DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 379 944 FL 022 813

AUTHOR Bomhard, Allan R.

TITLE Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis: History
of Research, Current Trends, and Future Prospects.
PUB DATE [Mar 95]
NOTE 82p.
PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Contrastive Linguistics; Diachronic Linguistics;
"Indo European Languages; *Language Classification;
Language Research; *Linguistic Theory; Research
Methodology
IDENTIFIERS *Nostratic Hypothesis

ABSTRACT
A discussion of Indo-European languages proposes that
this language family
f is not genetically isolated but is distantly
related to certain other language families of northern and central
Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, and the ancient Near East. The
history of research into this macrofamily of languages, termed
Nostratic, is reviewed, with notes on methodology, theory, and
evidence gathered to date. Salient characteristics of Indo-European
(laryngeals, root structure patterning, verb morphology, noun
morphology, vowel-gradation, consonant patterns) are outlined, then
examined in relation to other Nostratic languages. The probable
homeland and dispersal of the Nostratic languages are considered,
with comparisons made between languages within the family, with
reference to previous research in the field. It is concluded that it
is no longer reasonable to assume that Indo-European is a language
isolate. Further research is recommended both at the level of
Preto- Nostratic and within each daughter language. A substantial
bibliography is included (201 items), and maps and charts
illustrating phonological and morphological correspondences between
languages are appended. (MSE)

***********************************************************************
* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
* from the original document.
***********************************************************************
Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis:
History of Research, Current trends, and Future
Prospects

Allan R. Bomhard
Boston, Massachusetts. USA

U.S DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement "PERMISSION 10 REPRODUCE THIS
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATFIIA) HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
document has been reprOduted as
ececvec)
14:16is from the person or organizatIon
orcgcnating 0
\\srA 2-N-
0 Mmor Changes have been made to wnprove
eproduchon Duality 719)(-A
Rocnts of new or opinions stated cis this docu
ment do not necessarcly represent officcat 10 THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
OERI PoSctcon or policy NFORMATION t_,ENTLH ILR:O1
 INDO-EUROPEAN AND THE NOSTRATIC
HYPOTHESIS: HISTORY OF RESEARCH,
CURRENT TRENDS, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
ALLAN R. BOMHARD
Boston, Massachusetts, USA

1. introduction

Distant (or long-range) linguistic comparison seeks to investigate the possibility

that certain languages or language families, not previously thought to be genetically
related, at least not "clolely" related, might indeed be part of still larger groupings, which
may be called "macrofamilies".
This paper will focus on Indo-European. The purpose is to show that Indo-
European is not genetically isolated but, rather, that it is distantly related to certain other
language families of northern and central Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, and the
ancient Near East. Where appropriate, issues concerning the other language families with
which Indo-European is most likely related will also he discussed.

2. History of Research

From the very earliest days of Indo-European comparative linguistics, there have
been speculations about the possible genetic relationship of Indo-European to other
language families. Though, in the course of study, many striking similarities were noted
between Indo-European and certain other language phyla, notably Uralic and Afroasiatic,
truly convincing evidence of distant linguistic relationship was simply not brought forth.
Indeed, much of the early work was not of high quality and did more to discredit the
attempt to discover possible relatives of Indo-European than to help. Gradually, the
intellectual climate, especially in the United States, became hostile to long-range
comparison, and Indo-European remained an orphan with no known relatives.
In the first half of the last century, no less a figure than one of the founders of
Indo-European comparative grammar, Franz Bopp, investigated possible relationship of
Indo-European with Kartvelian (in 1846 and 1847) on the one hand and with Malayo-
Polynesian (in 1840) on the other. In the mid-1860's. Rudolf von Raumer (in 1863) and
Grazi3clio Ascoli (in 1864) claimed that Indo-European and Semitic were related. At
about the same time (in 1869), Vilhelm Thomsen proposed relationship between Indo-
European and Finno-Ugrian. This proposal was later (in 1879) explored in depth by the
Estonian Nicolai Anderson and (in 1900) by the British phonetician Henry Sweet.
Unfortunately, Anderson's work contained too many errors to be of lasting value.
However, insightful and solid contributions were made concerning the possible
relationship of Indo-European and .Uralic during the current century by the Swedish
Uralicist Bjorn Collinder. Towards the end of the last century (1873), the Semiticist
Friedrich Delitzsch investigated lexical parallels between Indo-European and Semitic.
Then, at the beginning of this century, the Danish linguist Hermann Moller, in the course
of several publications, attempted to show that Indo-European and Semitic might be
related. Moller's work was later continued by the French linguist Albert Cuny, whose
last publications date from the mid-1940's. Moller's and Cuny's efforts were generally
not highly regarded by the scholarly community. One exception was Moller's student
Holger Pedersen, who not only coiled the tern "Nostratic" but who also expanded the
definition to include Indo-European, Semitic, Samoyed and Firno-Ugrian, Turkish,
Mongolian, Manchu, Yukaghir, and Eskimo (cf. Pedersen 1931:337-338). In 1Q69, Linus
Brunner published a detailed comparison of the Indo-European and Semitic vocabularies,
and this was followed in 1980 by a wider comparison of languages undertaken by Kalevi
E. Koskinen. We should note also that, though the investigation of problems relating to
distant linguistic comparison was generally ignored by the vast majority of mainstream
linguists, the field was never completely dormant a small but persistent group of
scholars (Pentti Aalto, Knut Bergs land, Vac lav Blazhek, Rene Bonnerjea, Karl Bouda,
Bojan Cop, Heinz Fahnrich, Carleton T. Hodge, G. A. Klimov, D. H. Koppelmann, Saul
Levin, Karl Menges, Roy Andrew Miller, Mikolas Palmaitis, Stephen A. Tyler, Ants-
Michael Uesson, C. C. Uhlenbeck, to name but a few of the many scholars working on
long-range comparison) has continued to work, throughout the better part of this century,
on binary (or, in rare cases, wider) comparisons of various languages that are currently
considered to belong to the Nostntic macrofamily. For comprehensive bibliographies
listing publications dealing with distant linguistic comparison, cf. Hegedus 1992,
Landsberg 1986, and Bomhard-Kerns 1994:715-864.
Recently, beginning in the mid-1960's, the intellectual climate has slowly begun
to turn around, and a growing number of linguists, especially in the former Soviet Union,
have begun to turn attention toward investigating distant linguistic relationship. The
revived interest was sparked by the work of Vladislav M. Illich-Svitych and Aaron B.
Dolgopolsky, who first started working independently and, at a later date, through the
efforts of their mutual friend Vladimir Dybo, cooperatively. Their work, though not
without its own shortcomings, was the first successful demonstration that certain
language phyla of northern and central Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, and the ancient
Near East might be genetically related. Following a proposal made in 1903 by Holger
Pedersen, they employed the name "Nostratic" to designate this grouping of languages.
In particular, Illich-Svitych, in the course of several publications, culminating in his
posthumous comparative Nostratic dictionary, which is still in the process of publication,
included Indo-European, Kartvelian, Afroasiatic, Uralic, Dravidian, and Altaic in his
version of the Nostratic macrofamily. From his very earliest writings, Dolgopolsky also
included Chukchi -Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut.
Before his tragic death in an automobile accident on 21 August 1966, Illich-
Svitych had planned to prepare a comparative Nostratic dictionary listing over 600
Nostratic roots and tracing their development in detail in each of the daughter languages
in which they were attested. He had published a preliminary report on his work in 1965
entitled (in English translation) "Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic
Languages (Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Dravidian, Kartvelian, Hamito-Semitic)".
Working diligently, literally devoting all of his energy to the project, he had managed to

2
prepare the entries for approximately 350 roots. After his death, Illich-Svitych's work
was prepared for publication by the dedicated efforts of Rimma Bulatova, Vladimir Dybo,
and Aaron Dolgopolsky, with the result that the first volume of the dictionary appeared in
1971, containing 245 entries. A second, smaller volume appeared in 1976, listing entries
246 through 353 and ending with an index this completed all of the material prepared
by Illich-Svitych himself (by the time this volume appeared, Dolgopolsky was in the
process of emigrating to Israel). Finally, the first fascicle of volume three appeared in
1981, containing entries 354 through 378, none of which were prepared by Illich-Svitych
it represents the collective efforts of a team of scholars.
In the meantime, Dolgopolsky has continued to make important contributions to
Nostratic studies, especially in a 1984 paper on Nostratic pronouns, and currently has
material to support the reconstruction of just over 2,000 Nostratic roots. Unfortunately,
only a small amount of this material has been published to date. Other Russian scholars
have also done quality research into problems affecting Nostratic mention should be
made of the work of Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, N. D. Andrejev, M. S. Andronov,
Vladimir Dybo, Eugene Helimskij, Vjacheslav V. Ivanov, G. Kornilov, Oleg Mudrak,
Vitaly V. Shevoroshkin, Sergej A. Starostin, V. A. Terent'jev, Vladimir N. Toporov, and
V. L. Tsymburskij, among others. Though not Russian (but clearly someone who belongs
to the "Moscow School"), special recognition must be given to the Czech scholar Vaclav
Blazhek, who has published many important papers, most of which deal with the
common Nostratic lexicon.
Beginning with an article that appeared in Orbis in 1975, Allan R. Bomhard
published several studies, culminating in a 1984 book entitled Toward Proto-Nostratic:
A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic, in
which he tried to show that Indo-European and Semitic (later expanded to include all of
Afroasiatic) might be distantly related. Reviews of this book as well as discussions with
colleagues prompted Bomhard to expand the scope of his research to include other
language families. This resulted in the pilblication in April 1994 by Bomhard of a joint
monograph with John C. Kerns entitled The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant
Linguistic Relationship. It was Kerns who prepared the chapter dealing with Nostratic
morphology. This book supplies a great deal of lexical evidence from the Nostratic
daughter languages to support the reconstruction of 601 Proto-Nostratic roots. In a
forthcoming article (to appear in 1995 in Orbis), Bomhard supplies material to support an
additional 29 Proto-Nostratic roots. Bomhard continues to gather lexical data and plans
future articles listing still more common Nostratic roots. It should be noted that
Bomhard's views on Nostratic differ somewhat from those of IllichSvitych (and others
who follow his system) the differences are discussed in §4 below.
Joseph Greenberg is currently preparing a two-volume work to be entitled Indo-
European and its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. The first volume
will deal with morphology, and the second will deal with phonology and the lexicon.
Greenberg includes Indo-European, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic (Mongolian, Chuvash-
Turkic, and Manchu-Tungus), Japanese-Korean (Korean, Ainu, and Japanese-Ryukyuan),
and Chukchi-Eskimo (Gilyak, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut) in his Eurasiatic
language family. Unlike Illich-Svitych and Bomhard, he does not include Kartvelian,
Afroasiatic, nor Elamo-Dravidian not because he believes *hat they are unrelated, but

3
because he believes that these three language phyla are more distantly related to Indo-
European than are the others, which, along with Indo-European, form a natural taxonomic
subgrouping. My own opinion is close to that of Greenberg. As I see the situation,
Nostratic includes Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Elamo-Dravidian as well as Eurasiatic, in
other words, I view Nostratic as a higher-level taxonomic entity. Afroasiatic stands apart
as an extremely ancient, independent branch it was the first branch of Nostratic to
separate from the rest of the Nostratic speech community. Younger are Kartvelian and
Elamo-Dravidian. It is clear from an analysis of their vocabulary, pronominal stems, and
morphological systems that Indo-European, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Gilyak, Chukchi-
Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut are more closely related as a group than any one of them
is to Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Elamo-Dravidian, and this is the reason that I follow
Greenberg in setting up a distinct Eurasiatic subgroup within Nostratic. Finally,
Sumerian, if it really does belong here, is a separate branch, perhaps closest to Elamo-
Dravidian. It must be noted here that I am still uncertain about the exact positioning of
Kartvelian and Elamo-Dravidian. Clearly, the Kartvelian pronoun stems are more closely
related to those found in Eurasiatic. On the other hand, it resembles Afroasiatic in its use
of prefixes, for example. As for Elamo-Dravidian, its pronoun stems have about the same
number of parallels with Afroasiatic as they do with Eurasiatic or Kartvelian. However,
in both nominal declension and verbal conjugation, Elamo-Dravidian is closer to
Eurasiatic than to Afroasiatic. My present thinking is that Kartvelian is probably closer to
Eurasiatic than what I indicated in my book and that the differences are due to
innovations within Kartvelian. An attempt at subgrouping is shown in Chart 1.
Interest in issues dealing with Nostratic has resulted in several recent conferences,
the first of which was held in Moscow in 1972 to coincide with the publication of the first
volume of lllich- Svitch's comparative Nostratic dictionary. This was followed by a series
of gatherings in Russia. Another major conference was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan, at
the end of 1988. Organized by Vitaly Shevoroshkin and Benjamin Stolz, this symposium
brought together scholars from East and West. A series of volumes under the editorship
of Shevoroshkin has been appearing as a result of this conference (published by
Brockmeyer in Bochum, Germany). Shevoroshkin has also organized several smaller-
scale, follow-up conferences. At the end of 1993, a workshop with the theme "The
Second Workshop on Comparative Linguistics. The Status of Nostratic: Evidence and
Evaluation" was organized at East Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan. Papers
from this workshop are now being prepared for publication (under the editorial auspices
of Brian Joseph and Joe Salmons).

3. Methodology

Even though I have repeated the following points verbatim many times in
previous papers, I still read irresponsible statements being made in the literature to the
effect that Nostraticists do not use "traditional methods" or that they use a "weakened
form" of the Comparative Method. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Therefore, I
will once again state the methodological principles used in distant linguistic comparison

4 ra
(this is a slightly revised and expanded version of the discussion of methodology found in
my recent book [Bomhard-Kerns 1994:7-11]).
The founders of Indo-European comparative ling tistics placed great importance
on the comparison of grammatical forms, and this bias continues to the present day in
Indo-European studies and has even been carried over into the study of other language
families. However, this overemphasis on the comparison of grammatical forms is far too
restrictive and was the reason that the Celtic languages, which have developed many
unique features, were not immediately recognized as Indo-European. As noted over sixty
years ago by Pedersen (1931:245):

That agreement in the inflectional system is an especially clear and striking proof
of kinship, no one denies. But it is only an anachronism in theory, which has no
significance in actual practice, when such an agreement is still designated as the only
valid proof. No one doubted, after the first communication about Tocharian..., that the
language was Indo-European, though at that time virtually no similarities in inflection had
been pointed out. Such similarities have since been shown, but even where they are
almost obliterated, proof of kinship could be adduced from the vocabulary and from
sound-laws. Hardly any one will assert that it would be impossible to recognize the
relationship between, say, English and Italian, even without the help of other related
languages or older forms of these two languages themselves, although agreements
between the inflectional systems are practically nonexistent.
From the modern point of view it must be said that proof of relationship between
languages is adduced by a systematic comparison of languages in their entirety,
vocabulary as well as grammar. The reason why earlier scholars felt they should
disregard the vocabulary was that they knew of no method of systematic comparison in
the field.

The approach to language comparison that I have follo wed in attempting to

establish genetic relationship among the various Nostratic languages is derived, in part,
from that advocated by Joseph H. Greenberg in the chapter entitled "Genetic Relationship
among Languages" in his 1957 book Essays in Linguistics and, in part, from traditional
methods of comparison and internal reconstruction. In my opinion, the combination of
Greenberg's methodology and more traditional methods of comparison can inform and
further one another. The principles established by Greenberg are as follows:
Greenberg notes that the only way to establish hypotheses about genetic
relationship is by comparing languages. However, the problem is in knowing which
languages to compare and in knowing what to compare since not all aspects of language
are equally relevant to comparison. To be meaningful, comparison must strive to
eliminate chance resemblances and to separate borrowings from native elements. This is
often easier said than done; however, Greenberg lays out two main techniques for
detecting borrowed lexical items. First, he notes that borrowing is commonly confined to
certain semantic spheres (for example, cultural items) and certain grammatical categories
(nouns far moi e often than verbs). Second, borrowed words can be distinguished from
native vocabulary by expanding the range of comparison to include additional languages.
The simplest way to establish genetic relationship is by identifying a large number
of similar morphs (or allomorphs) especially irregularities in similar environments
in the languages being considered. Another significant indicator of probable genetic
relationship is the presence of similar rules of combinability. Unfortunately, historical

5
processes over the passage of time bring about the gradual transformation and eventual
elimination of such similarities. The longer the period of separation, the lesser the
chances will be that similarities of morphological forms and rules of combinability will
be found.
Fortunately, there remain other factors that can be helpful in determining possible
genetic relationship. One significant factor is the semantic resemblance of lexical forms.
Here, it is important to be able to establish recurrent sound-meaning correspondences for
a reasonably large sample of lexical material. Lexical forms with identical or similar
meanings have the greatest value. Next in value come forms that, though divergent in
meaning, can convincingly be derived, through widely-attested semantic shifts, from
earlier forms of identical or similar meaning. The chances that lexical resemblances
indicate genetic relationship increase dramatically when additional languages are brought
into the comparison and when these new languages also exhibit a very large number of
recurrent sound-meaning correspondences. Greenberg has termed this method "mass
comparison" (more recently, he has used the term "multilateral comparison"). He
considers the comparison of basic vocabulary from a large number of languages from a
specific, wide geographic area to be the quickest and most certain method to determine
possible genetic relationship. To Greenberg, lexical data are of paramount importance in
attempting to establish genetic relationship among languages, especially in the initial
stages of comparison.
The basic principles underlying the Comparative Method may be summarized as
follows: The first step involves the arduous task of data gathering, placing special
attention on gathering the oldest data available. Once a large amount of lexical material
has been gathered, it must be carefully analyzed to try to separate what is ancient from
what is an innovation and from what is a borrowing. After the native lexical elements
have been reasonably identified in each phylum, the material can be compared across
phyla to determine sound correspondences. Not only must the regular sound
correspondences (that is, those that occur consistently and systematically) be defined,
exceptions must also be explained. Here, widely-attested sound changes (palatalization,
metathesis, syncope, assimilation, dissimilation, etc.) provide the key to understanding
the origin of most exceptions. In other cases, the analysis of the influence that
morphology has exerted provides an understanding of how particular exceptions came
into being. Some exceptions, though clearly related, simply defy explanation. All of
these must be noted. The final step involves the reconstruction of ancestral forms and the
formulation of the sound laws leading to the forms in the descendant languages,
identifying the laws that have produced the regular sound correspondences as well as the
exceptions. The same principles apply to the reconstruction of grammatical forms and
rules of combinability and to the identification of the historical transformations leading to
the systems found in the daughter languages. Invariably, it takes the dedicated efforts of
several generations of scholars to work out all of the details. Here, we may cite the case
of Indo-European as even the most casual reading of Lehmann's new book (1993) on
the Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics shows, after nearly two full centuries
of investigation of what must surely be the most thoroughly-studied language family on
the face of the earth, there still remain many uncertainties about the reconstruction of the
Indo-European parent language. The following works are excellent introductions to

6
Comparative-Historical Linguistics: Arlotto 1972; Bynon 1977; Lehmann 1992 more
advanced are: Anttila 1989 and Hock 1991.
At this point, we may note that the description of the Comparative Method and
Internal Reconstruction given by Schwink (1994:9) is virtually identical to the procedure
outlined in the preceding paragraph:

Let us now proceed to the nuts and bolts of reconstruction. Winter (1970:149)
describes the comparative method in the following terms. First one carries out
"inspection". This is looking at a number of languages for "a sufficient number of
apparently recurrent correspondences". One should look at the oldest stages of
languages, judge which languages have the most archaic features or residues (Lehmann
1990). Inspection is followed by "sorting" which involves a complete listing of the
correspondences discovered although without interpretation (Winter 1970:149).
Thereafter comes the reduction of the material to major correspondence classes. If there
are irregularities in distribution, one looks for specific factors which may condition the
difference. This is now an interpretive procedure. The label chosen for an entity of a
major correspondence class should have "a maximum of similarity with the items labeled"
(p. 152). In this selection, the question of archaicity of daughter languages will be taken
into account. After assumption that the label represents some earlier stage of the
languages being looked at, an attempt may be made to look at the labels of parts of
systems.
The comparative method does not produce temporal distinctions... It produces a
proto-language which is a potpourri of features. It will be the job of internal analysis to
sort out this proto-language.

As noted in the first paragraph, it was necessary to discuss these issues in order to
address concerns that have been raised about the applicability of traditional methods of
comparison to long-range comparison. It must be made perfectly clear that the same
principles are just as applicable to long-range comparison as they are to any other type of
linguistic comparison. The fact is, these are the only tools we have. Moreover, they work
their efficacy has been proven over and over again.
Furthermore, claims that these methodologies break down when one tries to apply
them beyond a certain time limit, say 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, can be shown, without a
shadow of doubt, to be false. One can cite, for example, the case of the aboriginal
languages of Australia. Archaeological evidence indicates that Australia has been
inhabited by human beings for approximately 40,000 years. Though there remain many
unsettled questions, such as exactly when Proto-Australian was spoken (probably at least
30,000 years ago), or about how the different languages should be subgrouped, and so on,
there can be no question that all extant languages belong to the same family (cf. Ruhlen
1987:188), and comparative work on these languages is continuing apace (cf. Dixon
1980). Another example that can be cited is the case of the Afroasiatic language family.
to the extremely deep divisions among the six branches of Afroasiatic (Semitic,
Egyptian, Berber, Omotic, Cushitic, and Chadic), which are far greater than those found,
by way of comparison, among the earliest attested branches of Indo-European, the
Afroasiatic parent language must be placed as far back as 10,000 BCE (cf. Diakonoff
1988:33, fn. 15), or perhaps even earlier, according to some scholars (Hodge [1993:99],
for example, dates Proto-Afroasiatic [his Lisramic] at 13,000 BCE). This extremely
ancient date notwithstanding, the major sound correspondences have been determined

7
with great accuracy (see especially Diakonoff 1992), excellent progress is being made in
reconstructing the common lexicon (a new Afroasiatic etymological dictionary has just
been published by Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova [1995]), and scholars are
beginning to piece together the original morphological patterning, though progress here
lags behind other areas.
One last point needs to be made: Reconstructed languages should be thought of
as real languages in eN,cry sense of the term. Of course, our reconstructions are, in a
sense, purely formulaic, and one can only hope to approximate, not fully recover, all of
the features of the actual proto-language. Nevertheless, our reconstructions Can be
surprisingly accurate, as can be seen, for instance, when reconstructed Proto-Romance is
contrasted with so-called "Vulgar Latin". When we undertake the task of trying to
recover the salient features of this or that proto-language, we must be very careful not to
reconstruct anything that is not characteristic of language in general: our goal should be
to strive for reality in our reconstructions (cf. Labov 1994:17). The prudent use ,-)f the
insights gained from linguistic typology can be extremely valuable in helping to am ve at
realistic reconstructions. Now, a few more conservative linguists have questioned the
propriety of using typological data in Historical-Comparative Linguistics, their main
argument running somewhat along the lines: "since we cannot possibly know all of the
languages that currently exist or that have ever existed, we cannot say that such and such
a type was impossible, unnatural, or has never existed" that is to say, our,"database" of
linguistic systems will always be incomplete. Of course, there is no arguing with this line
of reasoning. However, these linguists miss an important point: form all of the data that
have been collected to date from an extremely large sample of the world's languages
there emerge consistent, regular patterns that are repeated over and over again. There
are, to be sure, rare types typological isolates, so to speak , but these are less
important (though no less interesting) from a statistical point of view. It is the regular
patterning that has emerged from the analysis of the data from a great number of
languages that is most important to Historical-Comparative Linguistics. These data are
important in two respects: (A) they provide a control against which our reconstructions
can be evaluated and (B), when part of a system has been reconstructed, they provide a
means to deduce what the rest of the system might have been like, that is to say, they can
be used as a discovery procedure by making use of "implicational universals".
Concerning the consistent, regular patterning that has been observed, it should be noted
that the basis for some of this patterning is human physiology, and, in such cases, we can
speak of true universals. Given this regular patterning, it is disturbing when our
reconstructions contradict it, as in the case of one form of the traditional reconstruction of
Proto-Indo-European, for instance. To say merely that "Indo-European was a unique
type" or some such statement only means that the person making such a statement
chooses not to confront the issues involved. We should not hesitate to use every means at
our disposal to help us arrive at realistic reconstructions. To be sure, we should be fully
cognizant of the work of our predecessors and adhere closely to the time-honored
methodologies the Comparative Method and Internal Reconstruction that have
served Comparative-Historical Linguistics well since the days of Bopp, Rask, and
Grimm. However, we must not stop here we must also make full use of recent
advances in phonological theory that have broadened our understanding of sound change,
of new insights gained from typological studies, and our proposals must be consistent
with the data. For an superb overview of the relevancy of typological studies to
diachronic linguistics, cf. Schwink 1994.
In attempting to determine whether or not particular lexical items from the various
language families might be related, I have made extensive use of Carl Darling Buck's A
Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages as a control
for the semantic development of the proposed lexical parallels. It may be noted that, in
examining the lexicons of Kartvelian, Afroasiatic, Uralic-Yukaghir, Elamo-Dravidian,
Altaic, and Sumerian, I have observed that semantic shifts similar to those described by
Buck for the Indo-European languages are found over and over again in these other
language families as well.

