Раа/ S.

Cohen

Tuscu~an~. (Тhе рарег is reprinted from Рарегз from the Seventh

ScandтaVlan Соп/егепсе о/ Linguist/cs, [edited Ь FredrikКar1sson ], рр.
. . У 371-
384 , и'П1vеГSltуоf Hе Isшki, Department of General Lin g uistics Publicau on NOSTRA ТIC, QUO V ADIS?
' s Nо.
9, 1983.)
Rix, Helmut (2001). Lex/con der lndogerтan/schen Verben,., 2nd ed W'les Ьаden. Ог. . Ronald А. Coleman
Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Schrijver, Peter (1991). The Rejlexes o/the Proto-Indo-E агореап La гупкеа/з т. Lat/n,
Amsterdarn & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Abstract
Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparat/ve Сгаттаг о/ Greek and Latin N У k In attempting to ascertain where Nostratic is heading and how il is regarded Ьу
ew ог
& Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. '
both [hе general community and Ьу professional linguists, tbls рарег surveys various
Tichy, Еуа (1983). Onomatopoet/sche Verba/bi/dungen des Gr/echischen У' categories of criticism of the hypothesis. Wblle the literature provides detailed technical
lenna..
Verlag derOsterrelchenAkademieder Wissenschaften. ' analyses, the views presented Ьете ате of а вепетal nature Ьу the writer- а "practical
Уеnnеmann, Тhео (1998). "Etymology and Phonotactics'. Latin КГапd' linguist" with а long-term interest in the Iпdо-Еurореап language farnily. It is hoped that
vs. В asque а perspective from outside of academic linguistics шiвh! throw some light оп how
"
hand/ 'Ыв' and similar рюblе пIs. Тhe Journa/ o/Indo-European Stud/es
" Nostratic is regarded Ьу the interested public at large.
26:345-390.
Criticism is grouped under five categories designated arbitrarily as А, В, С, D
(2002). "Кеу Issues in English Etymology." In Sounds,
and Е ranging from acceptance with шiпот qualifications to outright rejection. These
Words, TeXls aпd Смпке: Se/ected Рарегз /гот IIICEH
L, Sant юко d е Сomposte/a categories ате outlined as follows:
.
7- II SeptemЬer 2000, edlted
'

Ьу Teresa Fanego, Belen Mendez-Naау, and Category А criticism, intemal to the so-called "Moscow School", is а
Elena Seoane,рр. 227-252. Amsterdam& Pblladelpbla: John В .
еПjaпnпs. refining process based оп the works of У. Illich-Svitych, А. Dolgopolsky
Watkins, СaI~ert (2000). ТheАтег/сап Her/tageDict/onary'o/Indo-EuropeanRoots and others to wblch corrections, additions andlor deletions Ьауе Ьееп
2"" ., Boston& New Уork: HoughtonМiffJin. ' шadе in keeping with on-going research. У. Shevoroshkin, У. Dubo апd
Yakubo~, Ilуа ~2000). "Laryngeals fюm Velars in Нittile: А Triple-Headed S. Starostin ате some of the leading scholars in tbls category.
gument. In Proceed/ngs о/ the E/eventhАппиа/ иси lпdo-Euro е
Category В criticism, both intemal and extemal comes from АтеПсan
~oпiference, I.os Апке/ез, Juпe 4-5, 1999, edited Ьу Karlene jones-Bley J'artia: scholars such as Аl1апBomhard, the best knоwn, who Ьауе developed an
. Huld, and Angela Оеllа Vol pe рр. 135 - 150. Journal of Indo-Euro ' pean
.
St udles Мonograph Serie s Nо. 35 . W .
' asblngton,
altemative reconstruction of Nostratic.
О.С.: Institute foт the Study of
Мan. Category С Criticism comes general1y from specialists in опе or more of
the daughter language farnilies. Tbls group, finding the hypothesis
interesting, has mixed feelings and suspends judgement pending further
evidence. Sometimes referred to as the "Agnostics".
, Category D criticism is generated from cladisticljexicostatistic/computer
based techniques yielding correlation figures оп lапguagе comparisons
from а gюuр who арреат to ье тоте statisticians thап linguists. These
critics tend to Ье generally negative in their assessments. Тhете is some
overlap between groups С and О.
Category Е criticism totally reject the hypothesis.

То assist in the wider acceptance of Nostratic, the paper emphasises the great
l1eed for increased iпterdisсiрliпагу teamwork. Few fields of human endeavour, either in
the sciences or humanities, сап succeed in isolation. То this end, strategies outside of
palaeolinguistics ате discussed to support Ihе evidence for Nostratic and thus help inspire

