take, squeeze’ > Turkic*Kam-"id’ , Mong *kamu- ‘gather’, Tung *kama/u- “squeeze, seize, press’, Ural. *kamo- > *kama-IV, *koma- rV ‘handful’. Drav. *kamv- ‘grab. take, hold’ (14, p 290ff) Roots with Nostratic **g- [55] **gUrV ‘hve coals’ > TE *g'er- ‘burn, hot, live coals’, AA *g(w)r ‘fire coals’, AL *gur(V)- ‘live coals, catch fire’ > Turkic *Kor, *Kai ‘id’, @)Tung *gur- ‘flame, flare up’ (14, p 239) [56] **gi1V ‘sickly bad state, grief” > TE *é'eJ|- ‘illness, damage’; (°) AA SArab "gl ‘illness’, Kart *gl-‘gnef”, ()Alt.: Tung *gul(a)- ‘be sad, grieve’ (14, p. 229). [57] **gara ‘thorn, thorny branch’ > IE *gter-, *g*erH-, g'reH- ‘thorn, sharp point, branch/twig’, Alt *gara ‘sharp pomt, branch, comfer’ > Mong. *gar- ‘protrude’, ‘Tungus *gara ‘branch, sharp pom’, Ural. *kara ‘thorn, branch, twig, conifer’, Drav *kar(a)- ‘thorn, sharp pomnt’ (14, p 226) Reflexes of Nostratic Labial Stops (Initial Position) The refiexes of Nostratic labial stops in word-initial position are presented in Table 2. Particularly striking is the instability of the putative NostraticNosTRATIC —-321 Table 2 Inital labial stops Nostr. TE AA Kart. — Turk. Mong. Tung Ural Drav aga cog na op ian ig ears one gi ane seep sp pith tp, Spit “p> tb) “> "h>O tp te tb, Sy ott cee * ae oe 1 In the West Nostratic languages, non-imtual stops have the same reflexes—sce Table 4 2 For Altatc, one would reconstruct *p', *p, *b phoneme /p/, as indicated by its fate in Indo-European, Kartvelian, Turkic, Mongolian, and Dravidian. We believe it probable that there was no Nostratic triad **p’/p/b, but only **p’/b, which is plausible from the typological point of view. Thus, instead of reconstructing Nostratic **p, we should regard as innovations the following reflexes: Chadic *ph, Eg. f, Kart. and Turkic *p, IE Mong. and Tung. *b. However, in order to avoid undue complications in the Nostratic reconstructions, in this article we follow the reconstructions of Illié-Svityé and Dolgopolsky. In order to reconstruct Nostratic **p’, a reconstructed form for AA, Kart. (*p), or Turkic (*h- (>0)) must be present. IE *p usually indicates Nostratic **p’ For example, if we had only the roots Ural. *palyV and Dray. *pall- ‘dwelling place, village’, we would be unable to reconstruct the precise labial stop for the Nostratic proto-form. But by adding the Turkic word (Turkmen ayyl ‘enclosure’ with *h > 0), we immediately obtain the solu- tion: Nostr. **p’. This 1s corroborated by IE *p|H- ‘fortified settlement’ (Lith. pilis ‘town, castle’; cf also Tungus: Manchu falga ‘dwelling place, village’). Our Nostratic reconstruction is **p’algV ‘village, settlement’. To reconstruct Nostratic **p, one must establish the presence of IE *b (which alternates with *p), AA *p, (>Chadic *ph, Eg. f), Kart. *p (which alternates with *p’), Alt.: Turkic *p, or the v or b reflex in individual Dravidian languages. Finally IE *b', Afro-Asiatic *b, Alt: Mong. or Tung. *b, would be decisive in establishing Nost. **b. Words wih **p’- [58] **p‘tywe or **p'hil"we ‘fire’ > IE paXwor or *paX"6r (Ht. pabhuwar ‘fire’, Grk pir ‘1d’, Anglo-Saxon fyr ‘id’), AA *p*w ‘fire’; Kart *pxw- ‘warm’, Ural *piwe ‘warm, hot’ (13, p 353) **y 1s a stable Nostr_uvular fricativer **-yu- > IE *-X*- > Anatolian -[*h*]-; see the section on laryngeals, below. [59] **p‘uija ‘to plait’ > IE *pen-, *spen- ‘to plait, weave’, AA *pn- ‘to rotate, spin, wind’; Ural. *pufa-‘to spin, twist/roll, rotate (tr )'; Drav *pun- or *pon-‘tie together’ (13, p 354). For IE *e, see the section on Vowels, below. Words with Nostratic **p- [60] **pelFl: ‘to shiver. shake, be afraid’ > TE *pelH-/*pleH- ‘to shake (tr., intr.), be322 