4. Critique of Moscovite Views on Nostratic

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that I have the highest admiration for what
Moscovite scholarship (especially the work of V. M. Illich-Svitych and A. B.
Dolgopolsky some of the work done by other Russian scholars is not on the same
level) on Nostratic has achieved. Their research has opened up new and exciting
possibilities and given Nostratic studies new respectability. However, this does not mean
that I agree with everything they say. I regard their work as a pioneering effort and, as
such, subject to modification in light of advances in linguistic theory, in light of new data
from the Nostratic daughter languages, and in light of findings from typological studies
that give us a better understanding of the kind of patterning that is found in natural
languages as well as a better understanding of what is characteristic of language in
general, including language change.
Let us begin by looking at phonology: In 1972 and 1973, the Georgian scholar
Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and the Russian scholar Vjacheslav V. Ivanov jointly proposed a
radical reinterpretation of the Proto-Indo-European stop system. According to their
reinterpretation, the Proto-Indo-European stop system was characterized by the three-way
contrast glottalized voiceless (aspirated) voiced (aspirated). In this revised
interpretation, aspiration is viewed as a redundant feature, and the phonemes in question
could also be realized as allophonic variants without aspiration. A similar proposal was
made by Paul J. Hopper at the same time (Hopper [1973; Rnd in a number of subsequent
publications these are listed in the references).
This new interpretation opens new possibilities for comparing Proto-Indo-
European with the other Nostratic daughter languages, especially Proto-Kartvelian and
Proto-Afroasiatic, each of which had a similar three-way contrast. The most natural
assumption would be that the glottalized stops posited by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov for
Proto-Indo-European would correspond to glottalized stops in Proto-Kartvelian and
Proto-Afroasiatic, while the voiceless stops would correspond to voiceless stops and
voiced stops to voiced stops. This, however, is quite different from the correspondences
proposed by Illich-Svitych. He sees the glottalized stops of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-
Afroasiatic as corresponding to the traditional plain voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-
European, while the voiceless stops in the former two branches are seen as corresponding

ii.
to the traditional plain voiced stops of Proto-Indo-European, and, finally, the voiced stops
to the traditional voiced aspirates of Proto-Indo-European. Illich-Svitych then
reconstructs the Proto-Nostratic phonological system on the model of Kartvelian and
Afroasiatic. with the three-way contrast glottalized voi:eless voiced in the series of
stops and affricates.
The mistake that Illich-Svitych made was in trying to equate the glottalized stops
of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic with the traditional plain voiceless stops of
Proto-Indo-European. His reconstruction would make the glottalized stops the least
marked members of the Proto-Nostratic stop system. Illich-Svitych's reconstruction is
thus in contradiction to typological evidence, according to which glottalized stops are
uniformly the most highly marked members of a hierarchy. The reason that Illich-
Svitych's reconstruction would make the glottalized stops the least marked members is as
follows: Illich-Svitych posits glottalics for Proto-Nostratic on the basis of one or two
seemingly solid examples in which glottalics in Proto-Afroasiatic and/or Proto-Kartvelian
appear to correspond to traditional plain voiceless stops in Proto-Indo-European. On the
basis of these examples, he assumes that, whenever there is a voiceless stop in the Proto-
Indo-r_uropean examples he cites, a glottalic is to be reconstructed for Proto-Nostratic,
even when there are no glottalics in the corresponding Kartvelian and Afroasiatic forms!
This means that the Proto-Nostratic glottalics have the same frequency distribution as the
Proto-Indo-European plain voiceless stops. Clearly, this cannot be correct. The main
consequence of Illich-Svitych's mistaken equation of the glottalized stops of Proto-
Kartvelian and Proto-Afroasiatic with the traditional plain voiceless stops of Proto-Indo-
European is that he is led to posit forms for Proto-Nostratic on the basis of theoretical
considerations but for which there is absolutely no evidence in any of the Nostratic
daughter languages. (For a discussion of markedness theory and its implications for
historical-comparative linguistics, cf. Gamkrelidze 1978 and 1981.)
What about those examples adduced by Illich-Svitych which appear to support his
proposed correspondences? Some of these examples admit alternative explanations,
while others are questionable from a semantic point of view and should be abandoned.
Once these examples are removed, there is an extremely small number (no more than a
handful) left over that appear to support his position. However, compared to the massive
counter-evidence in which glottalized stops in Kartvelian and Afroasiatic correspond to
similar sounds (the traditional plain voiced stops) in Proto-Indo-European, even these
residual examples become suspect (they may be borrowings or simply false cognates).
Another major shortcoming is in Illich-Svitych's reconstruction of the Proto-
Nostratic vowel system, which, according to him, is essentia!ly that of modern Finnish. It
simply stretches credibility beyond reasonable bounds to assume that the Proto-Nostratic
vowel system could have been preserved unchanged in Finnish, especially considering the
many millennia that must have passed between the dissolution of the Nostratic parent
language and the emergence of Finnish. No doubt, this erroneous reconstruction came
about as a result of Illich-Svitych's failure to deal with the question of subgrouping. The
Uralic-Yukaghir phylum, of which Finnish is a member, belongs to the Eurasiatic branch
of Nostratic. Now, Eurasiatic is several millennia younger than Atroasiatic, which
appears to be the oldest branch of the Nostratic macrofamily. Therefore, Afroasiatic must
play a key role in the reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic vowel system, and the Uralic-

10
Yukaghir vowel system must be considered a later development that cannot possibly
represent the original state of affairs.

5. Evidence for Nostratic

The following evidence provides the basis for setting up a Nostratic macrofamily:

1. First and foremost, he descendant languages can be shown to share a large common
vocabulary. In an article published in 1965 Illich-Svitych listed (07 possible
common Nostratic roots, but only 378 have been published to date in his posthumous
comparative Nostratic dictionary. It should be noted that there are differences
between the etymologies proposed in 1965 and the items included in the later
dictionary: first, some of the items listed in 1965 do not appear in the dictionary;
next, minor changes have been made to several of die earlier etymologies.
Dolgopolsky currently claims to have just over 2,000 common Nostratic roots, but
only a small sampling of this material has been published to date. In the joint
monograph by myself and John C. Kerns, entitled The Nostratic Macrofamily: A
Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship, I supply a great deal of lexical material
(approximately 25,0e0 cited forms) from the Nostratic daughter languages to support
601 common Nostratic roots. It should be mentioned here as well that Greenberg is
currently preparing a book entitled Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The
Eurasiatic Language Family, in which a large amount of lexical material will be
discussed, though Greenberg's Eurasiatic is not the same as Nostratic.

2. As is to be expected, the various branches of Nostratic investigated to date exhibit

regular sound correspondences (see Table 1 for details), though, it should be
mentioned, there are differences in interpretation between Illich-Svitych and
Dolgopolsky on the one hand and myself on the other.

3. Finally, a moderate number of common grammatical formants have been recovered

many of these are listed in Illich-Svitych's comparative Nostratic dictionary; see
also the chapter on Nostratic morphology by John C. Kerns in Bomhard-Kerns
(1994:141-190).

Notable among the lexical items uncovered by Illich-Svitych, Dolgopolsky, and

myself is a solid core of common pronominal stems (these are listed below in Table 2,
though only the stems represented in Indo-European are given the Proto-Nostratic
reconstructions are given according to my system; for information on other pronoun
stems, cf. Dolgopolsky 1984). These pronominal stems have particular importance,
since, as forcefully demonstrated by John C. Kerns (1985:9-50), pronouns, being among
the most stable elements of a language, are a particularly strong indicator of genetic
relationship (Ruhlen 1994:92-93 makes the same point). Kerns (1985:48) concludes (the
emphasis is his):

11

13
 The results are overwhelming. We are forced to conclude that the pronominal agreements
between Indo-European and Uralic, between Uralic and Altaic, and between Indo-
European and Altaic, did not develop independently, but instead were CAUSED by some
UNIQUE historical circumstance. In short, it is extremely unlikely that the three
pronominal systems could have evolved independently.

The conclusion seems inescapable that the consistent, regular phonological

corresi i)ndences that can be shown to exist among the Nostratic daughter languages as
well as the agreements in vocabulary and grammatical formants that have been uncovered
to date cannot be explained as due to linguistic borrowing or mere chance but can only be
accounted for in terms of common origin, that is, genetic relationship. To assume any
other possibility would be tantamount to denying the efficacy of the Comparative
Method. This does not mean that all problems have been solved. On the contrary, there
remain many issues to be investigated and many details to be worked out, but the future
looks extremely exciting and extremely promising.

6. Indo-European

Before looking into how comparison with other Nostratic languages can shed light
on a few selected problem areas within Indo-European, it would be useful to discuss some
salient characteristics of Indo-European. Morphologically, Proto-Indo-European was a
highly inflected language except for particles, conjunctions, and certain quasi -
adverbial forms, all words were inflected. The basic structure of inflected words was as
follows: root + suffix (one or more) + inflectional ending. A notable morphophonemic
characteristic was the extensive use of a system of vocalic alternations ("Ablaut" in
German) as a means to mark morphological distinctions (it may be noted that similar
patterning is found in Kartvelian). For nouns and adjectives, three genders (masculine,
feminine, and neuter), three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), and as many as eight
cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative, ablative, instrumental, and
vocative) have been reconstructed. The traditional reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-
European verbal system (cf. Szemerenyi 1990:245) sets up two voices (active and
middle), four moods (indicative, subjunctive, optative, and imperative), and as many as
six tenses, though only three (present, aorist, and perfect) can be posited with certainty.
Syntactically, Proto-Indo-European seems to have had many of the characteristics of an
SOV language, though there must, no doubt, have been a great deal of flexibility in basic
word order patterning.
It is doubtful that all of the features described in the preceding paragraph were
ancient it is indeed possible to discern several chronological layers of development,
and several scholars have attempted to delineate the various stages of development (cf.,
for example, Adrados 1992, Georgiev 1984, Rasmussen 1987 and r 989, and Shields 1982
[summary on pp. 94-97]). Typically, three stages are posited (so Adrados and Georgiev
Shields posits five), the first stage (Stage I) invariably being ion-inflectional", the
second (Stage II) having a simple inflectional system, and the third (Stage III) having a
highly-developed inflectional system. Stage I, "non-inflectional", finds no support in
cognate Nostratic languages. Indo-European is a member of the Eurasiatic branch of

12

1.4
Nostratic, and all indications are that Proto-Eurasiatic had an agi.-;Iatinating morphological
structure, from which the Proto-Indo-European inflectional system developed. The
earliest form of Proto-Indo-European that can be recovered may be assumed to have had a
simpler inflectional system than what is found, for example, in Old Indic (Vedic and
Classical Sanskrit) or Classical Greek, both of which have expanded upon the earlier
system. Hittite and the other Anatolian languages (Hieroglyphic and Cuneiform Luwian,
Pa laic, Lycian, Lydian) may be assumed to have separated from the main speech
community at a very early date, before the morphological system had fully developed the
morphological structure ancestral to later stage languages such as Latin, Old Indic, Greek,
etc. Thus, the Anatolian languages reflect the simpler morphological system of early
Proto-Indo-European. A note of caution: Hittite has clearly innovated as well and may
even have lost some features.
Let us now look at Indo-European and address the question of what is to be gained
by comparing Indo-European with the other Nostratic languages. The following gains
may be mentioned as being among the most important: (A) a better understanding of the
laryngeals, (B) a better understanding of root structure patterning, (C) a better
understanding of the origin of verb morphology, (D) clarification of issues surrounding
the origin and development of nominal declension, (E) a better understanding of the
origin and development of vowel gradation, and (F) support for the Gamkrelidze, Hopper,
and Ivanov reinterpretation of Indo-European consonantism. We may now look at each
one of these in more detail:

A. Laryngeals: According to Kurylowicz and those who follolA his theories (such
as Sturtevant and Lehmann, among others), Indo-European is assumed to have
had four laryngeals, which may be symbolized as *HI, *H2, *H3, and *H4
(Kurylowicz writes *p *o2, *p3, and *p4). Other scholars posit only three
laryngeals, denying the existence of *H4, and, still others posit as few as one
laryngeal or as many as twelve. For the sake of argument, we will stick with the
four laryngeals posited by Kurylowicz. Now, of the other Nostratic branches,
only Afroasiatic has a full set of laryngeals. Though Semitic is traditionally
assumed to have had six laryngeals, the Afroasiatic parent language most likely
had only four, namely, a glottal stop /7/, a voiceless laryngeal (or glottal) fricative
/IV, and voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives /hi and /7/. Extremely good
correspondences can be established between Afroasiatic and Indo-European, and,
as a result, it is now possible to establish the probable phonetic values of the
laryngeals: we can confirm that *H1 was a glottal stop /V and *H4 was a voiceless
laryngeal fricative /h/ as originally suggested by Sapir, Sturtevant, and Lehmann,
while *H2 was probably the voiceless and voiced multiply-articulated
pharyngeal/laryngeal fricatives /hh/ and NW, and *H3 was probably originally
identical to *H2. That is to say that there is no evidence from the other Nostratic
languages to support positing *H3 distinct from *H2 in Indo-European. Note that
both of these two laryngeals have the same reflex in Hittite, namely, h- (initially)
and -kb).- (medially). The only reason that two separate laryngeals were set up in

13
 Indo-European by Kurylowicz in the first place was to account for several cases of
nonapophonic *o. However, these examples can he accounted for much better by
assuming that this single, combined *H2 and *H3 changed a contiguous original
*u to *o along the lines of what is found in modern Arabic dialects. (It should be
noted here that /tth/ and Sfi/ are to be derived from earlier voiceless and voiced
pharyngeal fricatives /h/ and /7/ respectively for details on the development of
the laryngeals in Indo-European, cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1994:47-56; for a good
introduction to the Laryngeal Theory, see Lindeman 1987; see also Keiler 1970
and Winter [ed.] 1965.)

B. Root structure patterning: In a work published in 1935 entitled (in English

translation) Origins of the Formation of Nouns in Indo-European, the French
Indo-Europeani st Emile Benveniste (1935:147-173) carefully analyzed the
patterning of roots in Indo-European and was able to discern the underlying
principles governing that patterning. Now, comparison of Indo-European with the
other Nostratic branches, especially Kartvelian and Afroasiatic, allows us to refine
the theories of Benveniste and, in so doing, to n ace the development of root
structure patterning from the earliest times down to the appearance of the
individual daughter languages. The most ancient patterning may be assumed to
have been as follows:

1. There were no initial vowels in the earliest form of pre-Indo-European.

Therefore, every root began with a consonant.

2. Originally, there were no initial consonant clusters either. Consequently,

every root began with one and only one consonant.

3. Two basic syllable types existed: (A) *CV and (B) *C VC, where C = any
non-syllabic and V = any vowel. Permissible root forms coincided exactly
with these two syllable types.

4. A verbal stem could either be identical with a root or it could consist of a

root plus a single derivational morpheme added as a suffix to the root:
*C VC-VC-. Any consonant could serve as a suffix.

5. Nominal sterns, on the other hand, could be further extended by additional

suffixes.

In the earliest form of Indo-European, there were three fundamental stem

types: (A) verbal stems, (B) nominal and adjectival stems, and (C) pronominal
and indeclinable stems.
The phonemicization of a strong stress accent disrupted the patterning
outlined above. The positioning of the stress was morphologically distinctive,
serving as a means to differentiate grammatical categories. All vowels were
retained when stressed but were either weakened (= "reduced-grade") or totally
eliminated (= "zero-grade") when unstressed: the choice between the reduced-
grade versus the zero-grade depended upon the position of the unstressed syllable
relative to the stressed syllable as well as upon the laws of syllabicity in effect at
that time. Finally, it was at this stage of development that the syllabic allophones
of the resonants came into being.
The stress-conditioned ablaut alternations gave ris ; to two distinct forms
of extended stems:

Type 1: Root in full-grade and accented, suffix in zero-grade: *CVCC-.

Type 2: Root in zero-grade, suffix in full-grade and accented: *CCVC-.

When used as a verbal stem, Type 1 could undergo no further extension.

However, Type 2 could be further extended by means of a "determinative".
Further addition of a determinative or suffixes pointed to a nominal stem.
According to Benveniste, a "suffix" was characterized by two alternating forms
(* -et-1* -t-, *- en- / * -n -, * -ek-1*-k-, etc.), while a "determinative" was characterized
by a fixed consonantal form (*-t-, *-n-,* -k-, etc.).
In its beginnings, ablaut was merely a phonological alternation. During
the course of its development, however, Indo-European gradually
grammaticalized these ablaut alternations.
Indo-European had constraints on permissible root structure sequences. In
terms of the radical revision of the Indo-European consonant system proposed by
Gamkrelidze, Hopper, and Ivanov, these constraint laws may be stated as follows:

1. Each root contained at least one non-glottalic consonant.

2. When both obstruents were non-glottalic, they had to agree in voicing.

The Indo-European root structure constraint laws thus become merely a voicing
agreement rule with the corollary that two glottalics cannot cooccur in a root.
Comparison of Indo-European with the other Nostratic branches indicates,
however, that the forbidden root types must have once existed. Two rules may be
formulated to account for the elimination of the forbidden tyr

1. A rule of progressive voicing assimilation may be set up to account for the

elimination of roots whose consonantal elements originally did not agree
in voicing: *T *B> *T * P,*B *T> *B . *D, etc.

2. A rule of regressive deglottalization may be set up to account for the

elimination of roots containing two glottalics: *T' *K' > *T *K', etc.
This rule finds a close parallel in Geers' Law in Akkadian.

According to Gamkrelidze, Bartholomae's Law is a later manifestation of

the progressive voicing assimilation rule, applied to contact sequences.

15

17
 In a number of works, John Colarusso has explored typological parallels
between Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian. In an article published in 1992
entitled "Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Northwest
Caucasian", he attempted to show that these two language families were in fact
genetically related. One of the areas explored by Colarusso was stem formation.
After discussing Benveniste's theory of the Indo-European root, he suggests that
at least some Indo-European roots might be better explained if the first part is
analyzed not as a morpheme but rather as a preverb, while the enlargements are
seen not as enlargements but rather as roots, similar to the patterning observed in
Northwest Caucasian. While Colarusso's theories about a genetic relationship
between Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian have not met with acceptance,
his views on stem formation merit further research.

C. Verb morphology: Comparison of Indo-European with Uralic reveals many

striking similarities in verb morphology and allows us to ascertain the ultimate
origin of the athematic verb endings: they can be nothing else but agglutinated
personal pronouns. The earliest forms of the athematic endings were most likely
as follows (for details, cf. Bombard 1988; see also Villar 1991:244-252):

Person Singular Plural

1 *-m *-me
2 *-t *-te
3 *-s, *-0 *-se

Compare the following system of personal endings, which are assumed to have
existed in Proto-Uralic (cf. HajdU 1972:40 and 43-45):

Person Singular Plural

1 * -me *-me (+ Plural)

2 *-te *-te (+ Plural)
3 *-se *-se (+ Plural)

These endings survive in Elamite as well, especially in the 2nd and 3rd
persons (by the way, the l st singular ending, -h, is, of course, related to the 1st
singular perfect ending *-Ae of traditional Indo-European, which is found, for
example, in Luwian in the 1st singular preterite ending -ha, in Hittite in the 1st
singular ending -hi, and in Greek in the 1st singular perfect ending -a; this ending
may also be related to the Kartvelian 1st person personal prefix of the subject
series, *xw- [Gamkrelidze-Machavariani 1982:85 reconstruct *w-, however], as
suggested by Ivanov and Palmaitis) compare, for example, the conjugation of
hutta- "to do, to make" from Middle Elamite (cf. Reiner 1969:76; Grillot-Susini
1987:33):

16

-1 8
 Person Singu' Plural

1 hutta-h hutta -hu (< h+ h)

2 hutta-t hutta-ht (< h + 1)
3 hutta-§ hutta-h.f (<h+ §)

Traces of the 2nd singular ending are also found in Dravidian McAlpin
(1981:120) reconstructs Proto-Elamo-Dravidian 2nd person ending *-ti (> Proto-
Elamite *-ta, Proto-Dravidian *-ti). This is a significant archaism, since it bears
no apparent resemblance to the common Elamo-Dravidian 2nd person personal
pronoun stem, which McAlpin (1981:114-115) reconstructs as *ni and which is
clearly an innovation (cf. Dolgopolsky 1984:87-88 and 100; Dolgopolsky posits
Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *nun, which he derives from *tun through assimilation).
Finally, we may note that traces of these endings can be found in the
Altaic languages too, as in the Turkish agreement markers -(/)m (1st singular) and
-0 (3rd singular verbal) or -(s)I(n) (3rd singular nominal). In Proto-Turkic, the 1st
singular possessive suffix was *-m, while the 3rd singular was *-s (cf. Sinor
1988:725). According to Sinor (1988:725), the 1st singular possessive suffix was
also *-m in Proto-Tungus, and the 2nd singular was *-t the 3rd singular
possessive suffix, on the other hand, was *-n, which mirrors what is found in
Sumerian (see below).
The 2nd singular ending *-t is preserved in Hittite. This was later replaced
by what had been the 3rd singular, namely, *-s. In his 1962 book entitled Indo-
European Origins of the Celtic Verb. I: The Sigmatic Aorist, Calvert Watkins
discusses the extensive evidence from the Indo-European daughter languages for
an original 3rd singular ending in *-s. It was Watkins who also showed that the
3rd singular indicative was originally characterized by the fundamental ending
zero. The *-n- found in the 3rd plural was a relic of the 3rd person ending found
in Tungus and Sumerian. The development of the 3rd singular ending *-t was a
later change, though this still occurred fairly early since it is found in Hittite and
the other Anatolian daughter languages this *-t was added to the 3rd plural
ending *-n- at the same time, yielding the new ending *-nt-. The most recent
change must have been the development of the so-called "primary" endings,
which were built upon the so-called "secondary" endings by the addition of the
deictic particle *-i meaning "here and now", as shown by Kerns and Schwartz in
their 1972 book on Indo-European verb morphology. It may be mentioned that
this deictic particle has a Nostratic origin, coming from a widely-represented
proximate demonstrative stem meaning "this one here".
The comparison with Uralic also shows that the earliest Indo-European
had two conjugational types: (A) a determinative (objective) conjugation, which
was characterized by the 3rd singular in *-s and which was used with transitive
verbs, and (B) an indeterminative (subjective) conjugation, which was
characterized by the 3rd singular in zero and which was used with intransitive
verbs. This is identical to what is assumed to have existed in the Uralic parent
language.