62

Ronald Со/етаn
wider interest Ьу the educated public. These include: GeneticsJDNA findings, striking
methodological parallels from Australian languages and а proposed think- tank.
Preamble
Coming from а professional background outside of academic linguistics, 1
believe it is in order to offer а brief explanation as to why 1 have contributed to this
Conference which contains papers Ьу soтe of the world's leading palaeolinguists. Some
might accuse те of arrogance andJor ignorance and they are entitled to their opinion.
After аll, ту professiona1 colleagues might react in the saтe way if а Nostraticist
appeared out of the blue to present а geotechnica1 paper а! а conference in ту areas of
expenise.
So what has motivated те to proceed? The answer сan Ье found in the very
.
паtшe of Nostratic which links а vast number of different peoples and cultures, making it
опе of the most exciting intellectua1 ideas of the twentieth century. This hypothesis,
having implications well beyond linguistics and involving pre-history, archaeology,
pa1aeo-demography and genetics, is vital to anybody who is interested in the early history
of the huтan race.
As it is по! necessary to ье а specia1ist neurosurgeon to insist that the 10ca1
hospital acquires а СТ scanner, it is equally по! necessary to Ье а palaeolinguist to offer
soтe genera1 observations оп Nostratic.
Introduction
The term Nostratie was coined Ьу the Danish linguist Holger Pedersen from the
Latin adjective nostras (genitive nostratis) тeaning о/ои, eoиntry, native.
As defmed Ьу Illich-Svitych and Ьу Dolgopolsky, the Nostratic тacrofarnily
includes the fol1owing six language farnilies:
..
. Indo-European
Afroasiaticaka Нarnito-Sernitic
( N. AfricaandtheMiddleEast)
.. Kanvelian (South Caucasian)
Uralic- Yukaghir (N. EuroPS'extending into Siberia)
Altaic- (Тurkiс, Mongolian ~d Tungusic)
. Dravidian (South Indian)
Renfrew (1999), in his introduction to the conference - Nostratie:Examiningа
Lingиistie Macro/amily, however, remarks оп the problematic nature of this list in which
even Altaic is regarded as controversia1 Ьу soтe linguists. Conversely, he notes that
Dolgopolsky would today expand Altaic to include also Japanese and Korean. Some
scholars such as Mudrak, Bomhard and Greenberg a1so include Eskimo-Aleut in the
macrofarnily. Further, soтe of the тembers of the Moscow school, notably Starostin,
(1999:137) would set the Afroasiatic farnily adjacent to, rather than within the Nostratic
macrofarnily.
Renfrew further adds that the position of Dravidian within Nostratic is also
considered marginal Ьу soтe scholars with DoIgopolsky еуen having his doubts. Тhe
64
Nostratie, Qиo Vadis?
picture is further complicated Ьу Greenberg (2000), who besides Eskimo-Aleut, a1so
added Chukchi-Kaтchatkan, Japanese, Korean, Ainu and Gilyak to the origina1 Illich-
Svitych list but excluded Afroasiatic, KartVelian and Dravidian.
Aims
There are three тain aims of this paper.
1. The fust is to attempt to address the question why Nostratic is stil1neither
widely known Ьу the public nor accepted Ьу the тajority of linguists,
gi уеп the tremendous advances тade in research over the last century.
2. The second is to look а! the types of criticism levelled а! Nostratic and to
analyse them in буе categories. These are il1ustrated Ьу citations from the
critica1literature, of which there is по shortage.
3. The third aim is to propose non-linguistic strategies to suppon the
evidence for Nostratic and thus help inspire interest and wider acceptance
Ьу the genera1 educated public.
Nostratic ? Nostradamus ? Cosa nostra?
These are typical replies when Nostratic is mentioned to ту friends and
col1eagues of diverse professiona1 backgrounds, тany of whom have а! least а nodding
acquaintance with Proto-Indo-European (PIE). In addition, an informa1 survey 1 carried
out revea1ed that the Nostratic hypothesis is a1most completely unknown, еуеп among
academic linguists in our four universities in Sydney. Additiona11y,а database search of
fourleadingeast coast Austra1ianuniversities,each with good linguisticdepartrnentsand
wel1 stocked libraries tumed up the grand tota1of four texts оп the subject.
And what of а curious person consulting the Oxford Coneise Dietionary о/
Lingиisties Ьу Matthews (1997:247) for enlightenment? Тhe entry reads:
"Nostratic": (note Matthew's sarcastic quotation marks)
Conjectura1 farnily of languages whose branches are usua1ly said to
include а! least "IE, "АА etc (the Illich-Svitych list). Divers others are
added Ьу divers enthиsiasts An old conjecture, but despite
continuing attempts to give substance to it, still the kind о/ hypothesis оnе
Ьеиеуе. to the extent that оnе Ьеиеуе. in that kind о/ hypothesis." (Му
italics) .
Onе rnight ask if our curious person would bother to proceed anу further after
this putdown. After а1I, the leamed author is Professor of Linguistics а! Caтbridge
University, по less. Nostratic does suffer from а severe image problem!
65
 Roпald Coleтan
And try convincing somebody that Eng1ish, ЛrаЫс, Hungarian and even
possibly Japanese are аll distantly related via Nostratic. Well, it is аН against "common
sense", isn't it?
In spite of the extraordinary volume of existing scholarship оп Nostratic, this
hundred year old hypothesis has still not been accepted widely Ьу the 1inguistic fraternity
and the general public. Wby is this the case?
Some cultural and po1itical reasons are suggested below.
ТЬе cultural, philosophical, artistic and 1inguistic differences between the
"Anglo World" -USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, NZ -and Continental Ешоре are very
marked indicating two quite distinct Weltanschauungen. Significant differences are
evident during the first half of the 20thcentury between the main philosophical thrnst of
the Oxford School -Bertrand RusseH, for exaтple-obsessed with abstruse rnathematical
logi~, and the French socially engaged schools of existentialism of Caтus and Sartre and,
1ater,Derrida's deconstructionism. Or а comparison could ье made ear1ier in the century
оп the great Europeanexperimentsin art - impressionism, cubism and dadaism and the
conservative art of the Anglo World.
Over this period Anglo linguistics, especially in the USA, was heading into the
directions of Chomsky' s TransforrnationaVGenerative Grammar and his School, leaving
historical1inguistics as an "old.fashioned" discipline to the Europeans, in particular the
Moscow School.
Analysing the situation more technically from а 1inguistic perspective,
linguistics in the Anglo-world grew оо! of antbropology, while in Еuroре it grew оо! of
philology in which Nostratic and РIБ were practiced as philological artslsciences. Оп the
other hand, the theory of Anglo descriptive linguistics, based оп Ое Sassure' s
structuralism, separated language into syncbronic/diacbronic and denied the possibility of
historical work without written ancient texts.
on the politicallevel, the deep enduring mistrust of аll things Russian has also
been а significant factor in the slow acceptance of Nostratic. Additionally, the problem
was exacerbated Ьу the fact that аll of the 1960s seminal works were in Russian, rather
than the far more accessible English, French or German languages.
А critique оСthe critics
Criticism is grouped under five rnain categories designated А to Е, ranging from
"in school" debates to outright rejection.
Category А criticism, internal (о the Moscow School, is а refining process
based оп the works оС Illich-Svitych, Dolgopolsky and others to which corrections,
additions and deletions are rnade in keeping with on-going research. Shevoroshkin,
Ivan~v, Оуьо and Starostin are also aтong the best known scholars but this list is Ьу по
means complete. An excellent cross section of the writings of this School is presented in
Typology, Relationship and Тi1Ш!edited Ьу Shevoroshkin and Markey (1986).
Тhe substantial Coreword Ьу the Editors includes, among otber topics, an
inforrnative and succinct history of comparative linguistics, methods of comparison,
66
Nostratic, Quo Vadis?
Dravidian, Indo-European, Kartvelian, the development of Nostratic and the
disagreements between the Moscow and American Schools.
As for the essays in (Ье volume, Ivanov(1980:1-26) clarifies the difference
between а proto-Ianguage and а mere system of correspondences. Ву the saтe author
(Ivanov, 1972:51-56 & 1977:57-65) , there are two reviews оп Уо! 1 and 11 of Illich-
Svitych's Dictioпary ofthe Nostratic Languages. Dolgopolsky(1964:27-50) discusses а
probabilistic hypothesis оп (Ье oldest relationships aтong the language farnilies in
Northem Eurasia, including an interesting 1ist of the frequency of replacement of 250
semantic values over time.
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1980:87-108) discuss (Ье reconstruction of the РIБ
stops and glottalised stops from the traditional reconstructions (о modern interpretations.
There is also а dissident paper Ьу Serebrennikov (1983:66-86) entitled Оп the So-called
"Nostratic" Languages, the title spea1dng for itself.
Leaving the technical argurnents in the аЬоуе text to the specialists, 1 offer the
following observations оп their overall presentation. Clear, user-friendly, persuasive
presentation of complex data and results is an area in which 1 ат well qualified from ту
professional 1ife embracing consulting, teaching, technical report writing and
designlde1ivery of seminars.
Many of (Ье аЬоуе papers and Nostratic literature in generalleave тосЬ (о ье
desired in their readability. Рош such problems are:
1. Clutter оп the page: (оо many comparative etyma being jammed
haphazardly together, mixed with citations of sources, authorities,
journals and quotations.
2. Ioconsistent andlor non-standard use of phonetic symbols from author (о
authoroften without an explanatory key.
З. Omission of sketch maps in papers discussing obscure language farnilies
of say, the Americas or Africa, оп (Ье assumption that all readers would
ье farniliar with these specialist areas.
4. Launchingdirectly into detailed lexical comparisonswithout а short
general introduction оп the historicaVcultural background of the farnilies.
An exarople of some of these problems is i1lustrated Ьу Dolgopolsky (2002) in
(Ье Тhree Entries froт the 'Nostratic Dictionary" in which а wealth of valuable
scholarship is buried in а swarop of poor graphic page design.
However, these comment could apply (о тосЬ of the output from the Moscow
School and (о European linguists in general.
Category В criticism, both internal and external comes from outside of (Ье