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN afraid’, (Grk_pelemidz6 “I shake’, OF 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 *pél: "get scared’ > Turkic *péli-n ‘easily frightened’, Tung : Nep Evenk: hal- ‘to not dare’ (h_< *f), Ural *pele- “be afraid’. Drav *pirV- shiver, shake. be afraid’ (15, p 98f) [61] **pur’V *hole’ > AA *p,wt ‘hole’, Kart *put’- hole’, Alt *putV “hole, vulva’, Ural *putV ‘rectum’, Dray *pott- “hole” (13, p 340. using additional data Dol- gopolsky reconstructs **pU[H}t’E) Words wath Nostratu **b {62] **ban ‘take’ > IE *b"er- ‘take. bring, carry’; AA *br- ‘to seize, catch’, Alt *bar- ‘take’ > Turk *bary- (obtain) property’. Mong *bari ‘grab. seize’. (°) Dray *per- “pick up, gather’ ("a > ¢ before rE) (14. p 176ff) This enure entry has been translated in Ref 18, p 36 [63] **berg’t: tall’ > IE *bterg!-/b'reg- “id” , AA *brg “tall, Kart *byg-e “hugh, tall’ Ural *pEr-kV tall’, (?)Drav *pér- “hugh. tall’ (14. p 177) Reflexes of Nostratic Dental Stops (Initial Position) The development of Nostratic word-initial dental stops in the daughter languages 1s summarized in Table 3. Reconstruction of the proto-form in any one of IE, AA, Kart., or Turkic is sufficient to determine the Nostratic dental stop, although under certain conditions AA *t’ is deglottahzed. Mongolian (*t-, *8-) and Tungus (*t-) data can also be used to reconstruct Nostratic **t’. Examples of Nostratic dentals in imtial position now follow: Words with Nostratic **1'- (64] **varV “to rub’ > IE *ter- ‘id’, AA *’r- “to whet, sharpen’, Alt *t'arV- “to scratch’ > Turkic *t'arV- “to scratch’, Mong *tarV- “to scratch’, Drav *tar- ‘break (offy (tr.Aintr ) diminish by rubbing’ (13, p 368) [65] **uK'E “to build, hew’ > IE *tetk- > tek- (metathesis of TK > KT asin Grk iktO < *tk6), Alt Tung *toktV- ‘to hew, axe’, Ural *tuktV ‘to build’, (2) Drav *tott ‘fence, building’ (3, p 303ff) [66] **t’umV “dark” > [E *tem(H)- ‘id’ (*e < *eu < *uR, where R = any sonorant), AA *Vum- ‘dark’, Ural *tum ‘dark’ (13, p 368) Words with Nostrane *t- [67] **t[a]k’E ‘sutable. proper’ > TE dek- ‘suitable, proper, appropriate’, AA *tk’n Table 3 Imiual dental stops Nostr 1B AA Kart Turk = Mong Tung. Ural. =a pera eet eet) lg OE tt “t * eg 1 * ded * * deh td *d 4 aed " Notes In the West Nostratic languages, non-initial stops have the same reflexes—see Table 4 2. For Altaic, one would reconstruct *t', *t. 3+ Before:NOSTRATIC —- 323 “put into order’, Drav. *takk-/*takV- ‘to fit, be suitable’ (13, p. 355; cf 3, p. 321). [68] **tel(h)V ‘long’ > IE *del(H1)- ‘id’, AA *tlh ‘long’; Alt *(0elV “stretch, wide? (13, p. 339). [69] **telV “to spit” > IE *del(EH)- ‘to split, hew, tm’, (2)AA *tl ‘to cut, hew, tm, pierce’; Alt. *tel- ‘split’ > Turkic *tel-: Turkmen, Azerbaydjam de8- ‘make hole(s), pierce’, Mong. *del- ‘crack, split’ (13, p. 360) Words with Nostratre *d- [70] **diga ‘fish’ > IE d'g'-u-H ‘fish’ (**dig- > *dhg®- > *ag*-, with palatalization of #2! caused by loss of *-1-. Grk ikhthiis < *Adhis < *d'g*iis, with metathesis of the type KT < TK, see above [65); AA *djgid , Alt Mong. *Sga ‘fish’ (14, p. 219). Dolgopolsky (3, p 303) reconstructs Nostratic **diTgfu] ‘fish’ by appending Uralic data. Ural *otka ‘fish’, with not quite clear (assimilated?) *-o-. He considers IE *u- in *d'g'u-H to be an archaism, and not an IE suffix, which onginated directly from Nostr **-u. The Indo-Europeans reinterpreted **di- as an element of redupl- cation, thus making **tgu, 1 ¢. **dgu, the actual “root.” Later, the final vowel was interpreted as a suffix (71] **dimnga ‘be quiet, silent’ > TE *d¥eng’. ‘id’ (dial Latv dsiigt “be quiet’, sa-dingt ‘grow torpid’), AA *dwm, 1. *dum- > *dm ‘id’ , Kart *dum- ‘be silent’; Alt. *duna- ‘sit quietly, be silent’ > Mong. *diinge- ‘id’ (a-e < Ge < tia), Tung *duing- id (14, p 220M). AA and Kart show regular development of **ng > *m Ihé-Svityé dem- onstrates that Latvian difigt 1s evidence of a lost IE root *d°eng’ ‘be silent’, and not a semantic mnovation from IE *d¥eng”- ‘to bend down’. {72] **4dVwV “be ill, die’ > IE *d*eu- “che, famt'; AA *dw- “be ill, die’ (used with the suffixes * and *-? as in Arab dwy/dw? “be ill’, Cush - Galla du?