17

19
 After all of the changes described above had taken place, the resulting
Proto-Indo-European athematic endings were as follows (cf. BrugmFmn 1904:588-
594; Burrow 1973:306-319; Szemerenyi 1990:356-357):

I. Primary II. Secondary

Person Singular Plural Singular Plural

1 *-mi *-me *-me

2 *-si *-te * -s *-te
3 *-ti *-nti *4 *-nt

Note: The 1st person plural endings have different extensions in the various
daughter languages: *-mes(i), *-trios( *-men(i), *-mon(

D. Noun morphology: According to John C. Kerns (Bomhard-Kerns 1994:172-

173, §3.5.3), Proto-Nostratic may have had three nominal declensions: (A) the
first declension, corresponding to the neuter heteroclitic declension in Indo-
European; (B) the second declension, corresponding to the other neuter paradigms
in Indo-European, and (C) the third declension, a variation of the second wherein
a definite-accusative singular was marked by the termination *-m. Kerns states
that the accusative had no special marker in the first two declensional types. He
also notes that the accusative singular ending *-m is found in Proto-Uralic and is
also widely-represented in Dravidian languages (where it has become -n as in
Greek, for example, within Indo-European [for the full set of Proto-Dravidian case
endings, see below]). Kerns reconstructs the following singular case endings for
Common Uralic (cf. also Collinder 1960:282 and 1965:54-57; Hajdu 1972:41):

Nominative: *43
Accusative: * -m
Genitive: *-n
Dative-Lative: *-nYV (palatalized *-n followed by a front vowel)
Locative: *-na
Ablative: *-ta and *-8a

Kerns believes that the above endings, "with a few reservations", can also be
attributed to Proto-Nostratic (here, I would substitute "Proto-Eurasiatic" for
"Proto-Nostratic" Kerns himself uses "Eurasiatic" in his 1985 book).
At this point, it is interesting to compare the case endings (properly, tightly
bound postpositions) reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian by Zvelehil (1977:33):

Nominative: *-0 and, possibly, *-m1*-n with non-personal substantives

Accusative: *-(V)n
Genitive: *-in (adnominal); *-atu (pronominal); *-4 (possessive)
Dative: *-(k)ku

18

20
 Ins.. umental: *-anl*al
Ablative: * -in (?)
Locative: (?);*-kan
Sociative: *-6tu or *-(0-iitu < **I7(?)
(Comitative)

This system can be derived from an earlier, simpler system, as is shown by

comparison with Elamite (cf. McAlpin 1981:108-112). Clearly, several of the
endings must have had a common origin (such as the genitive ending *-in, the
ablative *-in, and the locative *-in[1*-i1]). McAlpin (1981:111) reconstructs the
following case endings for Proto-Elamo-Dravidian:

Nominative: *-0
Accusative: *-(V)n
Adessive/ *-akka
Purposive (Dative): (?)
Genitives:
1. Possessive: *-a
2. Adnominal: *-in
3. Oblique/ *-to
Locative

To fill out the picture, let us look at the case endings reconstructed for
Proto-Indo-European by Szemerenyi (1990:169):

Singular Plural Dual

Nominative: * -s * -O *-es }

Vocative: *-0 *-es }

Accusative: *-m1*-m *-ns1*-ns }

Genitive: * -esl* -osl* -s *-oml*-5m *-ous (?),*-os (?)

Ablative: *-es; *-osl*-s; *-bh(y)os,*-mos *-bhyo,*-mo
*-ed1*-od
*-bh(y)os,*-mos *. ,*-m5
Dative: *-ei
* *-su *-ou
Locative:
Instrumental: *-el*-o; *-5is *-bhy5, *4)15
*-bhi,*-mi *-bhis,*-mis

Missing from this table is the thematic nominative-accusative neuter singular

ending *-m this form is to be derived from the accusative singular ending. The
*-bh- and *-m- endings found in several of the concrete cases are usually
considered to be late additions, and some have even questioned whether or not
they should even be posited for the Indo-European parent language. They are not
found in Hittite. No doubt, these endings were originally adverbs that were

19

21
 gradually incorporated into the case system, with some daughter languages
choosing *-bh- and others choosing *-m-. They should not be reconstructed as
case endings at the Proto-Indo-European level. In like manner, the genitive plural
probably arose from the accusative singular, while the genitive singular and
nominative singular endings in *-s must have had a common origin these
endings later spread from the genitive singular to the ablative singular. The dual
was a late addition, while the plural originally had a reduced set of endings
compared to what was found in the singular this is the picture that emerges
when the Hittite and other Anatolian data are brought into consideration. We may
note here that the Proto-Uralic ablative ending *-ta and the Proto-Elamo-
Dravidian oblique/locative ending *-ta are most probably related to the Indo-
European ablative *-ed1*-od (the phonetics are uncertain here).
In his book Indo-European Prehistory, Kerns (1985:109-111) devotes
considerable attention to describing an oblique-n marker, which he claims is a
major component in Indo-European heteroclitic stems, and he elaborates upon his
ideas in his treatment of Nostratic declension in Bomhard-Kerns (1994:173-179,
§3.5.3.1). He notes that this oblique-n is the source of the -n found in the
genitive, ablative, and instrumental case endings in Dravidian it is also found
in the genitive, dative-lative (palatalized before a front vowel), and locative case
endings in Uralic. Kerns even finds traces of this oblique-n in Eskimo and
Japanese. Thus, this is an ancient feature preserved only vestigially in the
daughter Nostratic languages.

E. Vowel gradation: The development of vowel gradation is extremely

complicated and would require far more space to discuss than is allotted for this
paper. Therefore, I will only deal with several key points. Ever since Hirt, it has
been assumed by many scholars ihat early Indo-European went through a stage of
development characterized by phonemic stress and that this stress caused the
weakening and/or loss of the vowels of unaccented syllables, that is to say that the
stress was responsible for the development of the quantitative ablaut alternations.
Furthermore, according to this theory, it is assumed that, at a later date, stress
became phonemically non-distinctive and was replaced by an accent system
characterized by phonemic pitch and that this pitch accent was responsible for the
development of the qualitative ablaut alternations. Kurylowicz, however, argued
that the qualitative ablaut alternations were ancient and preceded the changes
brought about by the phonemicization of a strong stress accent. Comparison with
the other Nostratic languages, especially Kartvelian, indicates that Kurylowicz
was correct. Indo-European inherited the qualitative ablaut alternations from
Nostratic. In a recent paper entitled "The Prehistory of the Indo-European Vowel
System in Comparative and Typological Perspective", Greenberg (1990) supplies
convincing evidence in support of this view. The phonemization of a strong stress
accent in early Indo-European brought about a complete restructuring of the
inherited vowel system. The same thing happened in Kartvelian, by the way.
Another important point concerns the early prehistory of the *e *0 ablaut
gradation. In an article published in 1965, Pulleyblank tried to show that this

20
 gradation series should be reinterpreted as a *a (schwa) *a gradation. It looks
as though Pulleyblank came pretty close to the truth, though only for the oldest
period of development. We may note that this older system is partially preserved
in Hittite, where *a appears as e (or i) and *a is preserved as such. The
development of *a to *e is fairly easy to explain: *e may be assumed to have
been the normal allophone of *a under stress. A typological parallel may be
observed in the Northwest Caucasian languages Ubykh and Circassian, where a
becomes e under stress. For the latest period of developr mt, namely, the period
directly before the emergence of the non-Anatolian ..aughter languages, the
traditional system of five long and short vowels is surely correct. Finally, there is
little indication that Nostratic had phonemic long vowels. Therefore, long vowels
may be assumed to have arisen solely in Indo-European proper.
According to Greenberg (1990), traces of an earlier system of vowel
harmony can be discerned in Proto-Indo-European.

F. Indo-European consonantism: There are internal inconsistencies in the

traditional reconstruction of the Indo-European stop system that make that system
highly improbable from a typological point of view these include: (1) the low
frequency of occurrence, if not total absence, of the traditional voiced labial stop
*h; (2) the fact that the traditional voiced stops (*h, *d, *g, *gw) are only
infrequently found in pronouns and inflectional affixes; (3) the unexplained root
structure constraint against the cooccurrence of two voiced stops in a root; and (4)
the typological problems caused by positing a three-way contrast in the series of
stops of (plain) voiceless (plain) voiced voiced aspirated, thus (to use the
dentals for illustration): *t,*d,*dh. In order to address these problems, Thomas
Gamkrelidze and Vjacheslav Ivanov, on the one hand, and Paul Hopper, on the
other, independently proposed, in 1972 and 1973 respectively, a radical
reinterpretation of the Indo-European stop system. According to Gamkrelidze,
Hopper, and Ivanov, the traditional plain voiced stops are to be reinterpreted as
glottalized stops (that is, ejectives). Furthermore, according to the version of the
theory proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, the traditional plain voiceless stops
are to be reinterpreted as voiceless aspirates, while the traditional voiced aspirates
are to remain unchanged. In this revised interpretation, aspiration is viewed as a
phonemically redundant feature, and the phonemes in question could also be
realized as allophonic variants without aspiration. Strong support for this theory
is provided by comparison of Indo-European with Kartvelian and Afroasiatic,
both of which have a three-way contrast, in the series of stops and affricates, of
voiceless (aspirated) glottalized voiced. Act..urding to my views on Nostratic,
though not according to the views of Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky, the Indo-
European glottalized stops (the traditional plain voiced stops) correspond exactly
to glottalized stops in Kartvelian and Afroasiatic, while the voiceless (aspirated)
stops in Indo-European correspond to identical sounds in Kartvelian and
Afroasiatic, and the voiced (aspirated) stops of Indo-European correspond to
voiced stops in Kartvelian and Afroasiatic. It should be noted that the voiced
aspirates were probably a late development in Indo-European, and this series may

21

23
 be assumed to have originally been characterized by plain voicing, without
aspiration. (For an excellent survey of the Glottalic Theory, cf. Salmons 1993.)

Traditional Indo-European Gamkrelidze and Ivanov

1 2 3 1 2 3

p b bh p[h] b[h]
t d dh t[h] t' d[h]
k g gh k[h] k' g[h]
kw gw gwh kw[h] k'w gw[h]

After reviewing the arguments both for and against the Glottalic Theory, Schwink
(1994:63-64) concludes (the emphasis is his):

As was noted, the Glottalic Theory spearheaded to a large extent the

current debate on typology and reconstruction methodology. It incorporates well
the various problems involved in using the framework. The universals involved
are not absolute so that opponents invoke the few exceptions as proof that the
method is fallacious. However, the number of agreements of the new
interpretations with both synchronic and diachronic patterns, if not proving the
Giottalic Theory beyond all doubts, certainly put it high in probability. Of
course, those opponents of the Giottalic Theory who follow a formulaic
approach to the process of reconstruction in general are in a different business
from the followers of the Theory who are attempting to capture some measure of
realism.

7. The Nostratic Homeland and the Dispersal of the Nostratic Languages

Here, we run into potentially serious problems, for we must turn to other
disciplines such as archeology. Archeological data provide the raw material from which
archeologists construct theories about the past. The problem is that the raw material is
hardly ever complete, but rather it is limited by what has happened to survive, usually
products of manual skill and craftsmanship. This means that the theories derived from
the controlled analysis of the raw material involve a good deal of interpretation on the
part of the observer one's view of the past will be directly conditioned to a greater or
lesser degree by the theoretical framework within which one operates as well as by one's
prejudices in addition to the type of evidence employed. (To complicate matters, many of
these same problems occur in the field of Linguistics [cf. Labov 1994:10-11].) Moreover,
when dealing with pre-literate cultures, there is seldom a clear-cut correlation between
linguistic groups and culture, and cultural spread does not always mean language spread,
even when migration of people takes place individuals or small groups of individuals
moving peacefully to a new territory may simply be assimilated into the dominant
population group. One could cite the example of the many ancient Greek trading colonies
established on the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, which were eventually

22

24
absorbed into the surrounding communities. On the other hand, language spread can
occur with a relatively small migration of people when the language belongs to
conquerors or to those bearing a more technologically advanced culture both these
factors were involved, for example, in the spread of Latin to the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul,
and Dacia, where modern-day Romance languages are found, nearly all of the indigenous
languages existing at the time of the Roman conquest having been replaced (Basque is an
exception). Another example would be the spread of Turkic languages across Central
Asia, mostly replacing the Iranian languages that were spoken there at the time of the
appearance of the Turkic tribes (Tajik [also called Tadzhik] is an exception). It goes
without saying that written records, when combined with the surviving relics of material
culture, give a much broader view of earlier communities and reduce the need for
speculation/interpretation. Even when no written records exist, however, the analysis of
the lexicon of a reconstructed proto-language can give a clue to the material culture of the
speakers of that language this endeavor is referred to as "linguistic paleontology" or
"paleolinguistics".
The question of where the probable homeland of the Nostratic proto-language is
to be located is directly related to the locations of the homelands of each of the daughter
languages. Since there is a fair amount of controversy surrounding this subject, it is
necessary to survey current theories and to select the scenarios that seem most likely in
view of linguistic, archeological, and anthropological evidence, while mindful of the
problems expressed in the preceding paragraph. Let us look at each of the daughter
languages in turn.

Indo-European: At the present time, there are two main competing theories regarding
the Indo-European homeland: (1) according to the first theory, championed by the late
Marija Gimbutas and a large number of supporters, the Indo-European homeland was
located to the north of and between the Black and Caspian Seas and has been broadly
identified with the "Kurgan Culture"; (2) another view, made popular by Colin Renfrew,
would place the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia similar views were put forth by
Gamkrelidze-Ivanov in the second volume of their massive 1984 work (in English
translation) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical
Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a Proto-Culture (an English translation of
this work by Johanna Nichols is due out shortly) and by Krantz (1988). Renfrew tries to
link the spread of Indo-European languages in Europe with the spread of agriculture.
According to Gimbutas, the period of Indo-European unity is to be placed at around 4,500
BCE, while Renfrew would place the date considerably earlier at around 7,000 BCE.
The following objections may be raised against the theory of an Anatolian
homeland for Indo-European:

1. There are no unambiguous references to Indo-Europeans in written records from the

ancient Near East until just before 2,000 BCE, and the first references are to Hittites.
Moreover, the Hittites were most definitely invaders (cf. Gamkrelidze 1970; Mellaart
1981; Steiner 1990) who imposed themselves on populations speaking Caucasian
languages it is generally agreed that Hittite replaced Hattie, which is thought to be
a Caucasian language (cf. Diakonoff 1990:63). Another language widely-spoken in

23
 Anatolia at the time that the Hittite texts were composed was Hurrian, which, along
with the later and closely-related Urartean, has been convincingly shown by
Diakonoff and Starostin (1986) to be a Northeast Caucasian language. Thus, it
appears that the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were speakers of Caucasian languages
and that the Indo-Europeans were intrusive Diakonoff (1990:62-63) places the
Hurro-Urartean language in eastern Anatolia at least as far back as the third
millennium BCE. Furthermore, attempts to equate other groups (Gutians, for
example) referred to in cuneiform texts with Indo-Europeans are baked upon such
scanty evidence as to be meaningless (Diakonoff [1990:63] claims that the Gutians
[Qutians] were Caucasian).

2. An Anatolian homeland for Indo-European makes it difficult to account for the

ext-msive evidence for contact between Indo-European and Uralic (cf. Joki 1973).

3. Anthony (1991:198-201) argues that the linguistic evidence confirms the existence of
four-wheeled vehicles among the Indo-Europeans. Archeological evidence indicates
that four-wheeled vehicles appeared in Europe no earlier than 3,300 - 3,100 BCE.
The correlation of the linguistic and archeological evidence brought forth by Anthony
rules out a date for Indo-European unity as early as that proposed by Renfrew and
suggests that "the PIE language community remained relatively intact until at least
3,300 BC". Moreover, the association of the Indo-Europeans with the domestication
of horses and with the development of four-wheeled vehicles definitely points to a
North Pontic/Steppe homeland as opposed to an Anatolian homeland. I will have
more to say about this below.

The literature supporting a North Pontic/Steppe homeland for Indo-European is

extensive and begins as far back as 1926 with the publication of V. Gordon Childe's book
The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. Rather than presenting all of the
arguments and evidence, I will summarize my own views. For detailed information on
the theory cf a North Pontic/Steppe homeland, Mallory's 1989 book In Search of the
Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth should be consulted as should the
1990 volume co-edited by Thomas Markey and John A. C. Greppin entitled When Worlds
Collide: Indo-European and Pre-Indo-Europeans. The Bellagio Papers and the 1987
volume honoring Marija Gimbutas co-edited by Susan Skomal and Edgar Polome enti
Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem. Studies in Honor of
Marija Gimbutas. Finally, many notable articles on the subject have appeared in issues of
the Journal of Indo-European Studies, including numerous articles by Marija Gimutas
herself, as well as in Current Anthopology, to name two of the more important journals.
In an unpublished paper of major significance, Johanna Nichols (1993) has argued
that the earliest Indo-European speech community ("Pre-Indo-European") was located in
Central Asia. She proposes that Pre-Indo-European spread westward across the steppes,
eventually arriving on the northeastern shores of the Black Sea. I support this scenario. I
would place the Pre-Indo-Europeans in Central Asia at about 7,0(10 BCE, and I would
date the arrival of the Pre-Indo-Europeans in the vicinity of the Black Sea at about 5,000
BCE. Though it is not known what language or languages were spoken in the area before
the arrival of Indo-European-speaking people, it is known that the Pre-Indo-Europeans

24

26
were not the first inhabitants of the area. According to Koko (1991:252), archeological
evidence points to cultural influence spreading from the Caucasian-Pontic zone to the
area of the Vi.iula-Oder in the earliest Neolithic (around 7,000 BCE). The direction of
influence was subsequently reversed, and there appears to have been a movement of
people from west to east into the Pontic area. I would equate this reversal with the arrival
of the Pre-Indo-Europeans. I will venture a guess that when the Pre-Indo-Europeans
arrived on the shores of the Black Sea, they encountered and occupied territory formerly
inhabited by Caucasian-speaking people. This disrupted the pre-existing cultural link
between the Caucasian-Pontic zone and the Vistula-Oder area and resulted in a
displacement of Caucasian languages southward toward the Caucasus Mountains. That
there was contact between Indo-Europeans and. Caucasians is supported by a number of
shared vocabulary items between Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian. Among these
are (this is but a small sampling; I have taken the Northwest Caucasian examples
exclusively from Kuiper's A Dictionary of Proto-Circassian Roots it is the only work
available to me. Now, I realize full well that Circassian is but one branch of Northwest
Caucasian. Therefore adjustments may have to be made to the comparisons I am
proposing on the basis of evidence from the remaining branches of Northwest
Caucasian)(the Proto-Indo-European reconstructions are in accordance with
Gamkrelidze-Ivanov' s system):

1. Proto-Circassian *q'oatha "to tell, to report; to announce, to make known" Proto-

Indo-European *k'wet[hrl*k'wot[V- "to say, to speak, to call" (cf. Pokorny 1959:480-
481 *eet- "to talk": Gothic qikan "to say"; Old English cwekan "to say, to speak";
Armenian koOm "to call, to name").

2. Proto-Circassian *wasa "price" Proto-Indo-European *wes-no-m "price" (cf.

Pokorny 19591 173 *yes- "to buy, to sell", *yes-no- "price": Sanskrit vasna-m
"price, value"; Latin venum "sale"; Greek 6vog *wos-no-s] "price").

3. Proto-Circassian *warda "high-born" Proto-Indo-European (adj.) *vvordpl-o-s

"grown, full-grown, tall, upright", (adj.) *wrcithi-o-s "raised, upright, tall", (stem)
*werd[h]-1*word[h]-1*w6rd[h]- "to raise, to elevate; to grow, to increase" (cf. Pokorny
1959:1167 *uerdh-, *uredh- "to grow": Sanskrit vardhaqi "increasing, growing,
thriving", vrddha-17 "grown, become larger or longer or stronger, increased,
augmented, great, large", vrddhi-h "growth, increase, augmentation, rise,
advancement").

4. Proto-Circassian *wala "cloud" Proto-Indo-European *wel-l*wol-l*wl- "to flow, to

wet, to moisten": (extended forms) *wel-k[h]-1*wo1-412]-1*wl-krip, *wel-g[h]-I
*wol-g[h]-1 "to wet, to moisten" (cf. Pokorny
1959:1145-1146 *uelk-, *wig- "wet, moist": Old English weolcen, wolcen "cloud";
German Wolke "cloud").
5. Proto-Circassian *naba "belly" (note here Temirgoy nabaj 'alban2a "navel"; Ubykh
nabajt "navel") Proto-Indo-European (*nebri]-1)*nobfli- "navel" (cf. Pokorny
1959:314-315 (*enebh-), *embh-, *ombh- *n6bh-, (*nebh- ?), *mbh- "navel":
Sanskrit nAbhi-P "navel"; Old High German naba "nave, hub (of a wheel)"; Old
Prussian nabis "navel").

6. Proto-Circassian *ban(a) "to fight" Proto-Indo-European *b[h]en- "to slay, to

wound" (cf. Pokorny 1959:126 *bhen- "to slay, to wound": Gothic banjo "strike,
blow, wound"; Old High German bano "death, destruction").

7. Proto-Circassian *mala "sheep" Proto-Indo-European *mel- "wool, woolen

garment" (cf. Pokorny 1959:721 *mel- "wool, woolen garment": Greek j.takkOc "a
lock of wool, wool").

8. Proto-Circassian *hawa "but" Proto-Indo-European *hew- [ *haw -] "that, other" (cf.

Pokorny 1959:73-75 *au-, *u- pronoun stem: "that, other": Gothic auk "but, also";
Latin au-tern "but, on the other hand").

9. Proto-Circassian *p:aya "enemy" Proto-Indo-European *p17716(y/i)- "to hurt, to

harm, to attack" (cf. Pokorny 1959:792-793 *WO- "to hurt": Gothic jijands
"enemy"; Old Englishfaonds "enemy").

10. Proto-Circassian *k'ana "knucklebone (used in bone game)" Proto-Indo-European

*k'enu- "knee, joint, angle" (cf. Pokorny 1959:380-381 *genu-, *gneu- "knee":
Sanskrit ja"nu "knee"; Latin genii "knee, knot, joint"; Greek ?ow "knee, joint"; Gothic
kniu "knee").