Moscow group with an alternate reconstruction of Nostratic: the most prominent scholar
is (Ье Arnerican, Allan Bomhard. Тhe Nostratic Macrofaтily- А Study in Distant
Linguistic Re/ations Ьу Bomhard and Kerns (1994) systernatically surveys the Nostratic
67
 Roпald Coleтan
languages, their comparative phonology, morphology anд syntax anд includes а 60 page
dictionary of English meanings with their Proto-Nostratic roots. А! the 2003 Centennial
Conference, the author generously presented all delegates with а CD of his recently
updated book which goes into considerable moте detail than the earlier text cited аЬоуе.
In this CD text, Воrпhатд (2003:22 ) presents а family tree showing the
relationship between the following Nostratic languages:
. Indo-European
. Кartуеlian
. Afrasian
..
. Uralic- У ukaghir
Elamo-Dravidian
AItaic
. -
Chukchi Kaтchatkan
.
. Gi1yak
Eskimo- AIeut
Further in the saтe text оп р. 35, Sumerian is also included anд discussed, а
language that is generally по! included Ьу other authors. Chapter 2 - А Sиrvey о/ the
Nostratic Langиages (р.27-36) does по! discuss Etruscan (from the 1994 list) although
Etruscan roots ате cited sporadically later throughoutthe Ьоду of the text.
In contrast to ту Category А criticisms оп layout, presentation anд general
readahility, Bomhard's book is lucidly presented overall including phonological
correspondences anд the like in clear tabular forrnat. In addition, it has атоunд а dozen
rnaps (р.245 е! seq) covering the homelands, distribution anд dispersal of IE, Nostratic
anд agriculture.
Тhe technical differences between the two Schools, Critiqиe о/ Mиscovite Views
оп Nostratic, are outlined Ьу оп page 18.
Category С criticism comes generally from specialists in опе or more of the daughter
language families who, finding the Nostratic hypothesis interesting, Ьауе mixed feelings
anд suspend judgement pending aд~onal evidence. Their reviews, а! best, ате generally
lukewarm anд when they agree, 1! сan ье а case of "damning with faint praise".
Unfortunately, this category is probably the majority position.
Some typical opinions follow:
"With respect to the validity of the (Nostratic) reconstruction, 1 suggest
that а nurnber of characteristics of the reconstruction makes it less than
optirnally testable, in particular unexplained irregular developments, the
use of unspecified segments, the size of the reconstructed рЬопете
inventory and the positing of synonyms. 1 suggest а criterion of 'openness'
to шakе such problems explicit, thus facilitating the dialogue between
scholars advocating anд rejecting the Nostratic hypothesis Сошriе
(1999:243)
68
Nostratic, Qиo Vadis?
" 1 ат essentially а 'splitter' who is perhaps (if rather somewhat
romantically) attracted Ьу the ideas of the 'Iurnpers' but who is по!
сопуinсед anд doubts the methodological integrity of 'Iurnping'.
Appleyard (1999:289)
(Note: 'Lurnpers' ате quick to see the genetic connections between large
linguistic units while 'Splitters' identify and quantify smaller uuits such as
language families or branches.)-
" Nostratic сan ье viewed, in manу ways as а religion: either you Ьеliеуе
or you до not" Кауе (1999:327)
"ТЬе enorrnouspotential of Nostratic studies to contribute ю ош
understandingof Ьurnanlinguistichistory"Vine (1998:85)
"ТЬе eventual success anу such serious investigation rnaу find will Ье
proportional to the precision anд depth of its analyses, which would very
likely ье еnhanсед Ьу structured prograrns of cooperative anд
collaborative research" Vine (1998: 103)
give support to the possihility that we will soon develop а
"
reconstruction of Nostratic, consistent with what we know of the attested
daughter languages, anд plausible as а reallanguage опсе spoken Ьу real
реор1е." Manaster- Ramer е! aI (1998:79)
Тhe Category D critics ате the cladistic/lexicostatisticlcomputer group who
calculate correlation figures оп language comparisons, treating Nostratic as an ехас!
science. Their results ате often inconclusive or negative. Му оwn gut feeling, having Ьад
а fair hit to до with computers, is опе of scepticism that computers сan achieve what а
learned specialist in anу field cannot.
Their great advantage lies, however, in the skills of the cyber- priesthood in
conning the often computer semi- illiterate humanity specialists into thinking that their
prograrns ате infallible.
Some of the published papers in this атеа арреат to ье naive. ТЬеу simp1y list
two lexical sets anд program the computer to find matches between consonants to
produce correlation coefficients allegedly showing the degree of relationship between the
two languages.
An example of this genre is Ап Algorithт То Align Words /or Нistorical
Coтparisoп Ьу Covington (1997:1-17) of the Artificial Intel1igence Centre of the
University of Georgia, USA. In this method, arhitrary penalty scores ате allocated to
consonant alignment misrnatches. Some Ьurnan,rather than artificial intelligence would
Ьауе Ьееп [ат тоте productive.
Kondrak (2000:288-295) presents а method of identifying cognates in the
vocabuIaries of related languages based оп muItivalued features, keyword selection anд
the Program WordNet. Using this sophisticated rnathernatical аррroасЬ applied to [ош
AIgonquian languages, Ье [оunд that the method is сараЫе of discovering оп average
69
 Roпald Coleтaп
nearly 75% of cognates at 50% precisioo. (ту emphasis). This is the same probability
fromа tossed coin!
Ringe(1998:187) conc1udes that:
"Indo-Uralic is probably the рат! of the Nostratic hypothesis that is most
likely to ье correct; уе! sober statistical testing of the re1ationship сan
barely establish it еуеп pтobabilistically" (ту emphasis)
This conclusion might ье а good argument agaiost probabilistic methods and/or sobriety.
'! contradictsthe по! insigniticant evidence that Uralic and IE are related as
demonstrated, [от example, Ьу Hyllested (2003) io his convincing reconstruction of а
sizable Proto Indo-Uralic vocabulary [тот PIE and Proto-Uralic тoots.
Finally, an example from Ringe, Tandy and Taylor (2002:59). 1 was unsure if
this is теan! to Ье а joke, а! their оwn expense: if so, it's good to see computer people
with а sense of Ьитопr. Using а set of 329 characters аН within the IE family, а
phylogenic tree was computer generated showing Old English located solidly within the
Satem core, оп adjacent branches to Avestan, Vedic, Lithuanian aod Old СЬпrсЬ
Slavonic. ТЬе tree also could по! place Albanian anywhere: possibly the Albanian wood
got lost among the trees! (Note: the Editor assured те that the authors were оо! joking.
Sad!)
It is fortunate that computers were not around when the great early comparative
historical liDguists demonstrated that Arrnenian belonged to the IE family. Computer
analysis would Ьауе rejected anу correlation between the numbers erk'u (2) and erek (3)
of Classical Arrnenian and the IE [оrrns of *duwo and *treyes respectively. '! would
арреат that Ьу the time intel1igent lists of cognates Ьауе Ьееп drawn ир Ьу competent
linguists for the software to pтocess, 99% of the work has already Ьееп done.
Finally, McMahon and Мс МаЬоп (2002:3) шakе some very thoughtful points
in their Lies, Daтпed Lies, aпd Cladistics: Liпguistic Classificatioп aпd Geпetic
Correlatioпs. ТЬеу quote а соттеп! [тот Michae1 Cysouw who responded
electronically to а computer generated phylogenic tree confirrning а highly congruent
relationship between Austronesian genes, language and migrations (Gray and Jordan,
2000: 1052).
Cysouwstates:
'"
"As [ат as 1 сan see, nothing new resu1ts from their analyses. ... $0 it
seems possible to publish an artic1e in Nature just Ьу using the right
computer pтogram and forget that тапу years of research Ьауе Ьееп
perforrned in linguistics to ье аЫе to perforrn these analyses."
Category Е crjtjcs totally reject Nostratic. Three of the harshest critics include
Don Ringe, Larry Trask and Lyle CarnрЬеН. ТЬе paper has presented а number of
connrients Ьу Ringe in the previous section so just опе final quote is included here.
"In anу discipline that deals with real world рЬепотепа, empirical pтoof
is basic to everything else. If after 10 rпiНеnniа(or 12, or whatever the
70
Nostratic, Quo Vadis?
threshold is exactly) the similarities between diverging languages of
соmmoп origin Ьесоте indistinguishable [тот simi1arities that could
easily Ьауе arisen Ьу random сЬanсе, 1anguage relationships а! that and
greater time depths simply сannо! ье posited Ьу scientific linguists; по
other conclusion сan Ье accepted. Ringe (1995:72)
However, other interpretations and conclusions сan indeed Ье accepted, as
illustrated Ьу the following remarks Ьу Baxter (1998:234):
" It is clear and quite uncontroversial, that probabilistic methods сan Ье1р
us decide whether арратеп! resemblances between 1anguages could ье due
to сЬanсе. Ви! probability theory has its оwn standards of caution and
rigour, and the techniques of hypothesis testing ате subtle and notoriously
subject to misinterpretation. 'П particular, а significance test tests only опе
hypothesis а! а time; the results are relevant to that опе hypothesis, and
only if the test is weH constructed and carefully interpreted. As тисЬ as
we might wish for an empirical test to deterrnine whether а language
relationship could ever ье demonstrated, probabilistic tests simp1y do по!
Ьауе this power."
Trask (1999:157 ) appears to Ьауе very deep seated objections to macrofamilies
in general:
"ТЬе real question, in ту view, is по! why iso1ates exist, Ьи! why families
exist - and аЬоуе аН large families. Why should there ье large families
like Indo-European and Austronesian? Why should Nostratic exist?
How could it exist ? And furtherrnore,even if it somehow does exist, how
сan it Ьауе the pтoperties ascribed to it?"
It is hard to know if Ье is being serious, or just stirring, Ьи! yes, Trask is after аН
an expert оп the Basque iso1ate. If Basque is unrelated to anу other knоwn 1anguage оп
the planet, why should language families exist?
1just find it hard to visua1ise опr Palaeolithic ancestor, *Ug?walo, sitting оп а
тock when suddeDly а wild Przewalski gallops Ьу to the startled exclamation of *Ekwo,
*Ekwo!, the пате havingjust materialised ои! ofthin air.
Lyle СaropЬеН (1998:145) does по! Ьеа! аЬои! the bush:
"1 personally reject the Nostratic hypothesis"
СатрЬеН (1999:179), commenting оп Dolgopolsky's тhe Nostratic
Macrofaтily aпd Liпguistic Раlаеопtоюgy, states:
"Nearly all of Dolgopolsky's 124 Nostratic 1exical sets exhibit serious
problems from the point of view of methodology".
71
 Nostratic. Quo Vadis?
Ronald Coleтan

