Eskimo-Aleut historical linguistics

Previous studies have noted lexical and grammatical features shared between Unangam Tunuu and neighboring Eskimo (esp. Alutiiq) and Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit (AET) languages, suggesting prehistoric language contact, without, however, proposing a specific period or mechanism of contact.  In this paper, I provide evidence from likely Unangan place names to support archaeological findings suggesting the former presence of UT in contemporary Alutiiq areas; and further, that Unangax̂ presence along the eastern Pacific Coast provides a locus of contact to explain AET-like grammatical features in UT

This is the seventh addendum to my manifesto "Rapid Progress in the Genetic Classification of the World’s Languages ". It contains a list of almost 200 useful books I've collected about the world's Language families. It is obviously not exhaustive, and it includes books only (not papers or online resources).

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive presentation of regular sound correspondences between well-established reconstructed Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots, supported by numerous lexical examples. The sources referenced and cited for the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots are restricted to those considered the most reliable and authoritative in their respective fields: Sammallahti’s 1988 article “Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages” and the Comparative Eskimo Dictionary. The paper presents regular sound correspondences not only for the initial consonants of all Uralic and Eskimo roots cited here, but also for the first vowels and medial consonants of all of these same roots. Each of the 100 Uralic-Eskimo lexical comparisons presented in this paper is effectively cross-listed three times, by three separate classifications: first by initial onset correspondence (pp. 9-26), then by first vowel correspondence (pp. 27-45), and finally by medial consonant correspondence (pp. 46-66). The paper presents precisely defined rules governing the comparison of medial consonant clusters in the medial consonant correspondences section. The primary main rule is that in most cases, it is the first medial consonants in the respective root forms which correspond.

This article surveys several Eskimo loanwords in Tungusic. Since they are found exclusively in Northern Tungusic languages, in all probability these loanwords represent a relatively late contact between Northern Tungusic and Eskimo speakers that was likely to take place no earlier than two thousand years ago, when speakers of proto-Northern Tungusic migrated to the North from the Tungusic Urheimat located around the mid-stream of Amur river. This fact is important not only for the Tungusic linguistic history, but also for Eskimo one, because it demonstrates that Eskimo languages were much more widely spread in North-East Asia outside of their historically attested locality on the Asiatic shore of Bering straight.

This is a sketch of polysynthesis in Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY) based on the Cup'ik dialect of Chevak, Alaska. CAY has well-defined words whose content is often holophrastic and whose parts are often word-like. Holophrasis is achieved by a combination of rich inflectional suffixation and by a derivational morphology in which several hundred productive suffixes bearing different lexical and grammatical meanings and functions may be added, recursively, to a lexical base. Each suffix selects the category of its base, over which it normally has scope, and determines the category of the resultant base. This simple but prolific suffixation-based system, termed 'morphological orthodoxy', yields long, polysynthetic words. Three cases are then discussed where suffixal elements govern constructions that in one way or another stretch CAY's orthodox morphology, motivating them by showing parallel constructions governed by elements with similar grammatical and semantic content in languages with more heterodox morphology and syntax.

Aleut is the only language in its branch of the Eskimo-Aleut language family.  It is quite divergent from Eskimo languages and is traditionally considered to have developed in isolation, both from Eskimo and neighboring languages, until the Russians colonized the Aleutians in the 18th century (Bergsland 1986).  Many assumptions concerning, e.g. the time and place of the proposed split between the two branches of the language family, features present in the proto-language, and subsequent independent developments, have in the past been used to support interpretations of archaeological findings (e.g. Dumond 1965, 1979, 1984).  These assumptions, based primarily on rather few and far from finished comparative studies, have not yet been adequately reexamined in decades, despite the subsequent broadening of the field of historical linguistics. Meanwhile, recent advances in the archaeology and genetic investigations of the Aleut and a growing body of linguistic research all increasingly suggest extensive contact with neighboring groups (Crawford, M.H. et al. 2010, inter alia, Leer 1991, Fortescue 1998, 2002, Berge 2012, 2014). In this paper, I argue for the need for a comprehensive reexamination of the linguistic prehistory of Aleut.