11 Proto-Circassian *k'oasa "to go out (as fire, light); to escape, to run away, to desert, to
elope" Proto-Indo-European *k'wes- "to extinguish" (cf. Pokorny 1959:479-480
*ees-, *zees- "to extinguish": Lithuanian gesti "to go out, to die out, to become
dim").

12. Proto-Circassian *sama "heap" Proto-Indo-European *sem-l*som- "together,

together with; one" (originally "to gather together") (cf. Pokorny 1959:902-905 *sem-
"one; together": Sanskrit sa [< *sm-] "with, together with, along with", sam "with,
together with, along with, together, altogether", sa-tra "together, together with",
samana-h "meeting, assembly, amorous union, embrace", samlibha-11 "heap,
collection").

13. Proto-Circassian *gaya "smooth (of ice)"Proto-Indo-European *g[h]ey- "snow, ice,

winter" (cf. Pokorny 1959:425-426 *ihei-, *khi- "winter, snow": Sanskrit hima-h
"snow, frost, hoar-frost, winter", hemanta-h "winter, the cold season"; Greek xtthv
 "snow; snow-water, ice-cold water", xEis.}ta "winter-weather, cold, frost", xellicbv
"winter; wintry weather, a winter storm").

The Armenian linguist Gevork B. Djahukyan (1967) has devoted a book entitled (in
English translation) Interrelations of the Indo-European, Hurrian-Urartean, and
Caucasian Languages to exploring lexical parallels between Indo-European and
Caucasian languages.
Thus, it was the area to the north of and between the Black and Caspian Seas that
was most likely the final homeland of a unified Indo-European parent language. By 3,500
BCE, Indo-European had begun to split up into different dialect groups, and Indo-
European speaking-people had started to spread westward into Central Europe and
southward into the Balkans (cf. Anthony 1991; Nichols 1993:23-26, §3.5). Gimbutas
(1973) suggests similar dating and identifies the spread of Bronze Age metallurgical
technology with the Indo-Europeanization of Europe. The Indo-European homeland is
shown in Map 1, and the dispersal of the Indo-European languages is shown in Map 2.

Afroasiatic: So much controversy surrounds the subject of the homeland of Afroasiatic

that none of the proposals advanced to date can be considered definitive. Diakonoff
(1988:23-25) presents a summary of several of the proposals his own view is that
Afroasiatic (his "Afrasian") was located in the "South-Eastern Sahara (say, between
Tibesti and Darfur)". Another hypothesis has been advanced by Yuri Militarev.
According to Militarev, the original Afroasiatic homeland was in the Middle East and the
Arabian peninsula (cf. Diakonoff 1988:24). Diakonoff (1988:32, fn. 14) further clarifies
Militarev's views:

A more precise identification was proposed by Militarev and sustained from the
archaeological and historical side by V. Shnirelman. in their opinion, the Proto-Afrasian
speakers were the Natutians of the well-known early Neolithic culture of the Palestinian-
Syrian area.

In my opinion, Militarev's proposals have great merit. Henry (1992:182-184)

notes that "Natufian assemblages are remarkably well-dated because of multiple lines of
evidence tied to radiocarbon dates, stratigraphic successions, and artifact seriation".
Henry dates the earliest Natufian finds to 10,900 BCE and the latest to 7,800 BCE (he
actually says [1992:184] "as early as about 12,900 years ago to as late as about 9,800
years ago"). The earlier date agrees extremely well with the date assigned to the
Afruasiatic parent language (approximately 10,000 BCE [that is, 12,000 years ago]
according to Diakonoff [1988:33, fn. 15]). The following scenario may be proposed:
Afroasiatic is sufficiently different from other Nostratic languages to suggest that it was
the first branch to split off from the rest of the Nostratic speech community some have
even suggested that Proto-Afroasiatic might be a sister language to Proto-Nostratic rather
than a daughter language. Proto-Afroasiatic may be dated at roughly 10,000 BCE
(though a little earlier is also possible), and the Afroasiatic homeland may be placed in
the Middle East in an area bordering the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea,
stretching from modern-day Syria through Lebanon and south into Israel (that is, the
Levant) if Militarev and Shnirelman are correct, the Natufian cultural complex may be

27

29
identified with the Afroasiatic parent language. By 8,000 BCE, Afroasiatic had begun to
split up into various dialect groups and had spread southward into the Arabian peninsula
and southwestward across the Sinai peninsula into northern Africa. A northern and
eastern spread followed the fertile crescent, initially as far as northern and eastern Syria
it was this dialect group that eventually developed into Proto-Semitic, which
Diakonoff (1988:25) dates to the 6th-5th millennia BCE. Further spread took Afroasiatic
languages southward down through the Arabian Peninsula, across the Bab el Mandeb,
and into the Horn of Africa, westward across northern Africa, and then southward across
the Sahara Desert into what is today the area bordering northern and northeastern Nigeria
around Lake Chad. See also Renfrew (1992:472) on the spread of Afroasiatic languages.
Map 3 shows the distribution of the Afroasiatic languages at about 500 BCE (this is
adapted from Cohen [ed.] 1988:viii).
Archeological remains in the Levant (Syria-Lebanon-Israel coast and slightly
inland) go back to Paleolithic times. The Levant is made up of a combination of
mountains, plains, valleys, and coastal lowlands cramped into a rather small geographical
area. There is plentiful evidence from Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies. The earliest
Neolithic settlements (such as Jericho, which is still inhabited) date to at least 9,000 BCE.
Several noteworthy, partially sequential, partially overlapping Neolithic cultural
complexes have been identified, namely, the Mushabian, the Geometric Kebaran, and the
Natufian (for details, cf. Henry 1992). The dating for these is as follows: Mushabian:
between 14,170 B.P. and 11,700 B.P. (Henry 1992:125); Geometric Kebaran: between
14,330 B.P. and 12,610 B.P. (Henry 1992:155); Natufian between 12,500 and 10,500
B.P. (Henry 1992:182 earlier dates are given in Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:214). It is
the Natufians who are associated with the development of agriculture. Neolithic remains
from the Levant are dated well into the 5th millennium BCE. Apparently, the topography
of the Levant did not favor the establishment of large, unified states, since the
archeological record points to numerous, autonomous or semi-autonomous city-states
instead by the 3rd millennium BCE, there were many such city-states. The Levant
stood at the cross-roads between the mighty empires in Egypt and Mesopotamia it was
an area made rich by trade, an area coveted by competing neighbors, an area with a rich
and varied literature, an area that gave birth to great religions, and an area with a long and
colorful history. The archeological data from the Levant are extremely rich and have
been fairly intensively studied and dated, though it will still take ages to sift through it all.
The topography of Mesopotamia is varied: the east is bounded by the Zagros
mountains and the Iranian Plateau, the center is dominated by the plains surrounding the
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the south is dominated by alluvial plains, and the west is
semi-arid / desert. Several major shifts in climatic conditions have taken place over the
past 15,000 years. Permanent settlements associated with agriculture and stock herding
date as far back as 8,000 BCE. At this period, settlements were relatively small. By
6,000 BCE, agriculture was well-established, and larger villages appeared. Slightly later,
major cultural centers (such as Eridu) emerge, trade flourishes, and wealth and population
increase. Pictographic writing begins to appear at around 3,500 BCE, and this slowly
develops into the cuneiform syllabary. The earliest recorded language was Sumerian
the Sumerians were located in central and southern Mesopotamia. Semitic people were
located in the immediate north and west. The earliest recorded Semitic language was

28
Or. 0
Akkadian. Further north, in modern-day Turkey, Caucasian languages were spoken.
There were also several languages of unknown affiliation (such as Kassitic). References:
Diakonoff 1988; Henry 1992; Nissen 1988.
Another scenario, proposed by Martin Bernal, associates the final disintegration of
the Afroasiatic parent language with the Khartoum Mesolithic and locates the latest
Afroasiatic homeland in modern-day Sudan. Bernal (1980:4) notes that "archeological
evidence from the Maghreb, the Sudan, and east Africa [makes it seem] permissible to
postulate that at least three branches of Afroasiatic existed by the eighth millennium
[BCE]". Thus, he (1980:13) dates the breakup of Proto-Afroasiatic to no later than about
8,000 BCE, after which there was a rapid expansion outward in all directions.
Bernal (1980:17) further notes that "[t]he earliest evidence of the Khartoum
Mesolithic comes from the East African Rift Valley in Kenya and Ethiopia". The
precursor of the Khartoum Mesolithic seems to have been the Kenya Capsian culture,
which began as far back as 20,000 years ago. This implies that the earliest homeland of
Pre-Proto-Afroasiatic is to be sought in Ethiopia, and 3ernal (1980:46-59) proposes just
such a scenario (I will quote at length):

(p. 46) During the late Ice Age the proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed a fishing culture
by the lakes of the Kenyan and Ethiopian Rift Valley. This culture also dominated tef,
ensete 'rid some pennisata. The first division, for which there is no archeological
evidence, was that of the proto-Omotic speakers, who moved northwest, either to their
present territory in the Ethiopian mountains south of the Blue Nile or, more likely, to the
grasslands of the Upper Nile, from which they moved to their present home, as the former
became heavily forested at the beginning of the Holocene. The split occurred sometime
between the fourteenth and the eleventh millennia.
The "explosion" took place in the ninth millennium when some Afroasiatic
speakers moved north into the mountains and then to the Blue and White Niles above
Khartoum on the edge of the rainforest. Others went northeast down the Awash Valley to
the sea and later to Asia (see below). Still others moved out of the Kenya Rift mainly to
the east, as the west was becoming heavily forested. The archeological record of this is
the spread of the Khartoum Mesolithic and the Kenya Capsian to the northwest and that
of the East African Wilton microlithic tools to the east.
Some degree of linguistic and cultural uniformity was maintained during the
eighth and seventh millennia, and it was during this period that herding, milking, and
possibly tooth avulsion spread back throughout the Afroasiatic "world". During the
following millennia, unity was broken by the expansion of the desert and the growing
importance of other linguistic groups, notably the Nilo-Saharans...

(p. 49) The final problem in the expansion of Afroasiatic is that Of the Semitic branch.
Although several authorities continue to acc,pt the hypothesis that the Ethiopian Semitic
languages are descended from the language of south Arabian conquerors of the first
millennium BC or from earlier Asiatic influence, none have replied to the substance of the
arguments put forward by Fleming, Hudson, and Murtonen in favor of an African origin...
Not merely does the hypothesis of an Ethiopian origin fit well with most modern schemes
of Afroasiatic development, but the linguistic diversity among Ethiopian Semitic
languages is wider and deeper than that between the Asiatic ones, even when one takes
into consideration the greater time depths of the latter.
The extraordinary differences between the Gurage languages spoken within a
radius of 50 miles and having undoubted contact with, and loans from, one another
suggests diversification over a very long period. This region at the northern end of the
Rift would seem a plausible Semitic Urheimat. Such an area would correspond well with

29
31
the picture of an agricultural stock-rearing and non-desertic culture drawn by Franzaroli
on the basis of the common Semitic lexicon (1975:43-51). With climatic changes of the
ninth millennium, I postulate an expansion northward down the Awash Valley to Eritrea
and Djibouti which after some time led to the division of North and South Ethiopic.
Before attempting to describe the Asiatic branch of Semitic, I shall propose a
hypothetical sequence of events that would explain the present and historically known
distribution of Ethiopian languages. The first stage ... is that of Semitic expansion
northward during the ninth and eighth millennia; the second is the Agaw migration west.
No date is postulated for this, but the great linguistic diversity among Agaw languages
indicates that it could be as early as the third millennium. Stage three is the Amharic
movement south at the end of the first millennium AD. The latest move is that of the
Oromo, which started in the sixteenth century. The major problem with this scenario is
that it does not explain why Amharic should be closer to the Southern Ethiopic languages
than to the northern ones (Hetzron 1975:114-117)...
At some time in the eighth millennium, probably but not necessarily before the
differentiation of North and South Ethiopic, Semitic speakers crossed the Bab al Mandeb
into Arabia. Like the Sahara, the Arabian desert now had enough rainfall to become
savannah capable of supporting big game and cattle. This situation is indicated by rock
paintings in the southern Hejaz. Pictures of cattle and herders are frequent, even in sites
deep in the Rub al Khali. There would seem to be no difficulty in placing the beginning
[of] Anati's hunting and pastoral age in the eighth millennium. His "Radaf Style", which
comes late in the sequence, shows striking resemblance to pottery decoration from the
Amratian period which flourished in the fifth millennium (Anati 1972:40-42; Arkell
1975:41)...

(p. 57) The hypothesis I propose then, is that Semitic was the branch of Afroasiatic that
went through Ethiopia to Arabia during the climatic optimum before 7000 BC. Proto-
Semitic FdeAkers hunted, herded, and possibly planted sorghum in Arabia. One indication
of the ',acte. is that the African plant seems to have been in India by the mid-second
millennium BC (Shaw 1976:124). On the other hand, no sickles have been found in
association with the Eridu and Ubaid pottery in Arabia (Burkholder 1972:264-269). It is
more probable that Eridu culture began when the Arabian herders and African
agri culturalists took on southwest Asian agriculture, possibly from the Samarra culture.
Des .ccation seems to have begun in Palestine sometime after 7000 BC (Smith 1976:169).
It is also likely that the Upper Gulf started to become dry sooner than other areas more
exposed to monsoons. This process would have been a powerful incentive to go into the
Mesopotamian marshes and begin irrigation agriculture in the late seventh millennium.
With the desiccation of the following millennia, Arabia became much less important,
though it continued to support sheep and goat herding nomads who traded with and
periodically raided nearby agricultural settlements. By contrast, irrigation agriculture in
Mesopotamia led to urbanization and a huge increase in population. It seems to have
been impetus from this society that led to the Ubaid domination of Assyria and Syria,
though Hurrians remained in the north.
Linguistically, the pattern seems to be as follows: "Asiatic" is probably opposed
to "Ethiopic" Semitic, though it could be a subbranch of North Ethiopic. The whole
situation is greatly complicated by the fact that one is not merely dealing with a branching
tree but also with repeated "waves" leaving isoglosses cutting across "genetic"
boundaries. There is also the problem of outside influences, notably that of East and
Central Cushitic on Ethiopian Semitic and Sumerian on Akkadian...
With the migration into Mesopotamia, there seems to have been a division
between Northern and Southern Asiatic. The descendants of the latter are Early and
Modern South Arabic. The genetic relationship has been obscured by the undoubted
contact between the former and North Ethiopic during the first millennia BC and AD and
the contact with (Northern) Arabic during the latter. The earliest example of Northern
Asiatic is Eblaite, which was spoken, or at least written not only in Syria but as far east as

30

32
 in Khamazi in what is now Kurdistan (Garbini 1978:256). It was not, however, dominant
in Mesopotamia, where there was Akkadian. This was a "creole" or mischsprache,
produced by over a thousand years of Sumerian domination (see above). It is this
creolization that explains the striking differences from the rest of Semitic. However, as
well as being a mischsprache, Akkadian is apart from Ebiaite the oldest known
Semitic language. This antiquity would seem to explain its "special" relationship with
Ge`cz. Hetaon's "central Semitic languages", Canaanite, Arabic, and Aramaic would
appear to be descendants of proto-North Asiatic Semitic. However, constant and close
contact has caused so many linguistic waves to cover them that it is impossible to work
out their genetic relationship to each other or to Eblaite.

The implications of Bernal's views are enormous. Though his views are highly
speculative, they are by no means implausible. Should they turn out to be true, it would
give substantial weight to the argun....its that Afroasiatic is to be viewed as a sister
language to Proto-Nostralc rather than a descendant.

Kartvelian: At the present time, the Kartvelian (also called "South Caucasian")
languages are located in the Republic of Georgia, except for Laz, which is spoken in
Lazistan, Turkey. Georgian has the most speakers, while Svan is the most conservative.
As is to be expected by its more archaic nature, Svan was the first language to
split from the rest of the Kartvelian speech community (Georgian, Mingrelian, and Laz).
According to Gamkrelidze- Machavariani (1982:23-24), Klimov, using glottochronology,
has dated this split at 2,000 BCE. The next split was between Georgian and Laz-
Mingrelian (together called "Zan"), which has been dated at 800 BCE. This chronology
would mean positing a rather shallow time depth for the Kartvelian family, implying that
undifferentiated Proto-Kartvelian is to be dated no earlier than about 3,000 BCE.
However, in view of the apparent contacts between Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-
European (cf. Gamkrelidze 1966, 1967, and 1970:141), Proto-Kartvelian must have been
roughly contemporaneous with Proto-Indo-European, which would imply an earlier date.
Therefore, I very hesitatingly suggest a date of around 5,000 BCE for Proto-Kartvelian. It
is certain, at the very least, that Kartvelians were in their current location by that date.
Nichols (1993:47-51, §6.2) speculates that Pre-Kartvelian originated in Central
Asia, Dear Pre-Indo-European, and that it spread westward along a southern route below
the Caspian Sea, eventually reaching its present location, where it stayed.

Uralic-Yukaghir: There is general agreement about the homeland of Uralic Decsy

(1990:9), for example, places the Uralic proto-language "in the Forest-Zone-Steppe-
Border (mainly north of it) between the Volga Bend in Eastern Russia and the Ob River
in Western Siberia" (see also Hajdit [1972:17-23] for a discussion of the Uralic homeland
and [1975:30-40] for both Uralic and Finno-Ugrian; see also Collinder [1965:28-30]).
The date at which the unified Uralic parent language is thought to have been
spoken is usually given as approximately 4,000 BCE, while bringing in Yukaghir pushes
that date back another millennium or so and moves the homeland slightly to the east.
Nichols (1993:38, §5.1, and 47-51, §6.2) also sees Pre-Uralic as having spread westward
and northward from Central Asia, slightly just ahead of the westward movement of Pre-
Indo-European. Pre-Uralic took a more northerly route, while Pre-Indo-European took a
more southerly route directly across the steppes.

31

33
 A number of scholars have claimed that Indo-European and Uralic are more
closely related to each Other than either of them is to any other language or language
family, while others have claimed that Uralic and Altaic are particularly close, even going
so far as to set up a Ural-Altaic language family. The Ural-Altaic hypothesis is generally
no longer supported by specialists in the field. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis, however, may
indeed have some validity. I would very, very tentatively set up an Indo-Uralic subbranch
within Eurasiatic, suggest that Indo-Uralic be located in Central Asia not far from the
Aral Sea, and place the date of Indo-Uralic at around 7,000 BCE. This is definitely an
area that requires additional research. We will close by citing Collinder's (1965:29-30)
tantalizing remarks:

As we shall see later, Uralic and Indo-European seem to have several words in
common. If these words were borrowed from Common Indo-European, the speakers of
Common Uralic must have been the neighbors of the speakers of Common Indo-
European. If we account for them by assuming that Uralic and Indo-European are
interrelated, we arrive at the conclusion that the Uralians and the Indo-Europeans once
had a common Urheimat. Both alternatives imply that the Indo-Europeans lived to the
north of the Black Sea, and the Uralians lived to the north of them.

Elamo-Dravidian: Proto-Dravidian may be dated at approximately 5,000 BCE

Zvelebil (1970:18), for instance, notes that by 4,000 BCE, Dravidian had already started
to break up into different dialect groups, Brahui being the first group to split off from the
main speech community (note: the dates proposed by Pejros-Shnirelman [1988] are far
too shallow [for example, they place Proto-Elamo-Dravidian at the 5th-4th millennia
BCE], considering that Elamite is already attested as a separate language in written
records [so-called "Proto-Elamite" assumed to be Elamite but as yet undeciphered] as
early as the Jemdet Nasr period, that is, around 3,000 BCE [cf. Reiner 1969:56], though it
is not until considerably later, after the adoption of cuneiform by the Elamites, that
abundant records begin to appear [the earliest document in cuneiform is the so-called
"Treaty of Naram-Sin", which is dated at just before 2,200 BCE]). At the present time,
the overwhelming majority of Dravidian languages are located in the southern half of the
Indian subcontinent and in the northern part of Sri Lanka, though a few outliers are found
to the northwest and northeast of the main body of Dravidian languages Brahui, for
instance, is spoken in the Qalat, Hairpur, and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan (plus a
smaller number of speakers in Iran and southern Afghanistan), while Kurux is spoken in
the districts of Bihar, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh, and Malta near the borders of Bihar
and West Bengal (cf. Zvelebil 1970:15-18; Ruhlen 1987:136-137). We may note in
passing that the inscriptions of the Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilization may have been
written in an early Dravidian language (cf. Fairservis 1992:14-23 and Parpola 1994; but
see also Zide-Zvelebil [eds.] 1976 for a critical assessment of earlier Soviet attempts to
decipher the Indus Valley script).
David McAlpin (1981) has presented convincing evidence for a genetic
relationship between Elamite and Dravidian, and the majority of scholars now accept this
view (though there are still some holdouts!). I will suggest a date of 8,000 BCE for
Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, though a bit later (say, 7,000 BCE) is also possible. Elamite,
which is now extinct, was located primarily in southwestern Iran, in the vicinity of the
Zagros mountains as well as the adjacent plains of Khuzistan and to the south along the
coast of the Persian Gulf. There is good reason to believe that Elamite once occupied
nearly all of the Iranian plateau.
Pejros-Shnirelman (1988) accept the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. They argue for
a "western origin" of the Dravidian languages "somewhere in the Middle East". After the
disintegration of Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, "the Dravidian languages could begin to spread
eastwards to South Asia". Though, as noted above, their dating is questionable, the
scenario they propose for the spread of Dravidian languages into India is plausible. Thus,
the Elamo-Dravidian homeland may be placed roughly in western and central modern-day
Iran at about 8,000 BCE. Elamo-Dravidian gradually spread eastward covering all of the
Iranian plateau and extending into modern-day Pakistan and northwestern India. There
was then an east-west split, with Proto-Elamite developing in the western area and Proto-
Dravidian developing in the eastern area. Thus, the Dravidian homeland may be placed
in Pakistan and northwestern India and dated at about 5,000 BCE, from which Dravidian
languages spread southward into India proper. The invasion of Indo-Aryans (occurring in
several phases during the period of about 1,700-1,400 BCE [cf. Burrow 1973:30-34])
drove the Dravidians further south and severed the geographical links between Brahui,
Kurux, and Ma lto and the main body of Dravidian languages.
Pejros-Shnirelman (1988) correlate the movement of the Dravidian languages into
India with archeological evidence of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. After surveying
faunal and floral terminology in Central-Southern Dravidian languages, they discuss
agricultural and stock-raising terminology. This combined evidence confirms a high level
of agriculture in West-Central India by about 2,000 BCE. They associate this area and
culture with the homeland of Central-Southern Dravidian. This is the region from which
Central-Southern Dravidian languages spread eastward and southward. They also note
that the archeological evidence as well as linguistic reconstructions indicate that arable
farming was widespread in the western South Asian regions already by the late third
millennium BCE and that both the "Harappans and the Chalcolithic inhabitants of Central
India and Maharashtra kept goats, sheep, humped cattle, buffalc -;s, pigs, and dogs".
Neolithic settlements in Iran (Tepe Ganj Dareh, for example) have been dated to
before 7,000 BCE. The dwellings from this period were constructed of sun-dried mud
bricks, and the inhabitants herded goats and produced lightly-fired pottery. In the 5th and
4th millennia BCE, the settlements had grown to large towns Susa had already been
established (Susa was the capital of Elam). At that time, the western part of Iran was
under the influence of the Ubaid and Uruk cultures of Mesopotamia. Though it is
probably safe to say that an early form of Elamite was the language of western and
southern Iran (and most likely well to the east) by this time, Caucasian languages were
spoken in the northwest of Iran on into modern- ay Turkey (as evidenced by the later
Hurrian and Urartean). By the 3rd millennium BCE, there were several Bronze Age
cultures in Iran. In the west and south, the Elamite kingdom had been established it
lasted until it was destroyed by the Assyrians in 640 BCE. As noted above, the earliest
"Proto-Elamite" inscriptions date to this period. To the north of Elam, in what is
currently central and western Iran, the Giyan culture was flourishing it lasted nearly a
thousand years. Another noteworthy cultural center (at sites such as Sharh-i Sokhte and
Tepe Yahya) existed in southeastern Iran, not far from the Indus Valley (Harappan)

33
Civilization. In the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, Persian tribes began invading
from the northeast, and, by 1,200 BCE, they had conquered nearly all of Iran.
The India-Pakistan cultural area is enormous and has always been heterogeneous
even at present there is tremendous variety. In the 3rd millennium, Baluchistan and
northwestern India were part of the vast Mesopotamian-Iranian-Indus Valley cultural
complex. Copper-working agriculturalists were living in well-built villages. Trade routes
were thriving. By 2,500 BCE, the Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilization was well-
established it extended over most of Baluchistan, north well into Punjab, and south as
far as the Gulf of Cambay. Indo-Aryan tribes began invading from the northwest at about
1,700 BCE. Given the geography, claims that the Indus Valley inscriptions were written
In an early form of Dravidian are likely to be true. Reference: Dani-Masson (eds.) 1992.