This contrasts sharply with (Ье assessment of Starostin (1999: 137) who asserts
"Linguistic evolution is а special (урс of cu1turalevo1ution How is it
that:
possible for these two different systems (о fol1ow parallel evo1utionary
trajectories, ог 10 coevolve? ТЬе exp1anationis quite sirnp1e.Two iso1ated
" Most of the lexical material (Ьа! Ье (Do1gopolsky) presents is va1id and
-
ref1ects, in ту opinion, а deep genetic unity of the 1anguages included 1
populations differentiate both genetical1y and linguistical1y. Isolation,
which cou1d result from geographic, ecologica1 or social barriers, reduces
Е, Кartvelian, Altaic, Uralic, Dravidian and Harnito-Semitic."
the like1ihood of marriage between popu1ations, and as а result,
reciprocally iso1ated popu1ationswil1 evolve independent1y and gradually
Ьесоте different. Genetic differentiation of reciprocal1y isolated
Nostratic, quo vadis ?
populations occurs s1ow1y Ьо! regularly оуег time. We сan ехрес! the
As discussed previously, two of (Ье most daтaging objections 1evelled against
saтe thing to Ьарреп with 1anguages: iso1ation dirninishes cu1tural
Nostratic are the existence of substantia1disagreeтent among scholars оп (Ье
exchange, and the two languages wil1 drift apart. In princip1e,
macrofarnily membership, typified Ьу Matthews(1997:247) and (Ье argument regarding
Iherefore, the linguistic tree and the genetic tree of populations shou1d
random сЬanсе а! great time depth typified Ьу Ringe (1995:72 and 1998:187).
agree, since they ref1ecl (Ье saтe history of popu1ations splitting and
Strategies (о provide аохiliагу evidence 10а! 1east partially address these
evolving independently."
ргоЫеms are:

. Archaeogenetics (DNA) methods (о clarify or perhaps еуеп confirm fami1y

membership.
. Paralle1s from Australian 1anguages illustrating (Ьа! simi1arities in phono10gy,
grammar and vocabu1ary do persist а! great time depths contrary (о the c1aims of
glottochrono10gy.
. То conc1ude: а think lank is proposed (о рlо! future directions for Nostralic.
ТЬе evidence from archaeo10gy is по! discussed here as the significant
contributions from this field are wel1 knоwn and acknow1edged.
Archaeogenetics
Personal discussions with some de1egates а! the Conference and elsewhere
indicated scepticism towards (Ье geneticl DNA арргоасЬ. ТЬе reason usual1y cited is (Ьа!
genes do по! determine the language spoken, а statemenl with which 1 ful1y concur.
Another unspoken factor appeared (о Ье that some scho1ars, exc1usive1y occupied with
the minutiae of their оwn specialist area, were re1uctant(о spend the extra effort оп time-
consuming interdisciplinary te&work. Others were по! еуеп keen 10 work with
archaeologists, stating that (Ье latter think different1y from linguists (this could Ье а
distinct advantage 1)
. However, (Ьеге is а good case for archaeogenetics (о ье used по! as primary
deternunants of farm1y/phylummembership, Ьо! rather as auxiliary supporting evidence
to confl1'111
ог clarify the linguistic evidence. Some examples are presented here.
Cavalli-Sforza (2001: 150), ОПеof the great founding fathers of archaeogenetics,
states:
"и! те start Ьу emphasizing that there is по reason (о think (Ьа! genes
inf1uencethe ability to speak one language over another".
While qualifying (Ье аЬоуе Ьу the obvious disruptive effects of rniliшу and
cultural conquests оп iso1ated populations- citing the Hungarians, Finns, Lapps,
Ethiopians, Tibetans and others- Ье is confident (Ьа! it is still а powerfuJ princip1e. Нis
geneticllinguistic trees covering most of the world's 1anguage farnilies, inc1uding
Nostratic as а Superphy1umtogether with а "calibration" tree for the IE farnily are shown
оп (Ье following pages, identified as Figures 12 and 13 respective1y.
Spencer Wel1s (2003) relies оп more recent genetic techniques invo1ving DNA
mutations оп the male transrnitted У-chromosome. This method is far тоге sensitive in
determining rniпог differences in popu1ations than (Ье earlier technology invo1ving
female rnitochondrialDNA (mDNA) used Ьу Cavalli-Sforza for мосЬ of his research.
In addition (о copious research findings from Europe and the Мiddle East, Wells
presents genetic evidence in support of Greenberg's proposition that the Amerind farni1y
was introduced Ьу the earliesl migration into the Arnericas because it is the most
widespread and is (Ьеоп1уone spoken in South Arnerica. Wel1s (2003:143) states:
"ТЬе genetic data bear this out, with Amerind speakers in both North and
South America sharing ЫгЬ frequencies of (Ье mutations Мш and М, -
marking them members of (Ье Siberian сlan. ТЬе mtDNA data obtained Ьу
Топоni and Wallace a1so supports an ear1y Amerind settlement of the
Americas. It seems like1y (Ьа! our Beringian hunters were speaking а
'anгоаге (Ьа! was ancestral (о modem Amerind 1anguages, and (Ьа!
12,000 years of divergence has produced the extraordinary linguistic
variety we see today."
Three exaтp1es relating (о questions posed Ьу papers from (Ье Centennial
Conference are discussed where DNA research rniгЬ! Ье аЫе (о confl1'111lclarifytentative
conclusions.

However, Ье continues:

73
72
 Roпald Coleтaп Nostratic, Qиo Vadis?

Genetlc 1Ne Populatioaa

Mbutipygmy-
Ungulsde FатШе.

Ortginallanguage
UnIaWWn
..
100 .....

'111
т-
-~-
-
-.

Вanш
W Лfпсan

NiIotie
. Niget-КоrdoСanian
NiIo-Saharan
...
ВOnPII
"""'"
Н....
LO/WIO
.. 38 8з
San (Вшhmеп)- КJюjsan "'jobi
Cujltllti
Ethiopian ........

3-
00"
Вerber. N. Afiican
.
Afro..Asiatic...........e:...1 100 100 l<ЬUInVa
Н.....
100 ж.........
S.W.Лsian .
р n
..........
. 100:::SE

-
100
=-п;э-
Sardinian
Indo-European .....=tl "n
U
1111
W,uhC
100w.IahN
'NЬA
Indian в.....-

Lappг
U
"
S. Е. Indian Dravidian'
...~...:a:a:: =C;I) ~;_II Z
s..L"':
1 -" B~
и-'
Samoyed
Uralic-Yukaghir
'-а i'8~i
-[ Ig> .. .....
"~"

-
-
Мопgоl .. 90с-о.
§ .. c.od>&
1ibetan Sino-1ibetan ::'11 а
Коrean ::i- 1011
'-Wnu
........

Ainu
Japanese

N. Turldc
ЛItaic :Z::8=c:::l1"1-
I
I
I
I
а 1011 ......
и-sт
c.uм.
........
I ..........
Eskimo
ChukchJ
Eskimo-AIeut
CbukchJ-Кamchatlcan - I
, W.IIOOO
,.....
S. Лmеrind :
---:-----------'
...
l00~
t.ob

С. Amerind
N. Amerind
.::=3- Лmеrind
31 .. SOnIiniOaC
_NUI.
... SonI1nIooH
N. W. Amerind ~Na-Dene В.........
S. Chinese
Mon-Кhmer
Thai"
Sino-1ibetan
Austroasiatic
Daic 71
54
I '"
..

1ОО:
-
"""'"
........

--~ . Austric DaI<'

с.-

-
Malaysian .....
Philipp!ne АшtlOllestan &os1dh
100 """"М.
GnokМod
РoIynesian
Micronesian .п.....с
.. .п......т
Melanesian::-::J- 1Ddo-Paci&c"
I I ~I I I I I I _т...
New CUiDean
AustraliaD Аustralian
FIgUre lЗ. Тreeof6З Indo-European Ianguages. NumbennearbnncbesiDdicatetbe
reliability in percenl оСtbe speci6c ЬranсЬ, calculated Ь)'the me!hod of tbe bootstrap.
Figure 12, The сотраrisoп оС genetic and linguistie trees (Cavalli-Sfona d al.
тhe sca1eоп the bottom !ndicates уеап. (From an unpublished manшcript ьу piazza,
1988,рр.~). Minch, and Cavalli-Sforza, bued оп data (roт Dyen. Кruskal, and B1ack 1992)