- ‘die’, etc) (14, p 224ff) Ihié-Svityé notes the possible identity of the (West Nostratic 9) suffix - in AA. and IE (*d*w-et- as in Arm, di/dioy ‘corpse’ and *d*w-ciEl- in Olt. dith (< *dhwi-tu- ‘death, end’)) Reflexes of Nostratic Stops in Intervocalic Position Table 4 shows the reflexes of non-initial Nostratic stops in West Nostr. dE, AA, Kart.) and East Nostr. (Ur., Drav., Alt.) languages. Note that West Nostratic stops are better preserved (vis-a-vis East Nostr.), and in fact West Nostr. intervocalic stops are identical to initial stops—a situation inherited from Nostr. Examples of **-k’- can be found in sets 10, 13, 67; **- 26, 61; **-t- in 20; **-d- in 46, 49; cf also the non-initial stops in clusters (mostly of the type -RT-) in sets 23, 44, 63, 65, 71. Thus, Nostratic triads of the type T’ T D remained unchanged in AA and Kart., but became T* T D in Alt. Apparently the situation was quite similar in IE: a triad T T D can be reconstructed (instead of the traditional T D D"), where T represents a tense row of consontants, T a weak row, and D—a “breathy-voiced” row. This interpretation fits Nostratic and IE data well, and is supported by borrowings from Semitic into IE and from IE into Kartvelian. It contradicts the currently in vogue “glottalic” theory, which finds support neither in Nostratic, nor in IE, nor in the material of lexical borrowings (cf 18, 19).324 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN Table 4 Intervocalie stops Nostr IE AA Karty Turkic Mong Tung Uralic Dray ius Jed ”? *D *p *piB th.*b *pib “ppp *ppiv “tp *pitb “p. *p(pb) “pRB *h.*b Spb “p “*PP/V eb bh Yb “5 “b » “w “Ippliv tee 1 wo HA tet) te “d “t " % td t+ td “ a0) wed +a “4d Oat eds cena +5 ut) eek RRS tk tke *k *k *k tkkik *k(k) tk thet tk tk + *y 4 wit saa) oe he gg *y 4 4y 4 0 tq th tk tk’ *k *k *k "kk *kk/ke “- 7 ~~ *q *kiy "ky = “ky *k *k *g- y y Oy Oye ye "y 6 Notes 1 For Altaie, we would reconstruct *p/*b, *b. *b, *t. *d. *d, *k/*g, *g, *g, *k. *Ki*e, * Oty 2 + Beforer Nostratic Affricates The Nostratic system of affricates and sibilants can be reconstructed as follows, as per Illi¢-Svityé and Dolgopolsky: ¢ c 3 s € & 3 8 Coc ge wood (For tsee the section on sonorants, below.) Illi¢-Svityé does not reconstruct 2’, but on the other hand he does have 2 and §; the West Nostratic reflex of ** is *1, while the reflexes of initial Nostr. **c’/c/é’/é and **¢’/é in IE are *sk- and *st-, respectively. Dolgopolsky (3-5) proposed a revision of the system of Nostratic affri- cates and sibilants and their reflexes in the daughter languages (where he groups Altaic data under the separate languages—i.e. Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungus). Building on and modifying Dolgopolsky’s revisions, we propose replacing Illié-Svityé’s **é’, **¢, **3 (Dolgopolsky’s **c’, **c, **3) with lateral affricates **1’, **2", **) (lateral affricates were preserved in archaic AA languages). If we choose not to reconstruct **A", we will have **’ (for **¢’), **2 (for **¢), but with no lateral affricate for **5. ‘Much more natural is the triad 2’, A", 2, as in Wakashan, etc. Since triads of the type T’ T* T are more archaic, stable, and frequent than T’ T D, perhaps Pre-Nostratic was a language of this type. If so, the system of stops and affricates for Pre-Nostratic would be as follows:NosTRaTIC = 325 Stops Affricates Fricatives pop op eee woe t ee a oq eek Coach s Cee § Note that this “reconstruction” is a schematic approximation; e.g. Iliz- Svityé’s system has both t and 8, whereas our system has no $. It is possible that Nostratic had 4’, 4°, 4, tand ¢’, é, 6, f. Nostratic Sonorants In Table 5 we reproduce Illit-Svityé’s table of Nostratic sonorants, showing reflexes in the six daughter languages (14, p. 150). On balance, West Nostratic languages better preserve Nostratic stops and “laryngeals,” whereas East Nostratic languages, especially Uralic, have better preserved Nostratic sonorants and vowels. Examples of Nostratic sonorants can be found in the following sets: **m in la-c, 12, 25, 54; **n in Id, 5, 52, 71; **h in 25, 59; **1 in 11, 16, 17, 30, 38, 53, 56; **1 in 47, 69; **w in 20, 21, 72; **r in 22, 29, 35, 45, 51, Table 5 Sonorants Nostr. IE AA Kart Altaic Uralie Drav. J J J J J 1 J J J w w (>), w v0 w w b,0,w, B w Vv r r 10) r a r r r r nr r r é r r 1 t 1 1 n a I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 ' 1 1 a a i 1 m m m m m n a a a n a 2 ao a i n a m(?) a a att n a a a (2) a a0?)326 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN 55. 57. 64, We have no examples of **7, and Helimsky (9) 1s clined not to reconstruct Nostr. **7 as an independent phoneme. Nostratic ‘‘Laryngeals”’ We use the term “laryngeal” as a generic classifier of the following Nostratic consonants. ?—glottal stop; h—laryngeal; h, °—voiceless and voiced pharyngeals; x, y— voiceless and voiced uvular fricatives. Note that Thé-Svityé did not reconstruct **x or *y. His **y in Erimologija 1965 was actually [*]. Dolgopolsky (3) added **x and **y to Nostratic recon- structions, which we in turn used (17). Reflexes of these consonants are not always clear in the daughter lan- guages. In East Nostratic none of these consonants survived in initial position. They were best preserved in AA: **°, **h, **h, **° were fully preserved, while **x merged with **h (> AA *h) and **y merged with *40(> AA *°) In IE, **x, **y, and apparently **h had the same reflexes as Nostr. **q and **g (the latter became *x and *y in AA and disappeared in imttial position in East Nostr ). We use the notation *X to describe the TE reflex(es) of Nostr. **q, **g, **x, **y, **h (IE *X was preserved as *h, *bb in Anatolian), and *H to describe reflexes of Nostr. **?, **h, **° (lost in all IE languages). See Table 6 Inan earlier paper (17) we claimed that laryngeals “color” no IE vowels. This 1s true for some “laryngeals,” certainly for IE *H < **?, where there 1s no change in vowel quality: [73] **°0q't ‘sharp’ > IE *Hok-“id° (asin Ht akkala ‘furrow’. Lat occa ‘harrow’), AA Table 6 Inmial uvular stops and laryngeals in West Nostraue Nostr - AA IE Karty +q x < q ae y x y aK h x x ny © x y ioe h x(”?) h>0 eae h H h>0 — bia H h>0 ee a H h>0 Note It 1s possible that IE distinguished between *x and “*y (in the present table we write *X im both cases), provided the Armemian data are correct Armenian preserves *x as h. whereas *y 1s lost (see Ref 17, esp the table on p 406)NOSTRATIC 327 ‘uk’ ‘sharp’; Ur. *ok(k)V ‘1d’.; Alt.. Turic *ogn ‘arrow, bow’, Mong. *oki ‘tip’, etc (17, p 385, #8) [74] *#?esA ‘dwell, stay’ > IE *Hes- ‘be’ (Ht es-); AA Is ‘be’, etc; Ur *eSA “(settle) a place’ (17, p. 384, #4). [75] **?anSV “favorable, friendly’ > TE *Hans-‘id’. (asin Gme *ans- ‘favor’), AA: Sem “falns- ‘finendly’, Turkic *as- ‘benefit’, etc (17, p 782, #1) More examples can be found in Ref. 17, pp. 382-85. However, it now appears that some of the other “laryngeals” were able to change front vowels into *a in IE (a characteristic typologically quite normal for uvular consonants). A few examples show non-initial laryn- geals, especially those in clusters: [76] **AeqL.u ‘to shine’ (our **2 = Dolgopolsky’s **3) > IE *seXwel- > IE *saXwel- or *saX*el- ‘sun, luminary’ (Luw séhw- ‘lamp’ preserves a front vowel because it was lengthened. & < *e of pre-IE < Nostr **e). AA: Sem *sxl (s = 2) ‘make transparent’, Ural *eLa- or *j6La ‘to shine, daylight’. ete. [77] **piiywe ‘fire’ > IE *paXwar or *paX*or (Ht pabbuwar), AA *pSw ‘id'., Ural *piwe ‘warm, hot’ (usually *7 < **V + “laryngeal”), etc (cf #58 above) [78] **5egV ‘eat’ > TE *saX(w)- ‘satisfied’; ete (see #24 above) There are at least twelve plausible sets showing IE *a < Nostr. **4/e/i before *#q, **g, *#x, *y. Thus, Nostratic data confirm, in part, H. Eichner’s rule concerning IE *e > *a in the neighborhood of “h,” (“*h,” corresponds to our *X pre- served as b, hh in Anatolian). One should bear in mind that in Nostratic itself uvular and other back consonants of the type q, x, h, h usually did not appear before **4, **e, **i. Traditional reconstruction of three TE laryngeals, *f (which changed the neighboring vowel V to *e), *h (which changed V to *a), and *h” (which changed V to *o), is not supported by IE data, except in the point described above (short *e > *a before a stable IE laryngeal *X). It is not supported by Nostratic data either (despite Illié-Svityé’s interpretation of “fh, *h, *h”” which parallels his interpretation of *k, *k, *k”: The palatal quality is due to the underlying front vowel, “regular” *h or *k is due to **a, and the labial quality is due to the underlying labial vowel). On the other hand, it is possible to reconstruct IE labial laryngeals, as Nikolaev (20) has done. Thus, Ht. bues- ‘live’ contained this type of laryngeal (< IE *X"es-), exactly as Ht. kuis ‘who’ contained a labiovelar *k". Accordingly, we may reconstruct IE *H™ (> w in individual lan- guages, including Anatolian). For information on consonant clusters we refer the reader to the tables in Ref. 14, p. 151 (sonorant + stop) and p. 152 (laryngeals and sonorants, glides and sonorants).328 KAISER & SHEVOROSHKIN Table 7 Vowels in East Nostratic languages Nostranc Urahe Dravidian Altai ¥q ¥F9 ey te -eneos a ° u 6g 2 e + 7 u wu uo Nostratic Vowels Vowels were best preserved in East Nostratic languages, as shown in Table 7. In West Nostratic languages, due to the ablauting process (see the table in Ref. 14, p. 153), Nostratic vowels have been preserved only in some roots. Any set cited above will serve as an example of the evolution of Nostratic vowels. The evolution of Nostratic vowels in IE is discussed by Dolgopolsky (see 25; cf Table 2 in Ref. 17, p. 406). Note that in several works Dolgopolsky does not reconstruct Nostratic ao u. CONCLUSION The Nostratic Theory has had its critics and skeptics (24; Dybo’s foreword to 16; and 9). However, no criticism has been able to discredit the Theory as a whole; never have more than a handful of the several hundred Nostratic etymologies ever been brought into question. The Theory will no doubt undergo some modifications, a few of which we have proposed here, and much work remains to be done; but Illit-Svityé and Dolgopolsky have opened broad new vistas in historical linguistics. Literature Cuted 1 Dolgopolsky, A. B. 1964 “Metody nauk. Moscow: Congress publications. rekonstrukeil oblérindoevropesskogo 3. Dolgopolsky, ‘A.B 