Altaic: At the present time, Altaic languages cover an enormous territory, beginning
with Turkey in the west; stretching eastward across the Russian Federation and the
republics of Central Asia in the middle and across nearly all of northern Siberia;
encompassing all of Mongolia, parts of northern, northwestern (Xinjiang) and
northeastern China (Manchuria); reaching down into the Korean peninsula; and ending
far to the east in Japan. The spread of Turkic and Mongolian languages across vast
stretches of Eurasia has occurred within the past two millennia the first westward
forays of Altaic tribes began with the Huns, going as far back as Roman times (Nichols
[1993] gives a good overview of the spread of Turkic and Mongolian languages; see also
Menges 1968:16-53). (Manchu-)Tungus languages were once more widely spoken but
have lost considerable ground fairly recently.
In the middle of the first millennium BCE, Turkic tribes were concentrated in the
vicinity of modern-day Mongolia and just to the north, while Mongolian tribes were
immediate neighbors to the east, south, and southeast. Tungus tribes were to the north
and northeast. Indo-European languages covered most of Central Asia (Iranian) and parts
of Xinjiang (Tocharian). To the extreme northeast were Chukchi-Kamchatkan peoples.
Prior to their expansion westward, Altaic-speaking people had lived for millennia in the
area delimited above in small pastoral nomadic tribes, apparently freely Intermingling
with one another.

Others:

1. Sumerian, which is now extinct, was spoken in southern Mesopotamia (modern-day

Iraq), extending from Babylon in its northernmost limits to the tip of the Persian Gulf
in the south. From the time of the earliest texts, several dialects can be distinguished,
the most important of which was Emesal, most probably "women's speech", which
Boisson (1992:434-435) argues was more conservative than the main dialect, Emegir.
The earliest Sumerian inscriptions date from around 3,100 BCE, though the oldest
intelligible texts date from about 2,600 BCE, and the language was probably still
spoken as late as the 3rd century BCE. The Sumerian writing system was based
exclusively on the cuneiform syllabary, which exhibits several marked stages of
development over the course of Sumerian literary history. After about 1,900 BCE,
 Akkadian (a Semitic language) began to replace Sumerian in letters and
administrative texts, though Sumerian continued to be used in cultic and literary texts.

2. The Chukchi-Kamchatkan family includes the following languages: Chukchi,

Koryak, Kerek, Alyutor, and Kamchadal (also called Itelmen or Itelmic). Koryak,
Kerek, and Alyutor are extremely close as a group, and these, in turn, are close to
Chukchi. Kamchadal, which is now on the verge of extinction, stands apart from the
others. The Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages arc found in the extreme northeast
corner of Siberia in the Chukota and Kamchatka peninsulas. Though written
languages were developed for Chukchi, Koryak, and Kamchadal in the 1930's, only
Chukchi is still being used in publications and education.

3. Gilyak (also called Nivkh) is usually considered to be a single language, but the two
main dialects, namely, the Amur dialect, on the one hand, and the Sakhalin (or
Eastern) dialect, on the other, are not mutually intelligible. Of the two, the Sakhalin
dialect is the more archaic. The Gilyaks .0:e found on the lower reaches of the Amur
River and on Sakhalin Island. Though a written lmguage was developed for the
Amur dialect in the 1930's, next to nothing has appeared in it.

4. As the name implies, Eskimo-Aleut has two branches: Eskimo and Aleut. The Aleut
dialects are mutually intelligible. However, this is not the case with the Eskimo
dialects. Two main Eskimo dialect groups are distinguished, namely, Yupik and Inuit
(also called Inupiaq). Yupik speakers are concentrated in southwestern Alaska,
beginning at Norton Sound and extending southward along the western and southern
coz...As and inland. An extremely small enclave of Yupik speakers is found in
northeastern Siberia as well the result of a fairly recent migration. Inuit speakers
are found north of Norton Sound all the way to the northern coast of Alaska and
extending eastward across all of the northernmost parts of Canada and on into
Greenland. Aleut is spoken on the Aleutian Islands and the Commander Islands.

Nostratic: Now that we have surveyed the homelands and/or present locations of the
Nostratic daughter languages, we are in a position to try to determine the probable
homeland of Nostratic itself. Before beginning, however, let us quote what Aaron
Dolgopolsky, John C. Kerns, and Henrik Birnbaum have to say about Nostratic in
general, about its structure, about its dating, and about its homeland this will set the
stage for what follows.
First, Dolgopolsky (1994:2838):

The [Nostratic] parent language had, most probably, an analytical grammatical

structure with a strict word order (sentence-final predicate; object preceding the verb;
nonpronominal attribute preceding the head; a special position for unstressed pronouns)
and with grammatical meaning expressed by word order and auxiliary words (e.g.,
postpositions: *nu for genitive, *ma for marked accusative, and others). In the
descendant languages this analytic grammar evolved towards a synthetic one. The
phonological system (reconstructed by V. Illich-Svitych (1971-84) and A. Dolgopolsky
(1989) in the framework of a Nostratic historical phonology) included a rich
consonantism (with threefold opposition of voiced/voiceless/glottalized [ejective] stops
and affricates, with three series of sibilants and affricates, with lateral obstruents,

35

37
 laryngeal, pharyngeal, and uvular consonants), and a vowel system of 7 vowels. The
ancient Nostratic parent language seems to have existed in the pre-neolithic period (up to
ca. 15,000 or 12,000 BC) somewhere in southwest Asia. But most descendant proto-
languages (e.g., Proto-Indo-European) existed during the neolithic period (with
agriculture and husbandry, resulting in a demographic explosion, which can explain their
spread ;hroughout Eurasia and the northern half of Africa).

John C. Kerns (Bomhard-Kerns 1994:153-156) is considerably more specific, not

only about the location of the homeland of Nostratic but also about the pre. neolithic
environment existing at the time. Therefore, we will quote him at length:

I believe that Nostratic languages did not exist except as a part of Dene-
Caucasian until the waning of the Wt1rm glaciation, some 15,000 years ago. At this time
the glacial ice began a rapid retreat all along the Northern fringe of Eurasia. In Europe,
the effect was particularly dramatic, where the ice had been piled to impressive heights
with moisture received from the Atlantic. Huge lakes developed from the melt water,
particularly in the lowlands of Southern Russia, and new rivers were eroded into being, to
both feed and drain the lakes, and to drain the Northern slopes of Eurasia as they came
into view. As the new lands emerged, sub-Arctic winds whipped up the dust of rocks,
which had been ground by the movements of glacial ice, and carried it Southward into the
newly emerging forests. Most of the dust was deposited in the valleys near rivers,
forming the basis of the fertile loess soils that later proved so attractive to early Neolithic
farmers with their techniques of slash and burn and their casual herding of domesticated
animals. These people included the Chinese in Asia, and also the Indo-Europeans in the
Balkans and later in Central Europe with the Linear Pottery expansion around 5000 BCE,
and in the lands radiating Northward and Eastward from there.
By 10,000 BCE, the Northern half of Eurasia and North America had been
transformed. Formerly glacial and sub-Arctic lands were now temperate forests; only the
Circumpolar fringe was still Arctic or sub-Arctic. The great herds of large Arctic
mammals had been replaced by more solitary game, and fish abounded in the lakes and
streams. People of (ultimately) Aurignacian ancestry adapted their equipment and
techniques to take advantage of the new opportunities. The small-blade stone working of
the Aurignacians and their successors was refined and elaborated to provide a varied
array of new tools and weapons by setting these "microliths" in handles of wood or antler.
Greater use was made of bows and arrows (with microlith tips), and dogs were used in the
hunt and for food. Fishing industries were established in the rivers and lakes, and
particularly in the Baltic, involving nets, boats and bait lines.
As always in hunter-gatherer societies, mobility was at a premium. Canoes were
used for water travel and snow shoes and sleds were developed for overland travel in
winter. The conditions were favorable for the rapid spread of tribes and their new
linguistic family over immense distances. This expansion, which is called Mesolithic, is
indicated archaeologically by microliths found all along Northern Eurasia and Southward
through the Caucasus into the Near East, where it later developed smoothly into the
Neolithic with its domestication of cereals and of animals suitable for food and fibers.
The Mesolithic culture is aptly named, for it provided a gradual though rapid
transition between the Upper Paleolithic and the agricultural Neolithic. There was, in
fact, a steady advance in man's ability to control and exploit his environment. This point
is brought out by Grahame Clark (1980).
The more I study the matter, the more I am convinced that the spread of the
Nostratic speaking peoples was occasioned by the spread of the Mesolithic culture, for it
occupied the right positions in time and space, and its characteristic features are
compatible with the residual ':abulary of the Nostratic families it was the last of the
pre-agricultural eras in Eurasia.

36

38
 Was the culture unilingual? I believe it was, in origin, though by the time the
culture had spread into the more extreme areas North Africa and Eastern Eurasia and
North America -- it had broken up into a catenation of mutually unintelligible, though
closely related, languages, some of which eventually became ancestral to new linguistic
families, including those comprising the Northern Nostratic sub-phylum we observe
today. One reason for assuming a unitary origin is that certain features of vocabulary and
morphology are shared between Eskimo-Aleut and Indo-European that occur only
vestigially in the intervening families. This includes the heteroclitic declension. It also
includes a few items of shared vocabulary such as Eskimo (Yupik) alla 'other' and ingne
`fire' (with a velar nasal in the first syllable). The paucity of such correspondences is
analogous to the vestigial retention of radioactive atoms after the lapse of several half-
I ives.
Here, ingne is particularly interesting. It reminds us of Latin ignis 'fire'. The
vowel in the first syllable is controversial since the corresponding vowels in the
Lithuanian and Sanskrit words are respectively u- and a-, which cannot be reconciled with
the Latin form or with each other by the accepted rules of phonological correspondence.
This suggests that the ancestral word in Nostratic had the velar nasal in the first syllable,
preserved it. Yupik but perhaps lost sometime during the prehistory of Indo-European.
Bomhard informs me that some Indo-Europeanists (cf. Ernout-Meillet 1979:308) have
suggested that the Latin form may come from an earlier *psnis, with a syllabic nasal in
the first syllable.
I believe that the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its
beginning in or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus, with a slightly later
northern extension into Southern Russia in intimate association with woods and fresh
water in lakes and rivers. From these positions, it had ready access to the lower Danube
and the Balkans (Indo-European), to the Caucasus (Kartvelian), south of the Caucasus
into Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa (Sumerian and
Afroasiatic), eastward into Central Siberia (Elamo-Dravidian), and northward and thence
eastward along the Circumpolar fringe (Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi-Kamchatkin,
Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut). In the process of its expansion, it undoubtedly effected a
linguistic conversion of many tribes of Dene-Caucasian or other origin; this accounts for
the fact that non-Nostratic languages in Eurasia in historic times have been found mostly
as relics in mountainous regions. Exceptions are Chinese and the now moribund or
extinct Ket, which, together with Hattie and Hurrian, probably represent post-Nostratic
reemergences of Dene-Caucasian speakers from their relict areas.
The Nostratic dispersion probably began at least 15,000 years ago, giving ample
time for a plethora of eccentric linguistic developments unrecorded in history. By historic
times i.e., as late as the nineteenth century in many instances the primordial features
have been much diluted and transformed. Only by viewing the entire macrofamily
holistically can we gain some idea of the features of the original Nostratic language; the
importance of Indo-European in this is crucial in that it serves as an intermediate link,
linguistically as well as geographically, between Kartvelian, Sumerian, and Afroasiatic on
the one hand, and the Circumpolar group (Uralic-Yukaghir to Eskimo-Aleut) on the other.
Besides, Indo-European seems to be fairly conservative in its syntactic system, its
nominal declension, its pronouns, and its vocabulary in general.
At last we return to the issue I raised at the beginning of this section: Why does
Indo-European resemble Afroasiatic in phonology and vocabulary, but the Circumpolar
group in syntax and morphology? If the foregoing scenario is correct, or nearly so, it
suggests that the Nostratic dispersal began almost as soon as its unity was formed; this is
the inevitable result of the peripatetic activities of hunter-gatherers in an expansive
situation. If we assume that the speakers of pre-Indo-European remained in the
neighberhood of the Caucasus to a fairly late period (say 7500 BCE), with Afroasiatic
already extending through Palestine into Egypt and eventually into the rest of North
Africa, but with its Semitic branch still situated in Northern Mesopotamia high on the
 upper slopes of the Fertile Crescent, we would have an explanation for the similarity of
vocabulary. That this proximity existed to a late period is suggested by shared words for
field, bull, cow, sheep, and goat, animals which were then being domesticated in the
Fertile Crescent. In addition, shared words for star and seven suggest a common
veneration for that number and perhaps a shared ideology. This is speculative, of course,
but if it is true it suggests an association that was social as well as geographical.
Meanwhile, the Circumpolar families were developing in a situation that was
geographically and environmentally separate. Here, the Mesolithic way of life has been
maintained continuously to recent times; any impulses toward agriculture have been late,
and except for the Finno-Ugrians, they all have been received from non-Indo-European
sources. The linguistic developments have been equally idiosyncratic. In all of these
families the SOV word order and associated morphological principles of early Indo-
European have been retained except where subjected to alien influences in more recent
times, and they have been maintained with special purity in Altaic and Elamo-Dravidian,
which may well have been of Siberian origin. In vocabulary, they show little in common
with Indo-European or Afroasiatic except at a strictly pre-agricultural level.
In Uralic-Yukaghir, the linguistic idiosyncrasy is particularly marked. While the
syntax and a considerable part of the morphology are basically conservative, the latter has
been extended to an astonishing degree in several languages. But the most striking
peculiarity of this family is the remarkable simplification that has developed in its
consonantal system (reminiscent of Tocharian in Indo-European), and in the paucity of
the Nostratic vocabulary that it has retained. It suggests a long isolation along the North
Siberian fringe in the neighborhood of tribes not yet converted to Nostratic speech, for
these features are less prominent in the other families of this group.
By the same token, it also suggests that the similarities shared by Uralic with
Indo-European, or Eskimo-Aleut are very likely to have been features of the original
Nostratic since borrowing among these groups is excluded by their mutual isolation until
much more recent times. Although the similarities are few as discernible at this late date,
they are sufficiently striking that they are unlikely to have been due to independent
developments.

Finally, the following quote is what the well-known Slavicist Henrik Birnbaum
has to say about the Nostratic Hypothesis in general and about the Nostratic homeland in
particular (Birnbaum 1992:25):

If, in conclusion, I were to indicate my own position with regard to the still
highly controversial issue of Nostratic, I would have to say that I have no difficulty in
accepting the notion of a Nostratic macrofamily of languages comprising at least the six
language families envisioned by Illili-Svity6 and Dolgopol'skij. However, my
understanding rf such a macrofamily -7 and similar considerations would presumably
apply to other large-scale language groups elsewhere in the world would not, and
could not, be based exclusively on evidence of genetic relationship as defined above.
Linguistic macrofamilies (such as the one we term Nostratic) must, I submit, be viewed as
the tangible result of both genetic relationships resulting from divergence and structural
adjustments reflecting convergent trends in linguistic evolution. Consequently, and in
line with some of the views propounded by Baudouin de Courtenay, Polivanov, and
Trubeckoj, I would consider it fairly realistic to hypothesize a once actually spoken
Nostratic ancestral language. Presumably, this language was characterized by a degree of
inner cohesion comparable to what, mutatis mutandis, we can assume to have been the
case with, say, Common Baltic or, possibly, Anatolian in their chronological and
substantive development from Proto-Indo-European. And perhaps, if the heartland of
Proto-Nostratic, as just qualified, is indeed to be identified with an area encompassing
Transcaucasia, eastern (and southern) Anatolia, as well as the upper reaches of the Tigris
and Euphrates, it would not be to far-fetched to assume secondary Indo-European

38

ctV
 protohomes in territories closer to the Black Sea, namely in the Pontic Steppe region, in
northern and western Anatolia, and in parts of the Balkan Peninsula. This would further
provide at least a point of departure for a reasonable explanation for the early settlement
of the Greeks in mainland Greece and the archipelagos of the Aegean; for the formation
of a secondary if not tertiary Indo-European core area focused in the Baltic region;
and possibly even for the yet largely opaque earliest moves of Celtic tribes throughout
Western, Central, and Southeastern Europe.

In my opinion, Kerns has hit the nail on the head (Bomhard-Kerns 1994:155): "I
believe that the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its beginning in or
near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus". Let us now reexamine the evidence
from the Nostratic daughter languages and see how it leads to this conclusion.
The Indo-European homeland was most likely to the north of and between the
Black and Caspian Seas. However, Nichols has convincingly argued that Pre-Indo-
European originated in Central Asia and later spread westward to the North Pontic/Steppe
zone that was the geographical location where Proto-Indo-European proper developed,
where it began to split up into different dialect groups, and from which its descendants
spread into Europe, the Iranian plateau, and northern India. Likewise, again as argued by
Nichols, Pre-Uralic may be presumed to have originated in Central Asia and to have
spread westward, following a more northerly route than Pre-Indo-European. Thus, it is
likely that the Eurasiatic parent language was located in Central Asia and that it is to be
dated roughly at about 9,000 BCE. This would mean that the eastern Eurasiatic
languages (Altaic, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut) must have spread
eastward from Central Asia (more specifically, the area traditionally called "Western
Turkestan") to their prehistoric homelands. Nichols has also speculated that Pre-
Kartvelian may have originally been located in Central Asia, from which it spread
westward along a southern route below the Caspian Sea to the Caucasus Mountains. The
Elamo-Dravidian homeland may be placed roughly in western and central modern-day
Iran and dated at about 8,000 BCE. Finally, the homeland of Afroasiatic may be placed
in the Middle East in the Levant and dated at about 10,000 BCE. Working backwards
geographically and chronologically, we arrive at the only possible homeland for Proto-
Nostratic, namely, "the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus".
Thus, the following scenario emerges: The unified Nostratic parent language may
be dated to between 15,000 to 12,000 BCE, that is, at the end of the last Ice Age it was
located in the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus (see Map 4). Beginning around
12,000 BCE, Nostratic began to expand, and, by 10,000 BCE, several distinct dialect
groups had appeared. The first to split off was Afroasiatic. One dialect group spread
from the Fertile Crescent to the northeast, eventually reaching Central Asia sometime
before 9.u00 BCE this was Eurasiatic. Another dialect group spread eastward into
western and central Iran, where it developed into Elamo-Dravidian at about 8,000 BCE.
If Nichols is correct in seeing Pre-Kartvehan as having migrated from Central Asia
westward below the Caspian Sea to the Caucasus, this would seem to imply that Pre-
Kartvelian had first migrated northeastward from the Fertile Crescent along with or as
part of Pre-Eurasiatic, that it stopped somewhere along the way, and that it then returned
to the Middle East. The early dispersal of the Nostratic languages is shown in Map 5.
 Analysis of the linguistic evidence has enabled us to determine the most likely
homeland of the Nostratic parent language, to establish a time-frame during which Proto-
Nol,tratic might have been spoken, to date the disintegration of Nostratic, and to trace the
early dispersal of the daughter languages. To round out the picture, let us now correlate
the linguistic &fa with archeological data. During the last Ice Age (the so-called "Wtirm
glaciation"), which reached its zenith about 18,000 to 20,000 years ago, the whole of
northern Eurasia was covered by huge sheets of ice, while treeless steppe tundra stretched
all the way from the westernmost fringes of Europe eastward to well beyond the Ural
Mountains. It was not until about 15,000 years ago that the ice sheets began to retreat in
earnest. When the ice sheets began melting, sea levels rose dramatically, and major
climatic changes took place temperatures rose, rainfall became more abundant, all
sorts of animals (gazelles, deer, cattle, wild sheep, wild goats, wild asses, wolves, jackals,
and many smaller species) became plentiful, and vegetation flourished. Areas that had
formerly been inhospitable to human habitation now became inviting. Human population
increased and spread outward in all directions, exploiting the opportunities created by the
receding ice sheets. New technologies came into being toward the end of the last Ice
Age, hunter-gatherers had inhabited the Middle East, living either in caves or temporary
campsites. As the Ice Age began coming to an end, more permanent settlements started
to appear, and there was a gradual transition from an economy based on hunting and
gathering to one based on cultivation and stock breeding. This was the setting in which
Nostratic arose. Nostratic was indeed at the right place and at the right time. The
disintegration of the Nostratic parent language coincided with the dramatic changes in
environment described above, and Nostratic-speaking people took full advantage of the
new opportunities.
Roaf (1990:18) has an interesting map showing the spread of agriculture in the
ancient Middle East and beyond (see Map 6; see also Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:257 and
Guilaine [ed.] 1989:118). It is striking how closely this map matches the early dispersal
of Nostratic languages as shown in our Map 4, though the time-frames are different
the language spread seems to have preceded the spread of agriculture by about three
millennia, at least in Central Asia. It is tempting to speculate that the spread of
agriculture may have been facilitated by the cultural contacts that seem to !- _ye been
maintained among the speakers of the early Nostratic daughter languages (for more
discussion, see the following section on Eurasiatic). There is, however, one very
important exception, namely, the spread of agriculture into and throughout Europe, which
could not have been in any way connected with the early dispersal of the Nostratic
daughter languages, since Nostratic languages do not appear in Europe until a much later
date. In what follows, I would like to offer a proposal to account for this.
Nostratic-speaking people were not the only population group in the Middle East
at the time that the dramatic changes described above were taking place. To the north, in
Anatolia and the Caucasus, were very early Caucasian-speaking people (as evidenced by
the later Hattic, Hurrian-Urartean, and, perhaps, Gutian [so Diakonoff 1990:63] in
Anatolia), and these people were also active participants in the "Neolithic Revolution"
and the consequent development and spread of agriculture and stock breeding. I suggest
that these were the people responsible for the spread of agricultur to Europe, not early
Nostratic-speaking people and definitely not Indo-Europeans as suggested by Renfrew. I
further suggest that it was the migration of these ancient Caucasian-speaking
agriculturalists into the Balkans that gave rise to the civilization of "Old Europe" (on Old
Europe, see Paliga 1989). Thus, we can plot two distinct migrations into Europe: the
earliest, which crossed from Anatolia into the Balkans and then spread northward into
Europe, began about 10,000 years ago. I am proposing tha : this migration was by
Caucasian-speaking agriculturalists. The second, which came from the Russian steppes
and spread westward into Europe, began about 6,000 years ago. This migration was by
Indo-European-speaking horsemen. As a result of this migration, Indo-European
languages gradually replaced all of the earlier languages of Europe except for Basque.