This paper presents a reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension, from which both the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declension paradigms of case suffix forms can be derived. The paper surveys the state-of-the-art reconstructions of the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declensions. The significant number of striking similarities between the two paradigms are noted. The key differences and discrepancies between the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo noun declensions are identified, the discussion of which forms the basis for the following analysis. The paper discusses and analyzes the key question of whether Proto-Uralic-Eskimo was a nominative-accusative language like Proto-Uralic is thought to have been or an absolutive-ergative language like Proto-Eskimo. It is concluded to be probable that the Proto-Eskimo structure is more archaic and more likely to have also been the structure of Proto-Uralic-Eskimo. The paper then presents an account of a logical process by which the Proto-Uralic genitive case suffix form *-n, not proposed here to have been present in Proto-Uralic-Eskimo, could have arisen. In the course of this analysis a partial explanation of the origin of the Proto-Uralic genitive plural ending *-j is also provided. Finally the paper presents a comparative analysis of the Proto-Eskimo and Proto-Uralic tripartite local case systems, leading to a reconstruction of these forms in Proto-Uralic-Eskimo. The reconstructed Proto-Uralic-Eskimo noun declension paradigm is then presented in as complete a form as it is possible to reconstruct at the present stage of research. The conclusion is reached that in noun declension, unlike in phonology, lexicon, and the singular and plural possessive suffixes, Proto-Eskimo preserved the original Proto-Uralic-Eskimo structure and forms to a much greater degree than Proto-Uralic did.

This is an English translation of the first three sections of Menovshchikov's _Sirenik Eskimo Language_ (1964), the only significant full-length scholarly work providing a linguistic description of the now extinct Sirenik Eskimo language. This work is likely to remain the only substantial scholarly resource for linguistic information about the Sirenik Eskimo language. It is now over half a century old, until now it has only been available in Russian, and it is not easily accessible or readily available to most interested readers and researchers. Therefore, it is my hope that this English translation will make Menovshchikov’s preciously valuable work on the Sirenik Eskimo language available and accessible to scholars and researchers of Eskimo-Aleut languages and peoples, Paleo-Siberian languages and peoples, and related linguistic and anthropological areas of study.
The current draft contains a translation of the first three sections of Menovshchikov's work: his introduction and the sections on phonology and features of the lexicon.

Atkan Aleut has non-subject pronominals that are attracted to a position just before the verb but do not fuse with it. This behavior, termed UNCLITIC, is modeled using a version of the automodular analysis proposed by Sadock (1991). The unclitic pattern is proposed as the explanation for a set of apparent counterexamples in the puzzling word-order-and-‘definiteness’ paradigms first presented by Bergsland and Dirks (1981:31-33) and commented on by Fortescue (1987), Leer (1988), and Sadock (2009). (Atkan Aleut, clitics, word order, definiteness, Autolexical syntax, multimodular analysis)

This paper provides additional evidence in support of the lexical comparisons that make up the author’s Uralic *k- : Eskimo *q- correspondence set by citing relevant areal typological parallels for the semantic connections and shifts observed between the Uralic and Eskimo roots: similar semantic connections and shifts found within the Na-Dene languages, the nearest neighbors of Eskimo-Aleut languages. The paper explains that Na-Dene languages likely had the greatest areal influence on the development of Eskimo-Aleut languages on many levels, resulting in substantial morphosyntactic restructuring of Eskimo-Aleut, which in turn had a significant impact on the lexicon, the forms of many lexical items, and substitution and replacement of lexical items. The paper first enumerates the Uralic *k- : Eskimo *q- lexical comparisons that exhibit precisely exact or nearly exact semantic matches. The paper then analyzes additional lexical comparisons for which internal Uralic and Eskimo evidence supports the proposed semantic connections. Finally the paper enumerates those Uralic *k- : Eskimo *q- lexical comparisons for which parallel semantic connections and shifts within the Na-Dene languages provide support for the proposed Uralic-Eskimo semantic connections and shifts.