1969 “Osnoyy 's jazyka 1 vneindoevropeyskie sopo- so’etaniem Sumnyx soglasnyx.” Efem- Stavlenya,” Problemy saonite ny gram ologiia 1967 Moscow: Nauka matikt indoeuropeyskix jazykov. Tezisy 4. Dolgopolsky, A. B. 1972. “Nostra- dokladov Moscow. Moscow State Uni- tideskie korm s sofetaniem lateral’nogo versity i ones Jaringala.” Etimologija 1970 2 Dolgopolsky, A. B. 1964a. “Gipoteza Moscow, Nauka. drevnejSego rodstva jazykov severnoj 5. Dolgopolsky, A. B. 1974. “O nostra- Evrazii_(problemy fonetieskix soot- sisteme affrikat i sibil'antov: ij).” VIT Me3dunarodny} kongress komi s fonemoj *3,” Etimologija 1972. antropologiéeskix i étnografideskix Moscow: Nauka.10 ue 12. B 14. 15. . Dolgopolsky, A. B. 1984. “On Personal Pronouns in the Nostratic Languages.” Linguistica et Philologica. Gedenkschrift fir Bjém Collinder. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumiller. . Dybo, A.V. 1978. “Nostratigeskaya sipoteza (itogi i problemy)." Izvestiya AN SSSR, seriya literatury i jazyka, t. 35, #5. . Greenberg, J. 1987, Language the Americas.” Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press. . Helimsky, E. (=Xelimskiy, E. A.) 1986 “ReSeme dilemn prat’urksko} ‘rekon- strukcii i nostratika.” Voprosy jazykoz- nanyja, no. § 1hé-Svityé, V. M. 1964. “Genezis indo- evropejskix r’adov guttural'nyx v svete dannyx vnenego sravnenija.” Problemy sravnitel'noy grammatiki mdoevro; pejskix yazykov. Tezisy dokladov. ‘Moscow State University. The Suitye, V. M. 19644, “Drevnejtie indoevropessko-semitskie_jazykovye kontakty.” Problemy indoevropeyskogo Jazykoznanija. Moscow: Nauka. Iili-Svityé, V.M. 1965. “Altajskie gut- tural'nye *k‘, *k, *g.” Etimologija 1964 Moscow: Nauka’ Tlié-Svityé, V. M. 1967. “Material sravnitel'nomu slovarju_ nostrativeskix jazykov” Nauka. Illié-Svityé, VM. 1971. Opyt sraunemyj nostranéeskix. Jazykov (semit foxamuski Etimologija 1965 Moscow: dravidijskyj, altajsky) Vvedenie Srav- nitel’nyy slovar’ (b-K’). Moscow: ‘Nauka. Mlig-Svityé, V. M. 1976. Opyt sraonenija nostratiéeskix jazykov (semitoxamitsky, kartwel’sky, indoevropeyskaj,ural’skiy, 16. 17, 18. 19. 21. 22 23. 24 25. . Nikolaev, S. NOSTRATIC 329 dravidiyskij, altajskij). Sravnitel’ny} slo- var’ (1-3). Moscow. Nauka. Tlig-Svityé, V. M. 1984, Opyt sravnenija nostratieskix jazykov (semitoxamitsky, kartoel’skij, indoevropeyskyj, ural’skiy, dravidijski, altajskij). Sravmtel’nyj slo- var’ (p-q). Moscow: Nauka. Kaiser, M., Shevoroshkin, V. 1985. “On Indo-European Laryngeals and Vowels. Laryny fore Vowels " Journal of Indo-European Shudice vol 13 nos 3. Kaser, M., Shevoroshlan, V. 1986. “Inheritance versus Borrrowing in TE, Kartvelian, and Semitic.” Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 14, nos. 3 & 4 Kaiser, M., Shevoroshkin, V. 1987. “On Recent Comparisons Between Lay Families: The Case of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic.” General Linguistics, vol. 27, no. | 1986 “K. sstorigeskoy morfonologil greteskogo glagola, TI” Baltoslav'anskie issledowanija 1984 Moscow: Nauka. Nikolaev, 8.1988 _““Sino-Caucasian Languages in North Amenca.” In Gen- etic Classification 24. Peters, M. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryn- gale im Gruechischen Vienna: Austrian ‘Academy of Sciences Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Worterbuch. Bern: Francke Verlag Shevoroshkin, V, Markey, T., eds. 1986. Typology, Relationship’ and Tume ‘Ann Arbor: Karoma. Shevoroshlun, V. et al, eds. 1988. Gen- etic Classification of Languages. Unw. of Texas Press. Forthcoming.Copyright of Annual Review of Anthropology is the property of Annual Reviews Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.