Eurasiatic: In the preceding section, I stated that the Nostratic dialect group which
developed into Proto-Eurasiatic spread from the Fertile Crescent to the northeast,
eventually reaching Central Asia sometime before 9,000 BCE. At the time of their arrival
in Central Asia, the climate of the area was too dry to support primitive agriculture it
w.s not until the eighth millennium BCE that climatic conditions significantly improved.
Therefore, we would expect to find no traces of agriculture in this region before this date,
and indeed there are none. Nonetheless, there is evidence for early trade and cross-
cultural contacts between northeastern Iran, Central Asia, and the Fertile Crescent dating
as far back as Mesolithic times (cf. V. Sarianidi 1992:112-113). Moreover, in
northeastern Iran, on the southeastern shores of the Caspian Sea, there is evidence that
wild goats and sheep were hunted as early as the twelfth and eleventh millennia BCE, and
these were among the first animals to be domesticated. The earliest known Neolithic
remains in northeastern Iran go back to about the seventh millennium BCE. B' `he sixth
millennium BCE, Neolithic culture had spread northward into Central A. the
Neolithic settlement patterns and technology (pottery, agriculture, stock breeding, etc.)
appearing in this area were clearly imported from the Middle East (di Cavalli-Sforza et
al. 1994:198). On the basis of this information, we may surmise that the earliest
Nostratic-speaking people to appear in Central Asia were Mesolithic hunter-gathers, not
agriculturalists, though agriculture and stock breeding slowly followed. Even after the
introduction of agriculture, there is evidence of different cultural traditions co-existing in
the region, as noted by Sarianidi (1992:126):

The culture of Neolithic agricultures and of cattle-breeders of Iran, Afghanistan and

Soviet Central Asia shows that a transition to the forms of economy, usually termed the
`Neolithic Revolution', took place here almost simultaneously with similar developments
in western Asia. A new way of life is clearly represented here by comfortable houses with
accurate trimming of interiors, bright ceramics and wide use of ornaments. This
qualitative leap in social development prepared the necessary base for the creation of
ancient civilizations. At the same time inequalities in the course of historical
development become clear: the ancient tribes of Iran and southern Turkmenistan passed
to the new forms of economy, while in other areas of Soviet Central Asia and northern
Afghanistan the transition was delayed. Tribes of hunters, fishers and food-gatherers,
maintaining many archaic features in their culture, were contemporary with sedentary
communities in oases. The lines of cultural links that emerged during the Palaeolithic
epoch not only keep their importance but also become stronger a fact which played an
important role in the diffusion of cultivating cereals and of cattle-breeding.

41

43
8. Problem Areas

A. The Problem of Altaic:

As noted by Merritt Ruh len (1987:128):

The study of the Altaic family has had a long and stormy history, and even today there is
considerable disagreement among specialists over exactly which languages belong to the
family.

The similarities between what has come to be known as the "Altaic" languages
were recognized over two and a half centuries ago by the Swedish military officer Johann
von Strahlenberg, who published a work on the subject in 1730. The famous Danish
scholar, and one of the founders of Indo-European comparative grammar, Rasmus Rask
also conducted research into these languages as well as Flkimo, several Uralic languages,
and what have sometimes been called the "Paleosiberian" languages. In the middle of the
last century, important work was done by the Finnish linguist Matthew Alexander
Castren. It was another Finnish scholar, Gustav John Ramstedt (cf. Poppe [1965:83-85]
for a sketch of Ramstedt's life), who really put Altaic comparative linguistics on a firm
footing. Ramstedt published many important studies, culminating in the publication
(1952-1957) of his two-volume magnum opus (in English translation) Introduction to
Altaic Linguistics. A few of the many scholars who have made significant contributions
to Altaic linguistics are: Pentti Aalto, Johannes Benzing, Erich Haenisch, Shiro Hattori,
Wladyslaw Kotwicz, Samuel E. Martin, Karl H. Menges, Roy Andrew Miller, Antoine
Mostaert, Gyula (Julius) Nemeth, Jerry Norman, Martti Rasanen, Andras ROna-Tas,
Andrew Rudnev, Aurelien Sauvageot, Boris A. Serebrennikov, Denis Sinor, John C.
Street, Vilhelm Thomsen, Vera Ivanovna Tsintsius (Cincius), Boris Yakovlevich
Vladimirtsov, and others too numerous to count, including several Russian, Korean, and
Japanese scholars. One of the most prominent Altaic scholars of this century is the
Russian-born Nicholas Poppe, who has published numerous books and articles, including
(in English translation) Khalkha-Mongolian Grammar (1951), Introduction to Mongolian
Comparative Studies (1955; reprinted 1987), (in English translation) Comparative
Grammar of the Altaic Languages (1960; only Part I appeared), Introduction to Altaic
Linguistics (1965), and Grammar of Written Mongolian (third printing 1974). The most
noteworthy recent work (1991) is the monograph by the highly respected Russian linguist
Sergej A. Starostin entitled (in English translation) The Altaic Problem and the Origin of
the Japanese Language. Strong opposition to the Altaic Hypothesis has been expressed
by several reputable scholars, perhaps the most vocal being Gerhard Doerfer and Gerard
Clauson. At the Workshop on Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology held
at Stanford University from 28 July through 1 August 1987, the consensus of the Altaic
panel was that "we found Proto-Altaic, at best, a premature hypothesis and a
pragmatically poor foundation on which to build a sustained research program" (cf. Baldi
[ed.] 1990:479; the quotation is from the "Summary Report of the Altaic Panel" prepared
by J. Marshall Unger). Finally, we may note in passing that Illich-Svitych also made a
couple of important contributions to Altaic linguistics.
 Traditionally, Altaic has included the core groups (Chuvash-)Turkic, Mongolian,
and (Manchu-)Tungus, to which some have tried to add Korean, Japanese-Ryukyuan, and
Ainu. Looking at just the core group, one is hard-pressed to find features common to all
three. There are, to be sure, common features between (Chuvash - )Turkic and Mongolian
on the one hand and between Mongolian and (Manchu-)Tungus on the other, but there
appear to be relatively few features common to (Chuvash-)Turkic and (Manchu-)Tungus
alone. All three are, in fact, similar in structure, but this has been considered by some to
be strictly a typological characteristic. The common features found between the members
of the core group have been explained as due to diffusion, and, for a good portion of the
common lexical material, this seems to be a valid explanation. There are, however,
features common (pronouns, to cite a single example) to the members of the core group
as a whole that cannot be explained as due to diffusion, and which do indeed point to 1
some sort of genetic relationship. The problem is in trying to define the nature of that
relationship. Two explanations are possible: (1) The shared features are due to common
descent from Proto-Nostratic and do not imply a closer relationship between the three. In
this scenario, (Chuvash-)Turkic, Mongolian, and (Manchu-)Tungus turn out to be three
independent brancl es of Nostratic. (2) The shared features are due to descent from a
common Altaic parent language intermediate between Proto-Nostratic and each of the
core group members. The problem with the first explanation is that it merely shifts the
question back to the Nostratic level without resolving a thing, whereas the second
explanation keeps the focus exactly where it belongs, namely, on the core group. The
second alternative thus remains a viable hypothesis. I would unhesitatingly include the
following groups within the Altaic language family: (Chuvash-)Turkic, Mongolian,
(Manchu-)Tungus, and Korean, while Japanese-Ryukyuan appears to be made up of an
Altaic element that has been superimposed on an Austronesian substratum. The shared
features between (Chuvash-)Turkic, Mongolian, and (Manchu-)Tungus may be looked
upon as due to common descent from an Altaic parent language. Language change over
time has gradually led to increasing differentiation between each of the three core group
members, while diffusion, especially lexical diffusion, has tended to complicate the
picture and has made it difficult to differentiate between that which is borrowed and that
which is inherited.
The whole question of Altaic unity has recently been reexamined by Roy Andrew
Miller (1991). Miller addresses and convincingly demolishes objections that have been
raised by those opposed to setting up an Altaic language family, and he concludes his
paper by listing a number of important tasks that must be undertaken by Altaicists to
redirect "Altaic historical-linguistic studies back into the mainstream of comparative
linguistics". The new book by Sergej Starostin (1991) attempts to clarify many of the
issues surrounding the problems associated with setting up an Altaic language family,
including the relationship of Korean and Japanese to the other Altaic language groups.

B. The Origin of Etruscan:

In spite of several heroic efforts, Etruscan has never been convincingly shown to
be related to any known language or language family. This applies as well to recent
attempts by Russian scholars to establish a connection between Etruscan and Northeast
Caucasian (cf. Orel-Starostin 1990). And yet, there are some important clues as to the
origin of Etruscan, and these need to be looked at in a new perspective, but, first, a few
introductory comments ought to be made.
Etruscan was spoken in central Italy, with the largest concentration of speakers
being in the region now known as Tuscany. It is now generally accepted that Etruscan
was an indigenous language of Italy and not a recent importation. The first written
documents date from the 7th century BCE, while the latest date from the first century CE,
which is probably not far beyond the time that Etruscan became extinct. Etruscan was
usually written from right to left in an alphabet based mostly on Western Greek models.
Though approximately 13,000 Etruscan inscriptions have been found, the overwhelming
majority of them are extremely brief. The phonological system was simple: There were
only four vowels, namely, a, e, i, u, and the consonant system distinguished a relatively
small number of phonemes and lacked a voicing contrast in stops. Syntactically, Etruscan
word order was SOV.
Looking closely at Etruscan, it is clear that it contains unmistakable Nostratic
elements, including the personal pronouns mi "I", and mini "me", the demonstrative
pronouns eca, ca "this" and ita, to "this", and several lexical items such as, for example,
ma0 "honey, honeyed wine" (cf. Proto-Indo-European *medihiu "honey, mead"; Proto-
Finno-Ugrian *mete "honey"; Proto-Dravidian *mattu "honey, nectar, toddy" [Bomhard-
Kerns 1994:665-666, no. 543]), apa "father" (cf. Indo-European: Gothic aba "man,
husband"; Proto-Afroasiatic *lab- "father, forefather, ancestor"; Proto-Dravidian *appa-
"father"; Proto-Altaic *aba "father"; Sumerian a-ba, ab, ab-ba "father" [Bomhard-Kerns
1994:572-573, no. 440]), hanOin "in front of (cf. Indo-European: Hittite hanti "facing,
frontally, opposite, against", hanza "in front"; Sanskrit anti "in front of, before, near";
Afroasiatic: Egyptian hnt "face, front part; in front of' [Bomhard-Kerns 1995:554, no.
414]), pi (also pul) "at, in, through" (cf. Indo-European: Gothic bi "about, over;
concerning, according to", Old English bi, be "[of place] near, in, on, upon, with,
along, at, to; [of time] in, about, by, before, while during; for, because of, in consideration
of, by, by means of, through, in conformity with", Sanskrit [with prefix] a-bhi "to,
towards"; Afroasiatic: Proto-Semitic *bal*bi "in, with, within, among"; Sumerian bi
"with, together with, in addition to" [Bomhard-Kerns 1994:218-219, no. 23]), tev- "to
show, to set" (cf. Proto-Kartvelian *dew-l*dw- "to lay, to put, to place, to set"; Sumerian
dh "to do, to make; to build; to set up, to establish" [Bomhard-K erns 1994:276, no. 90]).
There is also a pronoun 0i, whose meaning is unknown, but which resembles the
Nostratic 2nd singular personal pronoun. That Oi may, in fact, have been the 2nd singular
personal pronoun finds support in the verbal 2nd person imperative endings -ti, -0, -0i.
But, there is more. The declensional system is blatantly reminiscent of Indo-European,
and verb morphology, though poorly known, also exhibits Indo-European characteristics.
There are five noun stem types (cf. Georgiev 1981:232-233): (A) stems ending in -a,
with genitive singular in -as or -as; (B) stems ending in -i, with genitive singular in -is,
-ias, or (rarely) -alas; (C) stems ending in -ai, with genitive singular in -ias or -alas; (D)
stems ending in -u, with genitive singular in -us; and (E) consonant stems, with genitive
singular in -as or (later) -s. These correspond to similar stem types in Indo-European.
Moreover, the genitive singular in -s is typically Indo-European. Etruscan also had an
archaic genitive in -n (-an, -un), which corresponds to the Indo-European genitive plural
in *-om (also with long vowel: *-Om < *-o-om). In demonstrative stems, the accusative
ends in -n, and this also has a correspondence with the Indo-European accusative singular
ending *-om. The locative in -ti, -0(i) has parallels in Anatolian (Hittite ablative singular
-az, -aza [z = Its/], instrumental singular -it; Luwian ablative-instrumental singular -ati;
Pa laic ablative-instrumental singular -at; Lycian ablative-instrumental singular -edi, -adi)
and in other Nostratic languages in the Uralic ablative ending and the Elamo-Dravidian
oblique/locative ending (see above, §6D). There are also Indo-European elements in the
vocabulary, a few examples being: Etruscan -c "and" (cf. San3krit -ca "and", Latin -que
"and"), sem9 "seven" (cf. Latin septem "seven", Sanskrit sapta "seven"), tin "day,
Jupiter" (cf. Sanskrit dina-m "day", Old Church Slavic dbnb "day"), and tiu, tiv-, tiur
"moon, month" (same stem as in Sanskrit divasa-h "heaven, day", divya-12 "divine,
heavenly, celestial", etc.), Oam- "to build, to found" and tmia "place, sacred building"
(same stem as in Latin domus "house, home; dwelling abode", Sanskrit dama-h "house,
home", Greek Sep) "to build, to construct"), an (ana, ane, anc, ananc) "he, she" (cf.
Sanskrit demonstrative stem ana- "this", Hittite demonstrative annis "that, yonder",
Lithuanian demonstrative alias "that one [over yonder] "), car-, cer- "to make, to build"
(cf. Sanskrit karati "to do, to make, to perform, to accomplish, to cause, to effect, to
prepare, to undertake, to work at, to build" [Pokorny 1959:641-642 *leer- "to make, to
form"]). neri "water" (cf. Sanskrit narah "water", Narmada the name of a river). These
give no indication of being borrowings. The following may be a borrowing: nefts, neft,
nefig "grandson" (< Latin nepos "grandson").
These and other similarities are discussed in detail in recent articles by Adrados
(1989:363-383) and Woudhuizen (1991:122-150). Adrados draws the conclusion that
Etruscan is an archaic Indo-European language and that it is particularly close to the
languages of the Anatolian branch. Woudhuizen reaches a similar conclusion. The
conclusions reached by Adrados and Woudhuizen are sober and persuasive, and,
therefore, I am strongly inclined to accept their views. The following hypothesis may be
proposed: Etruscan was one of the first branches to separate from the main Indo-
European speech community. Coming from Central Europe, pre-Etruscan Indo-
Europeans migrated westward and eventually settled in Central Italy. These intruders
may be equated with the Rinaldone culture, which dates from around 2,700 BCE and
which contains unmistakable Indo-European cultural elements. We may assume that they
imposed their speech and culture upon non-Indo-European people. It is this non-Indo-
European substratum that has left a trace in the Etruscan lexicon, and which has made it
difficult to ascertain the fundamentally Indo-European character of Etruscan. The
similarities that several scholars have seen between Etruscan and the Anatolian languages
are real and can be accounted for by assuming that both became separated from the main
speech community at about the same time and that, therefore, they represent a more
archaic stage of development than that found in later stage languages such as Greek,
Italic, Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Albanian, and Armenian, which remained
in close geographical proximity for a longer period of time and which, consequently,
shared many common developments as a group. References: Bonfante 1990; Bonfante-
Bonfante 1983; Georgiev 1979 and 1981:229-254 (these works must he used with
caution); Pfiffig 1969.
Future research must be directed toward testing the validity of the conclusions
reached in this section, especially in light of the growing body of literature on Nostratic.

C. The Placing of Sumerian:

Sumerian shares a number of interesting lexical parallels with other Nostratic

languages (these are listed in several papers by Boisson and in Bomhard-Kerns 1994:195-
714), including some core vocabulary items such as pronominal stems, though there are
important differences here as well. Thus, Sumerian may be an ancient Nostratic
language. In a number of privately-circulated papers, Claude Boisson has explored
lexical parallels between Sumerian and Dravidian, while Anumugam Sathasivam (1965),
in an unpublished manuscript, has tiled to show that Sumerian is related to Dravidian.
Though I have very tentatively accepted a modified version of Sathasivam's (and
Boisson's) theories, placing Sumerian as a sister to Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, I am not
entirely satisfied with this arrangement. True enough, Sumerian has an agglutinating
morphological structure, as do Elamite and Dravidian, and the nominal case endings, for
example, are, in reality, bound postpositions in both Sumerian and Elamo-Dravidian.
However, Sumerian is sufficiently different from both Elamite and Dravidian to make me
think that it may be an independent branch of Nostratic, perhaps one of the earliest to
separate from the main speech community.
Before beginning, we should give a brief sketch of Sumerian grammatical
structure, noting first and foremost that, even after more than a century of intensive study,
there is still not widespread agreement among experts in the field on many fundamental
questions of Sumerian grammar. Nevertheless, the overall structure is clear. Three word
classes were distinguished: (A) nouns, (B) verbs, and (C) adjectives. Even though
grammatical gender in the strictest sense did not -xist, nouns fell into two classes,
namely, animate and inanimate, which were only distinguished in the 3rd person actor
verbal and possessive pronoun affixes and in the relative pronoun. Ten cases (genitive,
absolutive, ergative, dative, locative, comitative, terminative, ablative-instrumental, and
equative [in nouns] plus subject case [in pronouns oinlv1) and two numbers (singular and
plural) were distinguished. The plural was indicated by means of the suffix -ene, which
was used only with animate nouns, or by reduplication. In later texts, the plural could
also be indicated by the form hi-a, which was used with inanimate nouns and which was
originally an independent word meaning "mixed, various, unspecified", or by -me-e§,
which was properly the enclitic copula with plural suffix. Sumerian differentiated
between ergative and absolutive in nouns. In pronouns, however, the patterning was that
of a nominative-accusative system. Sumerian verbs were formed by adding various
prefixes and/or affixes directly to the verbal root, which was itself invariable. Verbal
constructions fell into one of two categories, namely, finite forms or non-finite forms.
Finite verbal stems distinguished three conjugational types: (A) the intransitive
conjugation, (B) the transitive hamtu conjugation, and (C) the transitive mard
conjugation. Intransitive forms were noted by means of pronominal suffixes, while
transitive forms were noted by means of either prefixes, suffixes, or both. Syntactically,
the basic word order was SOV.
To illustrate the problems involved in trying to determine the placement of
Sumerian, let us begin by looking at the differences between the case endings
reconstructed for Proto-Elamo-Dravidian by McAlpin (1981:111) with those found in
Sumerian (cf. Thomsen 1984:88-89):

A. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian:

Nominative: *-0
Accusative: *-(
Adessive/ *-akka
Purposive (Dative): (?)
Genitives:
1. Possessive: *-a
2. Adnominal: * -in
3. Oblique/ *-to
Locative

B. Sumerian:

Case Animate Inanimate Prefix Chain

Genitive: -ak -ak

Absolutive: -0 -0
Ergative: -e -e
Dative: -ra -na-, etc.
Locative: -a -17i-
Comitativ e: -da -da -da-
Terminative: -Se -Se -Si-
Ablative-Instrumental: -ta -ta- and -ra-
Equative: -gin7 -gin7

The prefix chain cases require special explanation (I will quote from Thomsen 1984:215
and 219 [for the dative, §431 below]):

§ 423. Some cases, the so-called dimensional cases, can be incorporated in the prefix
chain of finite verbal forms. These cases are: dative, comitative, terminative, ablative,
and locative. In principle the case elements have the same shape as the corresponding
postpositions and only minor changes in writing and pronunchtion occur.
The rank of the case elements in the prefix chain is between the conjugation
prefixes and the pronominal element serving as subject/object mark...

§ 424. Terminology

The case elements of the prefix chain are most often called 'infixes' or 'dimensional
infixes' by the sumerologists. However, since they do not act as infixes in the stem but

47

ziJ
 merely as members of the chain of grammatical elements preceding a verbal root, 'case
elements' or 'case prefixes' are used here as the most appropriate terms.

§ 431. The dative is the only case prefix which has different prefixes for every person...

1.sg. ma- < /mu-a-/ 1.pl. -me-

2.sg. -ra- 241. ?
3.sg.an. -na- < /-n-a-/ 3.pl. -ne-

There are parallels, to be sure, but as many with other Nostratic languages as with
Elamo-Dravidian. The Sumerian ablative-instrumental case ending (inanimate) -ta,
(prefix chain) -ta- agrees with the Proto-Uralic ablative ending *-ta as well as with the
Proto-Elamo-Dravidian oblique/locative ending *-ta. The Sumerian locative case ending
(prefix chain) -ni- is similar to the Proto-Uralic locative case ending *-na, though the
vowels are problematic, and to the Proto-Dravidian locative case ending *-in( / * -il ?).
The Sumerian genitive case ending -ak is similar in form to the Proto-Dravidian dative
case ending *-(k)ku and the Proto-Elamo-Dravidian adessive/locative (dative) *-akka, but
the difference in function is a problem. Moreover, the -na- and -ni- prefix chain case
endings may be somehow related to the oblique-n formations described by John C. Kerns
(cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1994:173-179, §3.5.3.1).
An extremely interesting parallel involves the Sumerian comitative element da
(also -de). As noted by Thomsen (1984:99): "The basic meaning of the comitative is
`with., 'together with', expressing accompaniment as well as mutual action." A particle
*dcil*do, with the basic meaning "along with, together with, in addition to", shows up all
over Nostratic (cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1994:275-276, no. 89). It appears in Kartvelian as a
conjunction: Georgian da "and", Mingrelian do "and", Zan do "and" < Proto-Kartvelian
*da "and". In Afroasiatic, it is found in Chadic: Hausa det "with; and; by, by means of;
regarding, with respect to, in relation to; at, in, during; than"; Kulere tu; Bade da; Tera
ndo; Gidar di; Mokulu ti; Kanakuru do <Proto-Chadic *da "with, and". Elamite has da
"also, too, as well, likewise; so, therefore, consequently, accordingly, hence; thereby,
thereupon". Particularly interesting is Altaic, where this particle functions as a locative
suffix on the one hand, *-da, and as an independent particle on the other, *da "together
with, and, also": Common Mongolian dative-locative suffix *-da > Mongolian -da;
Dagur -da; Khalkha -dv; Buriat -da; Kalmyk -dr, (cf. Poppe 1955:195-199). In Turkic, it
also appears as a locative suffix: Common Turkic *- da / * -da (cf. Menges 1968:110). It
may be preserved in Indo-European in the suffixed particle appearing, for example, in
Sanskrit as -ha and -dhi: so-ha "with" (Vedic sa-dha), i-ha "here" (Prakrit i-dha), ka-ha
"where?", ci-dhi "above, over, from, in"; in Avestan in Oa "here", kuola "where?"; and in
Greek in the locative particle -Ot in, for example, oixo-6t "at home", mi-Ot "where?".
Now let t.s look briefly at verb morphology. McAlpin (1981:122-123) notes that
the Proto-Elamo-Dravidian verbal conjugation "does not survive in Dravidian as a
paradigm". Therefore, we will give the verbal endings as they appear in Middle Elamite,
using, once again, the verb hutta- "to make" for illustration (cf. Reiner 1969:76; Grillot-
Susini 1987:33):
 Person Singular Plural

1 hutta-h hutta-hu (< h + h)

2 hutta-t hutta-ht (< h + 0
3 hutta-§ hutta-id (< h + s'')

McAlpin derives the Elamite 1st sg. ending -h from Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *-H, the 2nd
sg. ending -t from *-ti, and the 3rd sg. ending from *-(V)§. The Proto-Elamo-Dravidian
2nd sg. ending *-ti survives in South Dravidian negative imperatives.
The Sumerian finite verb employs various pronominal elements. These are
described by Thomsen (1984:147, §287) as follows:

The pronominal elements of the finite verbal form refer to the persons involved in the
verbal action. There are two main series with different marks: the prefixes and the
suffixes. A verbal form can have at most one prefix immediately before the verbal root
and one suffix after the verbal root (or, if present, after /ed/), both referring to subject
and/or object. The prefixes are identical with the pronominal elements which under some
conditions occur together with case prefixes...