74 75
 Roпa/d Со/етаn
Shevoroskin (2003:24) concludes:
"It seems, the Sa-Wk (Salish-Wakashan) languages ше closer to NC
(North Caucasian) than Уenisean and Sino-Tibetan languages ате. This
тау mean that the Sa-Wk languages represent а late wave of the
speakers of proto-NC which broke away from the majority of the
speakers and drifted to the North-East." (ту emphases)
Genetic data оп the popuIations mentioned might Ье аЫе to more positively
confirm the tentative conclusions.
Another case is that presented Ьу Кing (2003: 15) оп conflicting theories of the
origin of Yiddish. One theory indicates that Eastem and Central Ешореan Jewry
(Ashkenazic) is по! genetically Semitic а! аll, rather а Slavo- Turkic people in search of
Jewish identity. Genetics appears to Ьауе Ьееп used successfully here and perhaps further
light could ье shed оп other aspects ofthis problem Ьу DNA methods. (myemphasis)
Lastly, Bomhard (2003:268) in discussing his inclusion of Sшnerian loosely
under Nostratic concludes:
"It does по! арреат to ье а Nostratic daughter language in its оwn right
either. Rather, the evidence seems to indicate that Sшnerian is descended
from а language that was in some way related to Nostratic. However, there
ате also manу problems that must still ье solved regarding the ехас!
nature of that relationship."
Wells (2003:170) might offer some clues to the Sumerian question:
"ТЬе general1y close genetic similarity between Caucasian populations
and those from the Мiddle East suggests that there was а substantia1inf1ux
of people during the Neolithic, who тау Ьауе introduced languages
related to Sшnerian to the region."
Parallels from Australian (Aboriginal) languages
As stated Ьу the archlleologists Mulvaney & Kamminga (1999:74):
"Possibly the Australian language farnily is the world's oldest and offers а
useful model of Pleistocene language development in other continents."
Шуеп the great time depth involved, 1 believe that if it is possible to reconstruct
Proto-Australian, then useful supporting evidence for а similar process in Nostratic is
provided.
However, as an offshoot of anthropology, the coherent academic discipline of
Austra1ian language studies began only around three decades ago. Some background
facts and problems are discussed below.
'Unfortunately, of the estimated 250 languages spoken Ьу а! least 300,000
Aborigina1_people а! the time of the м! European settlement in 1788, less than ten
76
Nos/ra/ic, Qиo Vadis?
thousand people today are speakers of Aborigina1 languages as their first tongue. This
figure is problematic and varies from author to author; for example Mulvaney &
Kamminga (1999:69) estimate that:
"Only а few thousand people today are speakers of the 30 or so extant Aborigina1
languages as their first tongue."
For example, Elder Charles Moran (2004), of the Bundja1ung tribe of the North
Coast of NSW, told те of the sad state of his language today. As his first language ир till
the age of ten, Charles estimates that some б4 years later there are probably less than а
dozen speakers of Bundja1ungas their fиst language.
Amid considerable debate and controversy, there is an emerging consensus that
there was опсе а Proto-Austra1ian language from which the large Parna-Nyungan farnily
broke away and spread widely throughout the continent. ТЬе пате derives respectively
from the word for регson in а Саре Уork language and оnе in the southwest. Рarnа-
Nyungan is а typologica1 clustering of аЬои! 20 intemally homogeneous language groups
comprising around 190 different languages. Non-Parna-Nyungan is а group of languages
located in ArnЬет Land and the Кimberley region of tropical northem Austra1ia and
comprises 60 languages in аЬои! nine farnilies.
Ongoing reconstructions of Proto-Australian and Proto-Parna-Nyungan illustrate
that similarities in grammar and vocabulary сan persist over great time depths, well
exceeding that of Nostratic. ТЬе origina1 Australians started arriving а! least 50,000 10
60,000 thousand years ago and the рiсtше is complicated Ьу probable successive
migration waves, making the ехас! age of the proto-Ianguage that eventua1ly dominated
difficult to рin down.
Тhe systematic scientific study of Austra1ian prehistory is very recent, manу
fundamental questions remaining unanswered, and experts either disagree or avoid the
question of the actual age of Proto-Australian (РА). Ви! from what archaeological
evidence is knоwn, it сan ье reasonably iпfепed that РА is at least 7,000 years old Ьи!
less than 50,000 years. ТЬе 7,000 figure is the upper Ншi!for the estimated age of Proto-
Parna-Nyungan. Ву comparison, the estimated time depth of 12,000-15,000 years for
Nostratic is rather modest compared with the probable age of РА of somewhere between
7,000 and 50,000 years. These estimates of сошsе contradict predictions of the
glottochronologicaV lexicostatistical School that а mзxjтurn of 6,000 - 7,000 years for
maintenance of recognition between languages is possible. Ви! this too is а point of view
that has по! Ьееп scientifically proven.
А summary of the striking number of common attributes of Austra1ian
languages, in spite of the great time depth and separation distances of ир to 5,000 Кт, is
given below:
(This section is based оп the Introduction in Thieberger & McGregor (1994) and various
other standard texts.)
Phonology:
..
ТЬе majority of languages Ьауе:
ир 10 six stops and six сопеsропdiпg nasa1s
two rhotics and fош latera1s
77
 Roпa/d Colemaп
. neilher sibilanls [s], [z], [1] nor fricalives [! ]and [у]
. IwOsemi-vowels [у] and [w]
. оnlу Ihree vowels [i] , [а], [о] Ьоl а few have four or more.
Vocabulary:
There are аЬооI 50 соттоП rools. E.g. Ьо- =10 hit., ka- =10 carry, rnala/mara =
hand,jina =foot,пуа- =(о see. Na- as in nala, пауа or пауо =1.
Semantics:
А semantic homogeneity relating (о а hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
Wide semantic fields and the use of metaphor are distinguishing features of manу
languages. For example, the same word often refers (о an item and its source, the
rnateria1from which it comes as in firel firewood, milk/breast or activity/result such as
sink/ drown, hear/listen and hitlkill. Melaphors include the use of body parts (о extend
meanings (о geographica1 or abstract ideas such as back/ridge and chestlfronl ness.
Grammar:
. Complexgrammarwith manу inflected forms of the nounwhich сan include
some or а11of the cases: nominative, instrurnenta1,locative, a1lative, abIative, dative,
comitative and especially ergative. Similar ergative case endings are found spread
throughoutthe continent: -Iu for personal names and -ngku for соттоп nouns.
There is still some disagreement among Austra1ianiSts оп the validily of
reconstructing proto-languages using the family tree model in а clirnate where а
dominant diffusionist model опсе prevailed. However, there appears 10 Ье а quiet
revolution in progress over the last few years as surnmed up succinct\y Ьу Bowern
(2002:1):
"Diffusionist models such as 'punctuated equilibrium' of Dixon are based
оп the assumption that linguistic genetic relationships should ье аЫе (о ье
modelled оп а family tree, and conversely that if ОПесanпо! model the
relationship between given languages оп а family tree, the relationship
сanпо! ье а geneflt: опе. Indeed, punctuated equilibrium was invented in
part (о ассооп! for the lack of obvious binary- branching trees within the
Pama-Nyungan family."
Australianists are increasingly turning (о Ihe classical comparative method with
promising results. Reference is rnade (о; O'Grady (1998), Alpher (2002), Koch (2003),
МсСопуеll (2003), Miceli (2003) and Bowern & Koch (2004), (о пarne but а few. From
these works а consensus is emerging that Australian languages do not require specia1
theories (о explain their genesis and development, but are subject (о the sarne
comparative \aws applied (о language families world wide.
То surnrnarise, а case has been presented that if а language family as old as
Proto-Australian сan ье reasonably established with а time depth somewhere in the range
7,000 -50,000 years, what are the objections (о the posulated time depth of Nostratic?
78
Nostratic, Qиo Vadis?
А Тbink. Тank
Nostratic will lose momentum if it tries (о advance without becoming multi-
disciplinary. Ву ana1ogy, in ту speciality of Geotechnica1 Engineering, as in ancient
language reconstructions, one often works with scanty, fragmented pieces of data,
evidence and inferences. This necessitates drawing оп anу fields of expertise which