This paper presents a reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm for singular, plural, and dual possessors of a singular possessum. It is explained that the validity of such a reconstruction must be considered conditional upon the validity of the regular sound correspondences between Uralic and Eskimo, which the author considers to be the primary and fundamental criterion upon which to establish the genetic relationship of the two language families in the first place. The introduction reviews and discusses the scholarly debate in recent decades about whether regular sound correspondences or shared idiosyncratic morphological paradigms are the primary criterion to establish such a relationship. The paper then surveys Georg & Seefloth’s 2001 paper which first reconstructed a common “Uralo-Eskimo” possessive suffix paradigm (for singular and plural possessors only) from which they derived the corresponding Samoyed (Uralic) and Yupik (Eskimo) paradigms. The central section of the paper is devoted to the reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm for singular, plural, and dual possessors. The first main challenge is to demonstrate the validity of the derivation of the Proto-Eskimo paradigm for singular and plural possessors. Once that is established, building on the work of Georg & Seefloth, then the remaining challenge is to explain the origin of the highly divergent Proto-Uralic paradigm for dual number possessors. The paper presents a detailed argument for the hypothesis that the Proto-Eskimo 3rd person reflexive singular possessor endings for dual possessed objects *-ɣni may be related to the final element *-n of the Proto-Uralic dual possessor suffixes and other related Proto-Uralic dual number markers, as well as the parallel hypothesis that the general Proto-Eskimo 3rd person reflexive singular possessor suffix *-ni may be related to the Proto-Uralic 1.sg. possessor suffix for a genitive singular possessum *-ni and/or the Proto-Uralic genitive suffix *-n.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive presentation of regular sound correspondences between well-established reconstructed Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots, supported by numerous lexical examples. The sources referenced and cited for the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots are restricted to those considered the most reliable and authoritative in their respective fields: Sammallahti’s 1988 article “Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages” and the Comparative Eskimo Dictionary. The paper presents regular sound correspondences not only for the initial consonants of all Uralic and Eskimo roots cited here, but also for the first vowels and medial consonants of all of these same roots. Each of the 95 Uralic-Eskimo lexical comparisons presented in this paper is effectively cross-listed three times, by three separate classifications: first by initial onset correspondence (pp. 17-33), then by first vowel correspondence (pp. 34-51), and finally by medial consonant correspondence (pp. 52-71). The paper presents precisely defined rules governing the comparison of medial consonant clusters in the medial consonant correspondences section. The primary main rule is that in most cases, it is the first medial consonants in the respective root forms which correspond. Regarding the critical issue of semantic connections and semantic drift between Uralic and Eskimo forms, the paper explains how North American areal structural influence on Eskimo-Aleut morphology and syntax has strongly affected the lexicon and lexical replacement, resulting in significantly fewer precisely exact semantic matches between Uralic and Eskimo than would otherwise be expected between genetically related language families.

A re-examination of the genesis and development of the Eskimo-Aleut language family, starting with an in investigation into the distribution of Eskimo cognates to non-cognates in Aleut (Unangam Tunuu); Eventual goal:  Understanding migration and language contact in the Aleutians and Pacific Coast of Alaska.

Myths and narratives by elders from Chevak, Alaska, transcribed in Cup'ik with facing English translation. Cup'ik is the variety of Central Alaskan Yupik (or Yup'ik) that is spoken in Chevak. Click on Links for MP3 audio for the myths and narratives.

This paper presents the results of an exercise in lexical comparison between language families: In order to test the statistical significance of the quantity and quality of the author's lexical comparisons between reconstructed Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots, as presented in a previous paper, in this paper the author undertakes a thorough investigation of the quantity and quality of lexical comparisons that can be found between Pre-Basque and Proto-Eskimo roots, which clearly belong to unrelated language families. For the purpose of classifying the quality of semantic connections in lexical comparisons, the author proposes a provisional system of 5 Tiers, in which Tier 1 represents the highest level of quality of semantic connection and Tier 5 represents the lowest level. On this basis, the paper presents the results of a thorough comparison of Proto-Eskimo roots with initial *q-and Pre-Basque roots with initial *g-. It is shown that there are in fact very few such lexical comparisons of any significant phonological and semantic similarity that occur by random chance coincidence: Only 3 of 44 Pre-Basque roots with initial *g-can be found to exhibit a valid phonological resemblance with a Proto-Eskimo root with initial *q-and a Tier 1 or Tier 2 level of quality in their semantic connection. By contrast, the author has identified 14 of 76 Proto-Uralic roots with initial *k-that exhibit a comparable phonological correspondence with a Proto-Eskimo root with initial *q-and a Tier 1 or Tier 2 level of quality in their semantic connection. The paper concludes that this investigation points to a significantly strong possibility that the Uralic-Eskimo lexical comparisons are the result of a genetic language relationship rather than the result of mere random chance coincidence.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive presentation of regular sound correspondences between well-established reconstructed Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots, supported by numerous lexical examples. The sources referenced and cited for the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo roots are restricted to those considered the most reliable and authoritative in their respective fields: Sammallahti’s 1988 article “Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages” and the Comparative Eskimo Dictionary. The paper presents regular sound correspondences not only for the initial consonants of all Uralic and Eskimo roots cited here, but also for the first vowels and medial consonants of all of these same roots. Each of the 100 Uralic-Eskimo lexical comparisons presented in this paper is effectively cross-listed three times, by three separate classifications: first by initial onset correspondence (pp. 21-38), then by first vowel correspondence (pp. 39-57), and finally by medial consonant correspondence (pp. 58-77). The paper presents precisely defined rules governing the comparison of medial consonant clusters in the medial consonant correspondences section. The primary main rule is that in most cases, it is the first medial consonants in the respective root forms which correspond. Regarding the critical issue of semantic connections and semantic drift between Uralic and Eskimo forms, the paper explains how North American areal structural influence on Eskimo-Aleut morphosyntax has strongly affected the lexicon and lexical replacement, resulting in significantly fewer precisely exact semantic matches between Uralic and Eskimo than would otherwise be expected between genetically related language families.