Thomsen (1984:148-149, §290) lists the following pronominal prefixes:

1.sg. -?- 1.pl. -me-

2.sg. -e- 2.pl. -e ene-
3.sg. animate -n- 3.pl. -ene-
inanimate -b-

The plural pronominal prefixes "are used as dative elements only..., and it is thus more
probable that they are case elements rather than pronominal elements" (cf. Thomsen
1984:148).
There are also two series of pronominal suffixes (cf. Thomsen 1984:152), the first
of which (column A below) marks both the subject of intransitive verbs and the direct
object of transitive verbs, the second of which (column B below) "is used in two-part.
mare forms together with the prefix I-n-/ to denote the 3.pl. ergative subject". In actual
fact, only the 3rd persons singular and plural are different (cf. Thomsen 1984:152).

sg. pl. sg. pl.

1 -en -enden -en -enden

2 -en -enzen -en -enzen
3 -0 -es -e -ene

There is simply nothing here that resembles what is found in Elamo-Dravidian nor, for
that matter, in other Nostratic languages. For a discussion of the etymology of the
pronominal stems, see below.

49
 The Sumerian personal pronoun stems are as follows (the Emesal forms are
shown in parentheses; rgi = /t3/)(cf. Thomsen 1984:68; Boisson 1992:437):

1.sg. 2.sg. 3.sg. 3.pl.

Subject: gci.e za. e e.ne e.ne.ne

(me. e) (ze)
gd-a-ra za-a-ra e. ne -ra e. ne. ne -ra
Dative: gd-a-ar za-a-ar
(ma-a-ra)
Terminative: gci(-a/e)-.se za(-a/e)4e e.ne-Sè e.ne.ne4e
Comitative: -g-ci(-a/e)-da za(-a/e)-dci e.ne-da e.ne.ne-da
Equative ga(-a/e)-gin 7 za(-a/e)-gin 7 e.ne-gin7 e. ne. ne -gin,

The possessive suffixes are (cf. Thomsen 1984:71):

Singular Plural

"my" -me "our"

10

2 -zu "your" -zu. ne.ne, -zu. e.ne.ne,

-zu. ne "your"
3 an. . -a.ni "his, her" a. ne. ne "their"
inan. -bi "its" bi also "their", presumably
collective

Right away, we notice that the Emesal 1st singular forms (subject) me. e, (dative) ma-a-ra
are related to the common Nostratic 1st person personal pronoun stem *mi / *me "I, me"
(cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1984:661-662, no. 540; Illich-Svitych 1971- .11:63-66, no. 299 *mi),
while the 1st plural possessive suffix -me is related to the common Nostratic inclusive 1st
plural personal pronoun stem *ma-l*mo- "we, us" (cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1984:661-662, no.
540; Illich-Svitych 1971- .11:52-56, no. 289 *ma). The 2nd person personal pronoun ze-,
za-, -zu may also be derived from the Proto-Nostratic 2nd person personal pronoun stem
*UV i-l*trqe- "you" (cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1984:285-287, no. 102; Dolgopolsky 1984:87-
89 *t[ii]). assuming affricaiization of the dental before front vowel (similar to what has
happened in Mongolian): *IPIP-I*trqe- > > (*tsi-I) *tse- > ze- /tse-/, etc.
(Sumerian <v = its/ [cf. Boisson 1989:221-226 and 1992:436]). Finally, the 3rd person
forms e.ne and a.ne are related to the demonstrative pronoun ne.en, ne(-e), which is itself
related to the Proto-Nostratic demonstrative stem *na-Isna-, *ni-l*ne-, *nu-l*no- (cf.
Bomhard-Kerns 1984:688-689, no. 570). To account for the beginning vowels in e.ne
and a.ne, Shevoroshkin (cited in Boisson 1992:443) has suggested that these appear "to
be a compound of the demonstrative / personal pronoun of the 3rd person **?i / * * ?a [...]
plus the demonstrative base **n(d)". I agree with Shevoroshkin's suggestion. Though

50
52
widespread in the Nostratic daughter languages, these sterns are lacking in Dravidian
(though see Dolgopolsky 1984 for a slightly different interpretation of some of the
Dravidian material). Zvelebil (1977:40) reconstructs the following personal pronoun
sterns for Proto-Dravidian:

Singular Plural

1 *An : *yan- 'I" (incl.) *yarn : *yam- "we"

(excl.) *nary/ : *nam- "we"
2 *nit? : *nin- "you" *nim :*nitn- "you"
3 *tan : *tan- "he, she, *tam : *tam- "they"
it"

McAlpin (1981:112) begins his discussion of pronouns by making some very important
observations regarding the relationship of the Elamite and Dravidian pronouns:

530.0 The personal pronouns have long been an enigma in the relationship of Elamite to
Dravidian. On the one hand, the second person pronouns provided the morphological
detail first recognized as being cognate... On the other hand, one of them, the first person
plural is still somewhat ambiguous as to its form in PED. For the others, it has been a
long quest, fitting together the morphological pieces. The major breakthrough came with
the realization that the Proto-Dravidian pronouns were not ultimately archaic, but rather a
major innovation in late Pre-Dravidian. The nature of the innovation was the replacement
of the nominative by oblique stems. Thus, Proto-Dravidian pronouns have little to say
directly about the morphology of nominative bases in PED. However, the same forms, in
a different usage, were preserved as personal possessive prefixes in kinship terminology.
This was maintained as a system for a few kin terms in Old Tamil and sporadically in
many other Dravidian languages. Thus, Dravidian does attest the PED system, but not
directly in the paradigm.

McAlpin (1981:112-117) reconstructs the following personal pronoun stems for Proto-
Elamo-Dravidian:

Singular Plural

1
*i *naNKa
2 *ni *nim
3 resumptive *ta(n)
reflexive *

The 1st person singular is to be derived from Proto-Nostratic *?iya 1st person personal
pronoun stem (postnominal possessive/preverbal agentive) found also in Afroasiatic (cf.
Bomhard-Kerns 1984:597-598, no. 470; Dolgopolsky 1984:72, 83, 85-86, 96, and 99-
100), while the 3rd person stem *ta(n) is to be derived from the wide-spread Nostratic
demonstrative stem *t[h./a-/*/[h]o- "this" (cf. Bomhard-Kerns 1984:287 -289, no. 103),
and the Proto-Dravidian 1st plural (exclusive) stem *narn : *nam- "we" is to be derived

51
from the Proto-Nostratic 1st person personal pronoun stem *na-l*no- (cf. Bomhard-Kerns
1984:683-684, no. 564; Dolgopolsky 1984:90-91) this stem may also be the source of
the Sumerian 1st person pronoun /fla-/, but this is uncertain.
To conclude, there is much in Sumerian that points to it being a Nostratic
language we have only scratched the surface in this brief summary (for more detailed
information, see the papers by Boisson cited in the references). However, there are also
many problems that must still be solved regarding the exact nature of that relationship.

9. Concluding Remarks / Future Prospects

In this paper, we have surveyed the evidence for setting up a Nostratic

macrofamily, paying particular attention to Indo-European and how it fits into the overall
picture. We have also discussed several problem areas. The evidence continues to
accumulate to support the Nostratic Hypothesis, and the evidence is massive and
persuasive.
As the twentieth century draws to a close, it is simply no longer reasonable to hold
to the view that Indo-European is a language isolate thirty years have already passed
since Vladislav M. Illich-Svitych and Aaron B Dolgopolsky successfully demonstrated
that Indo-European is related to a several other 1.alguage families of northern and central
Eurasia and the ancient Near East. Since then, not only has this work been continued by
the Russians, it has also been taken up by a number of other scholars in other countries,
who have verified the initial results arrived at by the Russians, who have refined the
methodology, who have greatly expanded the number of cognate sets, who have clarified
issues related to phonology, who have identified additional grammatical formants and
have begun to piece together the early development of morphology in each of the
daughter languages, and who have made great strides in problems of subgrouping. We
have touched upon some of these areas in this paper.
This does not mean that all of the work has been done, however. As shown by the
problem areas listed in this paper (and there are many, many others), much work still
needs to be done, not only at the level of Proto-Nostratic itself but also within each of the
daughter languages. The future prospects are extremely encouraging enough solid
results have already been achieved to lay the foundation for future research, and, to make
matters even more promising, advances in one area will impact other areas as well. The
days are past when scholars could work on problem areas in one language family without
regard to work being done in other language families. Indo-European has relatives, and
these must now be taken into consideration.

52

54
 References

ADRADOS, Francisco R[odriguez]. 1989. "Etruscan as an IE Anatolian (but not Hittite)

Language". Journal of Indo-European Studies 17:3/4.363-383.
. 1992. "The New image of Indoeuropean: The History of a
Ls-volution". Indogermanische Forschungen 97.1-28.
ANTHONY, David W. 1991. "The Archeology of Indo-European Origins". Journal of
Indo-European Studies 19:3/4.193-222.
ANTTILA, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd e.'ition.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
ARLOTTO, Anthony. 1972. Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Reprinted 1981.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
BALDI, Philip (ed.). 1990. Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. Berlin
and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
BARBUJANI, Guido, Andrea PILASTRO, Silvia de DOMENICO, and Colin RENFREW. 1994.
"Genetic Variation in North Africa and Eurasia: Neolithic Demic Diffusion vs.
Paleolithic Colonisation". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 95.137-154.
BENVENISTE, Emile. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europeen. Paris:
Librairie Adrien-Maisonneuve.
. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes. 2 volumes.

Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

BERNAL, Martin. 1980. "Speculations on the Disintegration of Afroasiatic". Paper
presented at the 8th conference of the North American Conference on Afroasiatic
Linguistics, San Francisco, April 1980, and at the 1st International Conference of
Somali Studies, Mogadishu, July 1980.
BIRNBAUM, Henrik. 1977. Linguistic Reconstruction: Its Potentials and Limitations in
New Perspective. Washington, DC: Journal of Indo-European Studies.
. 1992. "Genetic and Typological Approaches to External
Comparison of Languages". Nostratic, Lene-Caucasian, Austric and Amerind, ed.
by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, pp. 10-33. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
BOISSON, Claude. 1987a. "Quelques ressemblances lexicales entre sumerien et
dravidien". Manuscript.
. 1987b. "A Conjecture on the Linguistic Affiliation of Sumerian".
Manuscript.
1988. "Some Sumerian Grammatical Elements in a Nostratic
.

Perspective". Manuscript.
. 1989. "Contraintes typologiques sur he systeme phonologique du
sumerien." Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris LXXXIV/1.201-233.
. "The Sumerian Pronominal System in a Nostratic
1992.
Perspective". Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric and Amerind ed. by Vitaly
SHEVOROSHKIN, pp. 433-461. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
BOMHARD, Allan R. 1984. Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the
Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. (= Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory, vol. 27.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

53
 . 1986. "Common Indo-European/Afroasiatic Roots: Supplement 1".
General Linguistics 26/4.225-257.
. 1988. "The Prehistoric Development of the Athematic Verbal
Endings in Proto-Indo-European". A Lingu! tic Happening in Memory of Benjamin
Schwartz, ed. by Yoel L. ARBEITMAN, pp. 475-488. Louvain-la-Neuve: Publications
Linguistiques de Louvain.
. 1990. "A Survey of the Comparative Phonology of the So-Called
`Nostratic Languages'." Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, ed. by
Philip BALDI, pp. 331-358. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
. 1991. "Lexical Parallels between Proto-Indo-European and Other
Languages". Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea: Memoriae A. J. Van Windekens
(19154 989) Dicata, ed. by L. ISEBAERT, pp. 47-106. Leuven: Peeters.
. 1992a. "Distant Linguistic Comparison and the Nostratic
Hypothesis". FAIES Newsletter II/1 (March 1992).
. "The Nostratic Macrofamily (with Special Reference to
1992b.
Indo-European)". Word 43/1.61-83.
. "Linguistic Methodology and Distant Linguistic
1993.
Comparison". Mother Tongue 20.1-4.
BOMHARD, Allan R. and KERNS, John C. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in
Distant Linguistic Relationship. Berlin, New York, NY, and Amsterdam: Mouton
de Gruyter.
BONFANTE, Larissa. 1990. Etruscan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
BONFANTE, Giuliano and BONFANTE, Larissa. 1983.The Etruscan Language: An
Introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press.
BRIGHT, William (ed.). 1992. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York,
NY, and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BRUGMANN, Karl. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted 1970.
BRUNNER, Linus. 1969. Die gemeinsamen Wurzeln des semitisches and
indogermanisches Wortschatzes. Bern: Francke Verlag.
BUCK, Carl Darling. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-
European Languages. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
BURENHULT, Goran (ed.). i993. People of the Stone Age: Hunger-Gatherers and Early
Farmers. Foreword by Colin P 1?.NFREW. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
BURROW, Thomas. 1973. The Sanskrit Language. 3rd edition. London: Faber & Faber.
BYNON, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
CARDONA, George, HOENIGSWALD, Henry M., and SENN, Alfred (eds.). 1970. Indo-
European and Indo-Europeans. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
CAVALLI-SFORZA, L[uigi] Luca, MENOZZI, Paolo, and PIAZZA, Alberto. 1994. History
and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
CHILDE, V. Gordon. 1926. The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. Reprinted
1987. New York, NY: Dorset Press.
CLARK, Grahame. 1980. The Mesolithic Prelude. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.

54
56
COHEN, David (ed.). 1988. Les langues dans le monde ancien et moderne: langues
chamito-semitiques. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
COLARUSSO, John. "Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-
1992.
Northwest Caucasian". The Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR: Linguistic Studies
(Second Series), ed. by Howard I. ARONSON, pp. 19-54. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Linguistic Society. Reprinted in Mother Tongue 21: 8-20 (1994).
COLLINDER, Bjorn. 1934. In do-uralisches Sprachgut: Die Urverwandtschaft zwischen
der indoeuropaischen and der uralischen (finnisch-ugrisch-samojedischen)
Sprachfamilie. Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska.
.1954. "Zur indo-uralische Frage". Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis
10.79-91.
. 1957. A Survey of the Uralic Languages. Uppsala: Almqvist and
Wiksells.
1960. A Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Uppsala:
.

Almqvist and Wiksells.

.1965. An Introduction to the Uralic Languages. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
. 1977. Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary. An Etymological Dictionary of the

Uralic Languages. 2nd revised edition. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells.

COMRIE, Bernard (ed.). 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
(ed.). 1987. The World's Major Languages. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
1993. Review of STAROSTIN 1991. Language 69/4.828-832.
.

CRAWFORD, Harriet. 1991. Sumer and the Sumerians. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
CUNLIFFE, Barry (ed.). 1994. The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe. Oxford and
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
CUNY, Albert. 1946. Invitation a l'etude comparative des langues indo-europeennes et
des langues chamito-semitiques. Bordeaux: Editions Biere.
DANI, A. H. and MASSON, V. M. (eds.). 1992. History of Civilizations of Central Asia.
Volume I: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO.
DECSY, Gyula. 1965. Einfuhrung in die finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
. 1990. The Uralic Protolanguage: A Comprehensive Reconstruc-
tion. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua.
DIAKONOFF, Igor M. 1965. Semito-Hamitic Languages. Moscow: Nauka.
. 1975. "On Root Structure in Proto-Semitic". Hamito-Semitica, ed.
by James BYNON and Theodora BYNON, pp. 133-153. The Hague: Mouton.
1984. Letter to the Conference regarding recent work in the USSR
.

on the comparative historical vocabulary of Afrasian. Current Progress in Afro-

asiatic Linguistics: Papers from the Third International Hamito-Semitic Congress,
ed. by James BYNON, pp. 1-10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka.
.
 . "Language Contacts in the Caucasus and the Near East".
1990.
When Worlds Collide: Indo-European and Pre-Indo-Europeans. The Bellagio
Papers, ed. by Thomas L. MARKEY and John A. C. GREPPIN, pp. 53-65. Ann Arbor,
MI: Karoma.
. Proto- Afrasian and Old Akkadian: A Study in Historical
1992.
Phonetics. (= Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 4: 1/2.) Princeton, NJ: Institute of
Semitic Studies.
DIAKONOFF, Igor M. (ed.). Early Antiquity. English translation by Alexander
1991.
KIRJANOV. Foreword by Philip L. KOHL, Project Editor. Chicago, IL, and London:
University of Chicago Press.
DIAKONOFF, Igor M. and STAROSTIN, Sergej A. 1986. Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern
Caucasian Language. Munich: R. Kitzinger.
DIXON, R. M. W. 19_0. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DJAHUKYAN, Gevork B. 1967. Vzaimootnaenie indoevropejskix xurritsko-urartskix i
kavkazskix jazykov (Interrelations of the Indo-European, Hurrian-Urartean, and
Caucasian Languages). Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.
DOLGOPOLSKY, Aaron. 1984. "On Personal Pronouns in the Nostratic Languages".
Linguistica et Philologica. Gedenkschrift fur Bjorn Collinder (1894-1983), ed. by
Otto GSCHWANTLER, Karoly REDEI, and Hermann REICHERT, pp. 65-112. Vienna:
Wilhelm Braurntiller.
1989. "Problems of Nostratic Comparative Phonology (Preliminary
.

Report) ". Reconstructing Languages and Cultures, ed. by Vitaly SHEVOROSHKIN,

pp. 90-98. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
1992. "The Nostratic Vowels in Indo-European". Nbstratic, Dene-
.

Caucasian, Austric and Amerind, ed. by Vitaly SHEVOROSHKIN, pp. 298-331.

Bochum: Brockmeyer.
. 1994. "Nostratic". The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,
ed. by R. E. ASHER. volume 5, p. 2838. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
FAGAN, Brian M. 1990. The Journey from Eden: The Peopling of our World. New
York, NY: Thames and Hudson, Inc.
FAIRSERVIS, Walter A. 1992. The Harappan Civilization and Its Writing. A Model for
the Decipherment of the Indus Script. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
FLEMING, Harold C. 1968. "Ethiopic Language History: Hypotheses in an Archeological
and Documentary Context". Ethnohistory XV/4.353-387.
FLEMING, Harold C. 1973. "Sub-classification in Hamito-Semitic". Lexicostatistics in
Genetic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Yale Conference, Yale University, April 3-4,
1971, ed. by Isidore DYEN, pp. 85-88. The Hague: Mouton.
FRANZAROLI. P. "On the Common Semitic Lexicon and its Ecological and
1975.
Cultural Background". Hamito-Semitica, ed. by James BYNON and Theodora
BYNON, pp. 43-53. The Hague: Mouton.
GAMKRELIDZE, Thomas V. 1966. "A Typology of Common Kartvelian ". Language
42.69-83.

56
53
 . 1967. "Kartvelian and Indo-European: A Typological Comparison
of Reconstructed Linguistic Systems". To Honor Roman Jakobson, volume I, pp.
707 -717. The Hague: Mouton.
. 1970. "'Anatolian Languages' and the Problem of Indo-European
Migrations". Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shiro Hattori
on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by Roman JAKOBSON and Shigeo
KAWAMOTO, pp. 138-143. Tokyo: TEC Company, Ltd.
. 1978. "On the Correlation of Stops and Fricatives in a Phonological
System". Universals of Human Language, ed. by Joseph H. GREENBERG, volume 2,
Phonology, pp. 9-46. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
. "Language Typology and Language Universals and Their
1981.
Implications for the Reconstruction of the Indo-European Stop System". Bono
Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns,
ed. by Yoel L. ARBEITMAN and Allan R. BOMHARD, part II, pp. 571-609.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
GAMKRELIDZE, Thomas V. and IvANov, Vjacheslav V. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i
indo-evropejcy: Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologi eeskij analiz prajazyka i
protokurtury (Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and
Historical Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a Proto-Culture). 2 vols.
Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Tbilisi State University.
GAMKRELIDZE, Thomas V. and MACHAVARIANI, Givi. 1982. Sonantsystem and Ablaut
in den Kartwelsprachen. Eine Typologie der Struktur des Gemeinkartwelischen.
German translation by Winfried BOEDER. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
GEORGIEV, Vladimir. 1979. La lingua e I 'origine degli etruschi. Rome: Nagard.
1981. Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages.
.

3rd edition. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

1984. "Die drei Hauptperioden des Indoeuropaischen". Diachronica
.

1/1.65-78.
GIMBUTAS, Marija. 1973. "The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-
Europeans: 3500-2500 B.C." Journal of Indo-European Studies 1/2.163-214.
1975. "An Archaeologist's View of PIE In 1975". Journal of Indo-
.

European Studies 2/1.289-307.

1977. "The First Wave of Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists into Copper
.

Age Europe". Journal of Indo-European Studies 5/4.277-338.

1985. "Primary and Secondary Homeland of the Indo-Europeans:
.

Comments on the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov Articles". Journal of Indo-European Studies

13:1/2.185-202.
. 1989. "The Social Structure of Old Europe". Journal of Indo-
European Studies 17:3/4.197-214.
. 1990. "The Social Structure of Old Europe: Part 2-4". Journal of
Indo-European Studies 18:3/4.225-284.
GREENBERG, Joseph H. 1957. Essa' in Linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
 . "The Prehistory of the Indo-European Vowel System in
1990.
Comparative and Typological Perspective". Proto-Languages and Prato-
Cultures, ed. by Vita ly SHEVOROSHKIN, pp. 77-136. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
. Forthcoming. Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The
Eurasiatic Language Family. 2 volumes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
GRILLOT- SUSINI, Francoise. 1987. Elements de grammaire elamite. Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les Civilizations.
GUILAINE, Jean (ed.). 1989. La prehistoire d'un continent a l'autre. Paris: Larouse.
GURNEY, O[liver] R[obert]. 1990. The Hittites. London: Penguin Books.
HAJDU, Peter. 1972. "The Origins of Hungarian." The Hungarian Language, ed. by
Lorand BENKO and Samu IMRE, pp. 15-48. The Hague: Mouton.
. 1975. Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples. Translated and
adapted by G. F. CUSHING. London: Andre Deutsch.
HEGEDOS, hen. 1992. Bibliographia Nostratica 1960-1990 (A List of Publications on,
or Relevant for Nostratic Studies). Szombathely: Seminar fur uralische Philologie
der Berzsenyi-Hochschule.
HENRY, Donald 0. 1992. From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the
Ice Age. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
HOCK, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd edition, revised
and updated. Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
HODGE, Carleton T. (ed.). 1981. Afroasiatic: A Survey. The Hague: Mouton.
1993. "Indo-Europeans in the Near East". Anthropological
.