rnighl further the understanding of complex occurrences such as rnajor landslides. In
large pOlentia11ydangerous projecls this might involve the combined expertise of а multi-
disciplinary (еат comprising: structural geologists, surveyors, groundwater hydrologists,
seisrnic physicists, chernisls, meteorologists, mining engineers, hurnan resource
managers, lawyers and econornists in addition 10 geotechnica1 engineers.
А similar approach is necessary in order (о fill in manу of Ihe gaps and missing
links in the evidence for Nostratic.
Му proposa1 is (о сопуепе а multi-disciplinary think-tank of experts in
Nostratic, associated ancient languages and their descendents, archaeology, prehistory,
palaeo- genetics, anthropology, cultura1 geography and possibly pa1aeo-clirnatology.
However, this list is flexibIe and might include other disciplines deemed necessary.
Persona1 skills of the selected panel members would include good teamwork
ability, tolerance, good verbal communicalion and listening skills and constructive latera1
thinking. The members should ье preferably broad-brush thinkers, referred (о earlier as
Hlumpers". rather thaп Ifsplitters".
А high priority item оп the agenda would Ье (о reach an agreement оп the
characteristics of the language families in Nostratic and hence try (о resolve what this list
actually is. Additionally, as it is essential (о dea1 with the objections of random сhanсе of
the Category D group, the (еат would need to include а! least one represenlative chosen
for hislher expertise in both lexicostatistics and linguistics.
Finally, as agreed а! the Pecs Conference, а book of popular арреаl оп Nostratic
directed а! the general reader needs (о Ье produced. As an excellent model, 1 would
strongly suggest тhe Atlas 0/ Iлпкиаке. edited Ьу Comrie, Malthews and Polinsky
(2003).
Тhis superbly presenled Australian hardcover book, selling for around US $35, contains
224 glossy pages of coloured rnaps, photographs, charts, family trees, language exarnples
and descriptive text. \t is very readable for non-linguists but contains useful data for
linguists as well as it covers virtually а11the languages in the world, chapler Ьу chapter. \t
even devotes а page 10 Nostratic which is given а very positive review.
Conclusion
Nostralic, опе of the truly significant intellectual ideas of Ihe twentieth century
is now опе hundred years old. Despite prodigious scholarship and research оп two
cOnlinents,much of it during the lasl 40 years, the idea is уеl (о win rnajorily ассерtanсе
among the linguistic community а! large. This paper has attempled 10 pinpoinl the
problems, 10 ana1yse and appraise the lypeS of criticism and propose fulure stralegies (о
епаЫе Nostratic 10 gain wider ассерtanсе both within the linguistic communily and with
the public.
79
 Ronald Coleman
ReCerences
Alpher, Вапу, 2002. Towards а Нistory of Aboriginal Тепns for Living Things in
Northem Australia, in ARCLlNG /l, Тhe Second Confereпce оп the
Archaeology and Linguistics о! Australia, Canberra, Australia, 1-4 Ос! 2002.
Appleyard, David, 1999. Chapter 14: Afroasiatic and the Nostratic hypothesis, in
Nostratic: Examining а Linguistic Macrofamily, eds. Colin Renfrew & Daniel
Nettle, Carnbridge, McDonald lnstitute СотArchaeological Research.
Baxter, William Н., 1998. Response to Oswalt and Ringe, in Nostratic, Sifting the
Evidence, eds. Joseph С. SaImons and Brian О. Joseph, Arnsterdam Studies in
the ТЬеоту and Нistory of Linguistic Science, Уо! 142, pub. John Benjamins
Со, ArnsterdamlPhiladelphia.
Bomhard, Аllan R. & Kems, John с., 1994. Тhe Nostratic Macrofamily, А Study in
Distant Liпguistic Relations, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 74,
ed. Wemer Winter, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
Bomhard, Аllan R., 2003, Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology,
Morphology аnd Vocabulary, (оп CD) Signum Desktop Publ., Charleston,
USA.
Bowem, Claire, 2002, Kamic as а Genetic Атеа, Ртот the web, origin unknown.
Bowem, Claire and КосЬ, Harold, 2004, Australian LAnguages: Classification and the
Comparative Method, Harvard University/Aust Nat University, publ. John
Benjamins.
СатрЬеll, Lyle, 1998. Nostratic: А Personal Assessment, in Nostratic, Sifting the
Evideпce, eds. Joseph С. Salmons and Brian О. Joseph, Arnsterdam Studies in
the ТЬеоту and Нistory of Linguistic Science, Уоl 142, pub. John Benjarnins
Со, ArnsterdarnlPhiladelphia.
СатрЬеll, Lyle, 1999. Nostratic and linguistic palaeontology in methodological
perspective, in Nostratic: Examining а Linguistic Macrofaтily, eds. СоНп
Renfrew & Daniel Nettle, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca., 2001. Genes, People and LAnguages, London: ТЬе Penguin
Press. ...
Сошriе, Bemard, 1999. Chapter 11: Nostratic language and culture: some
methodological ref1ections, in Nostratic: Examiniпg а Linguistic Macrofamily,
eds. Colin Renfrew & Daniel Nettle, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Сошriе, Bemard, Stephen Matthews and Maria Polinsky, 2003, SBS Atlas о! [дnкиаке.
- the Origin аnd Development о! [дnкиаке. Throughout the World, ТЬе
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Quarto Publishing, New Australian ed.
Covington, Мicbae] А., 1997. An AIgorithm to аНgn Words for Нistorical Comparison,
Research Report, Artificial Intelligence Center, ТЬе University of Georgia,
USA.
Dolgopolsky, Лharоп В., 1964. А Probabilistic Hypothesis Concerning the 01dest
Relationships among the Language Families of Northem Eurasia, in Typology
Relationship aпd Time -А Collection о! Рарег. оп [дnкиаке Change and
80
Nostratic, Quo Vadis?
Relationship Ьу Soviet Linguists, eds. and trans. Shevoroshkin, Yitalij and
Markey, Т. L Ву Кaroтa Publishers, lnc., Ann АтЬот,USA.
Dolgopo1sky, Лhагоп, 1998. The Nostratic Macrofamily аnd Linguistic Palaeontology,
(Papers in the Prehistory of Languages), Cambridge, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Do1gopolsky, Лhагоп В., 2002. ТЬтее Entries from the 'Nostratic Dictionary', in
[дnкиаке. and their Speakers in Ancient Eurasia: Dedicated to Рго! Амгоn
Dolgopolsky оп his 7dh Birthday, eds. Yita1y Shevoroshkin and Paul Sidwell,
Уоl 5, Monograph Series, pub. in Canberra, Association for the History of
Language. .
Garnkrelidze, Т. У. and Ivanov, У. У., 1980. on the Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-
European Stops. Glottalized Stops in lndo-European, in Typology Relationship
and Time -А Col/ection о! Рарег. оп lAпguage Change and Relationship Ьу
Soviet Linguists, eds. and trans. Shevoroshkin, Yitalij and Markey, Т. L Ву
Кaroтa Publishers, Inc., Ann АтЬот,USA.
Gray, Russel and Fiona Jordan, 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence
of Austronesian expansion, Nature, 405, 1052-1055.
Greenberg, Joseph, 2000, lndo-European and its Closest Relatives: the Eurasiatic
Language Рaшi1у, Yol1.
Hyllested, Аdaш, 2003, ТЬе Ref1exes of Nostratic "Laryngeals" in Uralic - An
Altemative Yiew. Program & Abstracts, The Nostratic Centennia/ Coпjeгence.
P6cs, Hungary, Aug 21-23 2003.
Ivanov, У.У., 1972. Review of У. М. I1lich-Svitych's Dictionary of the Nostratic
Languages Уо! 1, , in Typology Re/ationship and Тiтe -А Collection о! Рарег.
оп LAnguage Change aпd Relationship Ьу Soviet Linguists, eds. and trans.
Shevoroshkin, Yitalij and Markey, Т. L Ву Кагота Publishers, lnc., Anп АтЬот,
USA.
1уanоу, У.У., 1977. Review of У. М. nlich-Svitych's Dictionary of the Nostratic
Languages Уо! 11,, in Typ%gy Re/ationship and Time -А Collection о! Рарег.
оп LAnguage Change and Relationship Ьу Soviet Linguists, eds. and trans.
Shevoroshkin, Yitalij and Markey, Т. L Ву Кагота Publishers, Inc., Anп АтЬот,
USA.
!уanоу, У. У., 1980. Proto-Languages as Objects of Scientific Description, in Typology
Re/ationship aпd Time -А Collectioп о! Рарег. оп LAnguage Change аnd
Re/ationship Ьу Soviet Linguists, eds. and trans. Shevoroshkin, Yitalij and
Markey, Т. L Ву Кaroта Publishers, !пс., Ann АтЬот,USA.
Кауе, Alan S., 1999. ТЬе current state of Nostratic linguistics, in Nostratic: Examining а
Linguistic Macrofamily, eds. СоНп Renfrew & Daniel Nettle, Cambridge,
McDonald lnstitute for Archaeological Research.
Кing, Robert, 2003, Conflicting Theories of the Origin of Yiddish: Possible Lessons for
Nostratic Methodology, Program & Abstracts. Тhe Nostratic Centennia/
Confereпce, Pecs, Hungary, Aug 21-23 2003.
КосЬ, Harold, 2003, Neogrammarian Princip1es and the Reconstruction of Australian
УетЬ lnf1ections, Speakers & Abstracts -Section 7: The XVlth lnteтationa/
81
 Ronald Coleтan Nostratic, Quo Vadis?