Unangam Tunuu (UT, a.k.a. Aleut; ISO 639-3 ale) is member of the Eskimo-Aleut (ISO 639-5 esx) language family; its extreme divergence was long thought to be a result of its assumed isolation from other languages, the length of time since the branches of the family split, and the effects of prehistoric contact with an unknown substrate language  (Bergsland 1986, Krauss 1990, Fortescue et al. 2012).  Recent work in archaeology and genetics, however, does not support these assumptions:  there appears to have been long-term cultural contact with both neighboring Eskimo and non-Eskimo groups, with several periods of more intense contact, particularly around the historic boundary of the eastern Unangax̂ and Alutiiq peoples.  The most recent period, from about 1000 BP, involved the entire Pacific Coast area and may have involved some degree of population replacement (Smith et al., 2009). The nature of this contact is still unclear:  Maschner (2016) argues for a former affinity between the cultures of the Aleutian Islands and Kodiak, and the recent arrival of Alutiiq culture on Kodiak, which displaced an indigenous population closely related to the Unangan.  Steffian et al. (2016) argue for long-term continuity on Kodiak and thus several thousand years of indigenous Alutiiq culture, recent external influences from the north, and extensive trade and warfare with neighboring cultures, including the Unangan.
A number of linguistic studies have noted UT features shared with neighboring languages.  Bergsland (1986, 1994) and Berge (2017) have noted lexical borrowings between UT and neighboring Eskimo languages, predominantly from UT into Alutiiq (Alutiiq, ISO 693-3 ems).  Leer 1991, Fortescue 1998, 2002, etc., and Berge 2016 have noted grammatical features shared with Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit (AET; ISO 639-5 ath, eya, tli) languages, some of which are typologically unusual and most of which are non-trivial.
In most cases, however, no specific period or mechanism of contact have been proposed; these are, however, crucial to any discussion of Eskimo-Aleut, since UT shows substantial contact effects, even extending to signs of language mixing or shift (Berge 2017).  UT must have had contact with an AET language or languages and yet these are thought to have been relatively late arrivals on the northern Pacific Coast (ca. 1300 BP, cf. Kari 1989, Workman and Workman 2010), and, furthermore, there are several hundred miles and the Alutiiq language separating UT from the closest AET language.  This contact must have been substantial enough for the effects thereof to permeate all UT dialects by the time they are first recorded, in the 18th century.  There are suggestions of a late prehistoric westward wave of language features along the Aleutian Islands (Woodbury 1984, Bergsland 1994, Berge 2010) and some indication of an influx of new people (Black 2003, Smith 2009), probably from Kodiak Island (Black 2003, Maschner 2016), but there is no compelling evidence of wholesale population replacement, either on Kodiak Island or along the Aleutians.
In this paper, I discuss a) evidence for the former presence of UT in currently Alutiiq areas (especially Kodiak Island and the Kenai Peninsula), which provides a geographical justification for UT-AET language contact effects, b) linguistic evidence suggestive of a language shift from AET to UT and a later language replacement of UT with Alutiiq on Kodiak Island, and c) the problem of apparent language shift(s) without obvious population replacement (cf. Heggarty 2015).