Conference оп Historical Linguistics (/CHL 2003), Copenhagen, 11-15 Aug Shevorosh!dn, Vitalij, 2003, SaJisb-Wakashan Languages anд their Closest Relatives.
2003. Program & Abstracts, Тhe Nostratic Centennial Conference, Pees, Hungary,
Kondrak, Grzegorz, 2000. А New Algorithm for the Аlignтеп! of РЬопеие Sequenees. Aug 21-23 2003.
In Proceedings о! the First Меепnс о! the North American Chapter о! (М Starostin, S. А., 1999. Chapter 7 - Sub grouping of Nostratie: eomments оп АЬмоп
Association for Computational Linguistics. Dolgopolsky's Тhe Nostratic Macrofamily aпd Linguistic Palaeontology, in
Manaster-Ramer, Alexis, Peter МiеЬalоуе, Кмеп BaeI1seh anд Кмеп Adams, 1998. Nostratic: Examining а Linguistic Macrofamily, eds. Colin Renfrew & Daniel
Exploring the Nostratic Hypothesis, in Nostratic Sifting the Evidence, eds. Nettle, Cambridge, MeDonald Institute for Arehaeologieal Researeh.
Joseph С. Salmons anд Brian D. Joseph, Amsterdam Studies in the Theory anд Thieberger, Niek anд Ме Gregor, William, 1994, Macquarie Aborigiпal Words, ТЬе
Нistory of Linguistie Seienee, Уо! 142, pub. John Benjamins Со, Maequarie Library Pty Ltd, Macquarie University, Sydney.
AmsterdamlPhiladelphia. Trask, R. L., 1999. Chapter 8 - Why should а language Ьауе anyrelatives? in Nostratic:.
Matthew, Р.Н. 1997, Тhe Concise Oxford Dictionary о! Linguistics, Oxford University Examining а Linguistic Macrofamily, eds. Colin Renfrew & Daniel Nettle,
Press, ик. Cambridge, MeDonald Institute for Arehaeological Researeh.
Ме Сопуеll, Patriek, 2003, Questioning 'Structural Diffusion': Understanding Vine, Brent, 1998. Indo-European anд Nostratic: Some Further Comments( а Response
Borrowing anд lnheritanee in Syntax. , Speakers & Abstracts --Section 7: The to "Exploring the Nostratic Hypothesis"), in Nostratic Sifting the Evidence, eds.
XV/th /nterпational Conference оп Historical Linguistics (/CHL 2003), Joseph С. Salmons anд Brian D. Joseph, Amsterdam Studies in the Theory anд
Copenhagen, 11-15 Aug 2003. Нistory of Linguistic Seienee, Уо! 142, puh. John Benjamins Со,
МеМаЬоп, Rob anд April МеМаЬоп, 2002. Lies, Damned Lies anд Cladisties: Linguistic AmsterdamlPhiladelphia.
Classifieation anд аепеис Correlations (Draft Version), Source Wells, Speneer, 2003, The Jourпey о! Маn: А Genetic Odyssey, Penguin вооь.
http://erel.anu.edu.au/arelin~2IRAMeMahon.htm
Mieeli, Luisa, 2003, оп the Relatedness of Australian Languages, Speakers & Abstracts
--Section 7: The XV/th /nterпational Coпjeгence оп Нistorical Linguistics
(/CHL 2003), Copenhagen, 11-15 Aug 2003.
Moran, Charles, 2004, (April) Personal verbal eommunication in Mummulgum, NSW,
Australia.
Mulvaney, Jobn апд Kamminga, Johan, 1999, Prehistory о! Australia, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney, Australia.
O'Grady, Geoff, 1998, Towards а Proto-Pama-Nyungan Stem List, Part 1: Sets J\ - J25,
Oceanic Linguistics, Уоl 37, по 2 Dec.
Renfrew, Соliп, 1999. Nostratie as а Linguistie Macrofamily, in Nostratic: Examining а
Linguistic Macrofamily, eds. Colin Renfrew & Daniel Nettle, Cambridge,
MeDonald I~titute for Arehaeologieal Researeh.
Ringe, Don, 1995. 'Nostratic anд the faetor of еЬanее, Diachronica 12(1),55-74.
Ringe, Don, 1998. РroЬаЬШstiс Evidenee for lпdо-UraJiе, in Nostratic, Sifting the
Evidence, eds. Joseph С. Salmons anд Brian D. Joseph, Amsterdam Studies in
the Theory anд History of Linguistic Seienee, Уо! 142, pub. John Benjamins
Со, AmsterdamlPhiladelphia.
Ringe, Don, Тanду Wamow anд Anп Taylor, 2002. lndo-European anд Computational
Cladistics. Transactions ofthe Philological Society 100; 59-129.
Serebrennikov, В. А., 1983. оп the So-Called "Nostratie" Languages, in Typology
Relationship and Time -А Collection о! Papers оп Lиnсиасе Change aпd
Relationship Ьу Soviet Linguists, eds. anд trans. Shevorosh!dn, VitaЩ and
Markey, Т. L Ву Кaroта Publishers, Ine., Ann Arbor, USA.
Shevorosh!dn, Vitalij and Markey, Т. L., 1986. Typology Relationship aпd Time -А
Соllеспоn о! Papers оп Lиnсиасе Change aпd Relationship Ьу Soviet
Li.1Jguists,Кaroтa Publishers, lпе., Ann Arbor, USA

82 83