Linguistics 35:1/4.90-108. Special issue: A Retrospective of the Journal

Anthrorilogical Linguistics: Selected Papers, 1959-1985. Bloomington, IN:
Departtlent of Anthropology / American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana
University.
HOPPER. Paul J. 1973. "Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European".
Glossa 7.141-166.
. 1977a. "The Typology of the Proto-Indo-European Segmental
Inventory ". Journal of Indo-European Studies 5/1.41-53.
. 1977b. "Indo-European Consonantism and the 'New Look'. Orbis
XXVI/1.57-72.
1981. "`Decem' and 'Taihun' Languages: An Indo-European
.

Isogloss". Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J

Alexander Kerns, ed. by Yoel L. ARBEITMAN and Allan R. BOMHARD (eds.), part I,
pp. 133-142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 1982. "Areal Typology and the Early Indo-European Consonant
System". The Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia, ed. by Edgar C.
PoLorvIE, pp. 121-139. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.
ILLicH-SviTYcti, V [ladislav] M[arkovich]. 1965. "Materialy k sravnitel'nomu slovarju
nostrati&skix jazykov (indoevropejskij, altajskij, ural'skij, dravidskij, kartvel'skij,
semito- xamitskij)" ("Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic
Languages [Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Dravidian, Kartvelian, Hamito-
Semitic]"). Etimologija 1965.321-373.

58

GO
 . 1971- . Opyt sravnenija nostratieeskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij,
indoevropejskij, ural 'skij, dravidskij, altajskij) (An Attempt at a
kartvel 'ski j,
Comparison of the Nostratic Languages [Hamito-Semitic, Kartvelian, Indo-
European, Uralic, Dravidian, Altai*. 3 vols. Moscow: Nauka.
ISSERLIN, B. S. J. 1975. "Some Aspects of the Present State of Hamito-Semitic Studies".
Hamito-Sernitica, ed. by James BYNON and Theodora BYNON, pp. 479-486. The
Hague: Mouton.
JOKI, Aulis J. 1973. Uralier und Indogermanen: Die alteren Beruhrungen zwischen den
uralischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
JONES, Alex 1. 1992. "Language and Archaeology: Evaluating Competing Explanations
of the Origins of the Indo-European Languages". Journal of Indo-European Studies
20:1/2.31-44.
KEILER, Allan R. 1970. A Phonological Study of the Indo-European Laryngeals. The
Hague: Mouton.
KERNS, J. Alexander and SCHWARTZ, Benjamin. 1972. A Sketch of the Indo-European
Finite Verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
KERNS, John C. 1985. Indo-European Prehistory. Cambridge: Heffer and Sons.
KINGDON, Jonathan. 1993. Self-Made Man: Human Evolution from Eden to Extinction?
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
KLIMOV, G. V. 1969. Die kaukasischen Sprachen. German translation by Winfried
BOEDER. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
KORTLANDT, Frederik. 1990. "The Spread of the Indo-Europeans". Journal of Indo-
European Studies 18:1/2.131-140.
KOSKINEN, Kalevi E. 1980. Nilal: Uber die Urverwandtschaft des Hamito-Semitischen,
Indogermanischen, Uralischen und Altaischen. Helsinki: Akateeminen Kirja-
kauppa.
KOSKO, Alexander. 1991. "The Vistula-Oder Basins and the North Pontic Region-.
.Journal of Indo-European Studies 19:3/4.235-257.
KRANTZ, Grover S. 1988. Geographical Development of European Languages. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
KRIPPES, Karl A. 1994. Review of STAROSTIN 1991. Diachronica XU2.272-278.
KUIPERS, A[ert] H. 1975. A Dictionary of Proto-Circassian Roots. Lisse: Peter de
Ridder Press.
LABOV, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.
LAMB, Sydney M. and MITCHELL, E. Douglas (eds.). 1991. Sprung from Some Common
Source. Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
LANDSBERG, Marge. 1986. Materials for a Bibliography of Translinguistic Studies.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
LEHMANN, Winfred P. 1992. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 3rd edition.
London and New York, NY: Routledge.
1993. Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London,
.

Boston, MA, Melbourne, and Henley: Routledge.

LINDEMAN, Frederik Otto. 1987. Introduction to the "Laryngeal Theory". Oslo:
Norwegian University Press.
MAKKAY, J. 1992. "A Neolithic Model of Indo-European Prehistory". Journal of Indo-
European Studies 20:3/4.193-238.
MALLORY, James P. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology
and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
MARKEY, Thomas L. and GREPPIN, John A. C. (eds.). 1990. When Worlds Collide:
Indo-European and Pre-Indo-Europeans. The Bellagio Papers. Ann Arbor, MI:
Karoma.
MARTINET, Andre. 1986. Des steppes aux oceans: I 'indo-europeen et les "indo-
europeens ". Paris: Payot.
MCALPIN, David W. 1981. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and Its Implications.
Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.
ME1LLET, Antoine. 1964. Introduction a l'etude comparative des langues indo-
europeennes. University, AL: University of Alabama Press. Reprint of 8th edition
(1937).
MELLAART, James. 1981. "Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans". Journal of Indo-
European Studies 9:1/2.135-149.
MENGES, Karl H. 1968. The Turkic Languages and Peoples. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
MICHALOWSKI, Piotr. 1992. "Sumerian". International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed.
by William BRIGHT, volume 4, pp. 94-97. New York, NY, and Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
MILLER, Roy Andrew. 1991. "Genetic Connections among Altaic Languages". Sprung
from Some Common Source. Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages, ed. by
Sydney M. LAMB and E. Douglas MITCHELL, pp. 293-327. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
MOLLER, Hermann. 1911. Vergleichendes indogermanisch-semitisches Worterbuch.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Reprinted 1970.
MURTONEN, A[dam]. 1967. Early Semitic: A Diachronical Inquiry into the Relationship
of Ethiopic to the Other So-Called South-East Semitic Languages. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
NICHOLS, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
. 1993. "The Origin and Dispersal of Indo-European". Manuscript.
NISSEN, Hans J. 1988. The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000 - 2000 B.C'.
Translated irom the German by Elizabeth LUTZEIER, with Kenneth J. Nownicurr.
Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.
OREL, Vladimir and STAROSTIN, Sergej. 1990. "Etruscan as an East Caucasian
Language". Proto-Languages and Proto-Cultures, ed. by Vitaly SHEVOROSHKIN, pp.
60-66. Bochum: Brockmcyer.
OREL, Vladimir E. and STOLBOVA, Olga V. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological
Dictionary: Materials .for a Reconstruction. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

60

62
PALIGA, Sorin. "Proto-Indo-European, Pre-Indo-European, Old European
1989.
Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation". Journal of Indo-European
Studies 17:3/4.309-334.
PARPOLA, Asko. 1994. Deciphering the Indus Valley Script. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
PEDERSEN, Holger. 1931. The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the
Nineteenth Century. English translation by John Webster SPARGO. Midland book
edition 1962. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
PEJROS, Ilja I. and SHNIRELMAN, Viktor A. 1988. "In Search of the Dravidian
Homeland". Paper presented at the symposium "Language and Prehistory",
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, November 7-12, 1988. Abstract, "Toward an
Understanding of Proto-Dravidian Prehistory", published in Reconstructing
Languages and Cultures (1989), ed. by Vitaly SHEVOROSHKIN, pp. 70-71. Bochum:
Brockmeyer.
PFIFF1G, Ambros Josef. 1969. Die Etruskische Sprache. Graz: Akademische Druck-
und Verlaganstalt.
POKORNY, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Bern: Francke
Verlag.
POLOME, Edgar C. (ed.). 1982. Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia. Ann
Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.
POPPE, Nicholas. 1951. Khalkha-mongolische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Reprinted
1987. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altdischen Sprachen. Teil I:
Vergleichende Lautlehre. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
.1965. Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 1974. Grammar of Written Mongolian. Third Printing. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz.
PULLEYBLANK, Edwin G. 1965. "The IE Vowel System and Qualitative Ablaut." Word
21:86-101.
RAMSTEDT, G. J. 1952-1957. Einfiihrung in die altdische Sprachwissenschaft. 2
volumes. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
RASMUSSEN, Jens Elmegard. 1987. "The Make-Up of Indo-European Morphology".
Diachronica IV:1/2.107-122.
1989. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grund-
.

sprache. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft.

REINER, Erica. 1969. "The Elamite Language." Altkleinasiatische Sprachen, ed. by B.
SPULER, pp. 54-118. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
RENFREW, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European
Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1991. "Before Babel: Speculations on the Origins of Human
.

Diversity". Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1/1.3-23.

1992. "Archaeology, Genetics and Linguistic Diversity". Man
.

27/3.445-478.
RENFREW, Colin and BAHN, Paul. 1991. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice.
New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, Inc.
ROAF, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East.
Oxford and New York, NY: Facts on File (Equinox Ltd.).
RUHLEN, Merritt. 1987. A Guide to the World's Languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
. 1994. The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother

Tongue. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

SALMONS, Joseph C. 1993. The Glottalic Theory: Survey and Synthesis. McLean, VA:
Institute for the Study of Man.
SARIANIDI, V. 1992. "Food-Producing and Other Neolithic Communities in Khorasan
and Transoxania: Eastern Iran, Soviet Central Asia and Afghanistan". History of
Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume I: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to
700 B.C., ed. by A. H. DANI and V. M. MASSON, pp. 109-126. Paris: UNESCO.
3ATHASIVAM, Arumugam. 1965. Sumerian: A Dravidian Language. Unpublished
manuscript.
SCHMIDT, Karl Horst. 1962. Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der
siidkaukasischen Grundsprache. Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner
GMBH.
SCHWINK, Frederick W. 1994. Linguistic Typology, Universality and the Realism of
Reconstruction. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
SHERRATT, Andrew (ed.). 1980. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology. New
York, NY: Crown Publishers, Inc. / Cambridge University Press.
SHEVOROSHKIN, Vitaly (ed.). 1989a. Explorations in Language Macrofamilies.
Bochum: Brockmeyer.
(ed.). I 989b. Reconstructing Languag.;.). and Cultures. Bochum:
Brockmeyer.
(ed.). 1990. Proto-Languages and Proto-Cultures. Bochum:
Brockmeyer.
(ed.). 1991. Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages. Bochum:
Brockmeyer.
SHEVOROSHKIN, Vitaly and MARKEY, Thomas L. (eds.) 1986. Typology, Relationship,
and Time. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.
SHIELDS, Kenneth. 1982. Indo-European Noun Inflection. University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
.1992. A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology. An. ..trdam
and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
SINOR, Denis. 1988. "The Problem of the Ural-Altaic Relationship". The Uralic
Languages: Descritpion, History and Foreign Influences, ed. by Denis SINOR, pp.
706-741. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
SKOMAL, Susan Nacev and POLOME, Edgar C. 1987. Proto-Indo-European: The
Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem. Studies in Honor of Marija Gimbutas.
Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
STAROSTIN, Sergej A. 1991. Altajsktija problema i proisxo2denie japonskogo jazyka
(The Altaic Problem and the Origin of the Japanese Language). Moscow: Nauka.

62
6.1
STEINER, Gerd. 1990. "The Immigration of the First Indo-Europeans Into Anatolia
Reconsidered". Journal of Indo-European Studies 18:1/2.185-214.
SZEMERENYI, Oswald. 1990. Eiqfilhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 4th
-dition. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
THOMSEN, Marie-Louise. 1984. The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to its History
and Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
TYLER, Stephen A. 1968. "Dravidian and Uralian: The Lexical Outlook". Language
44:4.798-812.
TYLOCH, Witold. 1975. "The Evidence of the Proto-Lexicon for the Cultural
Background of the Semitic Peoples". Hamito-Semitica, ed. by James BYNON and
Theodora BYNON, pp. 55-61. The Hague: Mouton.
VILLAR, Francisco. 1991. Los indoeuropeos y los origenes de Europa: Lenguaje e
historia. Madrid: Gredos.
WATKINS, Calvert. 1962. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. I. The Sigmatic
Aorist. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
WINTER, Werner (ed.). 1965. Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton.
WOUDHUIZEN, Fred C. 1991. "Etruscan & Luwian". Journal of Indo-European Studies
19:1/2.133-150.
ZIDE, Arlene R. K., and ZVELEBIL, Kamil V. 1976. The Soviet Decipherment of the
Indus Valley Script: Translation and Critique. The Hague: Mouton.
ZVELEBIL, Kamil V. 1970. Comparative Dravidian Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.
1977. A Sketch of Comparative Dravidian Morphology. Part I. The
.

Hague: Mouton.
Allan R. Bomhard
73 Phillips Street
Boston, MA 02114-3426
U.S.A.

3 March 1995
 Chart 1: The Nostratic Macrofamily

NOSTRATIC

EURASIATIC

Afroasiatic Sumerian Elamo- Kartvelian Indo-European Uralic- Altaic Chukchi- Gilyak Eskimo-
(?) Dravidian Yukaghir Kamchatkan Aleut

66
 Map 1: The Indo-European Homeland

The shaded area shows the homeland of Indo-European-speaking people at about

5,000 - 4,500 BCE.

67
 Map 2: The Dispersal of the Indo-European Languages

This map shows the approximate area to which Indo-European languages had spread
by the first century BCE.

63
Map 3: The Distribution of Afroasiatic Languages at about 500 BCE

I Chadic
II Egyptian
'1 Berber
Cushitic and
Omotic
Semitic:
1. Phoenician
2. Hebrew
3. Aramaic
4. Akkadian
5. Arabic
6. South Arabian

69
 Map 4: The Nostratic Homeland

This map shows the approximate location of the Nostratic homeland at about 15,000 BCE.

'7 0
 Map 5: The Early Dispersal of the Nostratic Languages

This map shows the approximate areas to which Nostratic languages had spread by
about 8,000 BCE.

7i
Map 6: The Spread of Agriculture (to 5,000 BCE)

III to 8,000 BCE

to 7,000 BCE

72
 Table 1: Nostratic Sound Correspondences

Proto- Proto-Indo- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-

Nostratic European Kartvelian Afroasiatic Uralic Dravidian Altaic Sumerian

b- brill- b- b- p- p- b- b-
-b- -b[9- -b- -b- -w- -pp-/-vv- -b- -b-
p[9_ pp+ p[9_ p[9_ P- P- P- 1)-
_p[9_ _p[h].. _p[h]_ _p[9_ -P- -pp-/-v- -p-/-b- -p-
P'- (P'-) P'- P'-
-p'- ( -p' -) -p'- -P'-

d- d[9- d- d- t- t- d- d-
-d- -d[9- -d- -d- -t- -t(t)- --d- -d-
t[9-- t[h]- t[9- t[h]- t- t- t- t-
-49- 4[9- -t[9- -t[h]- -t(t)- -t(t)- -t- -t-
e- r- e- r- t- t- t- d-
-t'- -t'- -C- -t'- -t- -t(t)- -d- -d-

dr- d[9- 3- dr- tr- c- 3- d-

-dr- -d[9- -3- -dr- -tr- -c(c)- --/-d- -d-
tr[h]- t[9- 49_ tr[h]- tr- c- 6- g-

-tr[9- 4[9- _6[9_ -tr[h]- -t'- -c(c)- -6- 4-

t' Y- t'- C'- t' Y- tY- c- 6- d-
-eY- -t'- -6"- -t' Y- -tYtY- -C(C)- -3- -d-
sr- s- g- sr- sr- C- s- S-

-sr- -s- -§- -sr- -sr- -c(c)-/-y- -s- -s-

3- d[9- 31- 3- 6- c- 3- z-
-d[h]- -3- -.6- -c(c)- 3 - / -d- -z-
-3- -31-
c[9- t[h]_ c[h]i- 49_ 6"- c- e"- s-
-49- 4[9- -c[h] 1- -c[9- -6- -c(c)- -6- -s-
c'- t'- C'1- c'- 6"- C- 6"- z-
-C'- -t'- -c'1- -c'- -6- -c(c)- -3- -z-
s- s- sr s- s- c- s- s-
-s- -s- -sr- -s- -s- -c(c)- s- -s-

r3
Proto- Proto-Indo- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic European Kartvelian Afroasiatic Uralic Dravidian Altaic Sumerian

g-
gm_ g- g- k- k- g- g-
-g- _gm_ -g- -g- -7- -k- -g- -g-
k[h]- k[h]- k[9- k[h]- k- k- k- k-
-k[h].- -k[9- -k[h]- -k[h]- -k(k)- -k(k)- -k-/-g- -k-
k'- k'- k'- k'- k- k- k- g-
-k'- -k'- -k'- -k'- -k- -k(k)- -g- -g-

gY- g[I+ g- gY- k- k- g- g-

-gY- _g [9 _ -gY- -y- -k- -g- -g-
-g-
kY[9- k[h]- k[h]- kY[h]- k- k- k- k-
-kY[9- -k[h]- -k[9- -kY[h]- -k(k)- -k(k)- -k-/-g- -k-
k'Y- k'- k'- k'Y- k- k- k- g-
-k'Y- -k'- -k'- -k'Y- -k- -k(k)- -g- -g-

gw_ gw[h]_ gw/u- gw_ k- k- gu-

g-
_gw[h]_ -gw/u- _gw_ -y- -k- -g- -gu-
kw[9- kw[h]- k[h]w/u- kw[9- k- k- k- ku-
-kw[h]- -101N- k[h]w/ u- -kw[9- -k(k)- -k(k)- -k-/-g- -ku-
k'w- k'w- k'w/u- k'w- k- k- k- gu-
-k'w- -k'w- -k'w/u- -k'w- -k- -k(k)- -g- -gu-

G- g[9_ G- g- k- k- g- g-
-G- _g[h].. -G- -g- -y- -k- -g- -g-
4111_ k[h]- cal+ k[h]- k- k- k- h- (?)
_gm_ -k[h]- _call_ -k[11]- -k(k)- -k(k)- -k-/-g- -h- (?)
q'- k'- q'- k'- k- k- k- g-
-q'- -k'- -q'- -k'- -k- -k(k)- -g- -g-
q' w- k'w- q'w/u- k'w- k- k- k- gu-
_q,w_ -k'w- -q'w/u- -k- -k(k)- -g- -gu-

74
Proto- Proto-Indo- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic European Kartvelian Afroasiatic Uralic Dravidian Altaic Sumerian

ti[h]- k[h]- x- t4[1]- sY- c- k-

-tcl[h]- -x- 41[1- -8- -k- -k-/-g-
tP- SY- t- k- d-
-k'- -ti'- -8Y- -t(I)- -g- -d-

7- 5fi- 0- c- 0- 0- a-
-5- -7fi- -0- -7- -0- -0- -0-
ti- bh- x- ti- 0- 0- 0- h-
-ti- --hh- -x- 41- -0- -0- -0- -h-
?- ?- 0- ?- 0- 0- 0- 0-
-?- -2- -0- -7- -0- -0- -0- -O-
h- h- 0- h- 0- 0- 0- 0-
-h- -h- -0- -h- -0- -0- -0- -0-

Y- y- y-/0- y- y- y - /O- y-
-y- -y- -y- -y- -y- -y-
w- w- w- w- w- v - /O-
-w- -w- -w- -w- -w- -v-

m- m- m- m- m- m- m- m-
-m- -m- -m- -m- -m- -m- -m- -m-
n- n- n- n- n- n-
-n- -n- -n- -n- -n- -n-/-n- -n- -n-
iv- n- n- iv- ii- nY-

-ny- -n- -n- -nY- -13- -nY-

-13- -n- -n- -13- -r1- -13-

1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1-

-1- -1- -1- -1- -1- -1-- -1- -1-

-1Y- -1- -1- -1- -1Y- -1- -1Y-

r- r- r- r- r- r-
-r- -r- -r- -r- -r- -r-/-r- -r- -r-
-0- -r- -r- -r- -rY- -r- -rY-
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Indo-European Kartvelian Afroasiatic

e
e, a, a e, i
u, o u a

e e e a
a a, o, a a a
O 0 o a

iy Ty, ey, I, e, I iy, i ay

ay ey, ay, Ty, I ey, i ay
uy Ty, I, i uy, i ay

ey ey, Ty, e, I ey, i ay

ay ay, oy, Ty, I ay, i ay
oy oy, Ty, I oy, i ay

iw il, uw, il iw, u aw

aw ew, aw, uw, ii ew, u aw
uw U, o, uw, ow, U uw, U OW

ew ew, uw, ii ew, u aw

aw ow, uw, ii aw, u aw
ow 6, ow, ilw, ii ow, u aw

Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-

Nostratic Uralic Dravidian Altiac Sumerian

i i i i,
a e e e e
u u u u, il u

e e c e e
a a, 6. a a a
O 0 0 o, 15 u
Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-
Nostratic Uralic Dravidian Altiac Sumerian

iy iy, i iy, T. i, Y i
ay ey ey, 6 a, i, 1 i

uy uy uy, u i

ey ey, e ey, e ey, 6 e

ay ay, ay ay, a a, i, I e
oy oy oy, 6 e

iw iw iv, I u
3W ew ev, e u
uw uw, u uv, il ti, u u

ew ew ev, 6 u
aw aw, aw av, a 6, 8 u
ow ow, 0 ov, 6 6, o u
 Table 2: The Distribution of Nostratic Pronoun Stems

A. Personal Pronoun Stems

Proto- Proto-Indo- Proto- Proto- Proto- Prato- Proto-

Nostratic European Kartvelian Afroasiatic Uralic Dravidian Altaic Sumerian

*mi-l*me- *me-1 *me-, *ma-I *me *mi ma(-e),

(1st sg.) *mo- *men- *ma- (> *bi) me-a,
me-e

* ma-I* mo- * -me-1 *ma-I *me *ma- -me

(1st pl. incl.) *-mo- *ma- (> *ba-)

*wa-l*wo- *we-1 *wa-1

(1st pl.) *14;0-; *Wa--
*wey-

*na-I *ngni_
* na-I* no- *ne-1
(1st pl.) *no -; *no-
* 11-s-

*rpvi-i*t[hJe- *t[h]li, *t[hJa-1 *te *ti, za-e,

(2nd sg.) *t[hJe- *ta -zu

NOTES:

1. Indo-European: The 1st sg. stem *mi-l*me- is used in the oblique cases (except in the Celtic branch, where
it has spread into the nominative as well); the 1st pl. inclusive stem *ma-l*ma- is preserved in 1st person
plural verb endings; the 1st pl. stem *wa-l*wa- is preserved as an independent 1st person plural pronoun
stem and in 1st person dual and/or plural verb endings; the 2nd sg. reconstructions *tfh_111,*t[h]e- represent
later, Post-Anatolian forms.
2. Kartvelian: The 1st pl. stem *na-l*no- is found in Svan naj "we".
3. Afroasiatic: The 1st sg. stem *rii-l*me- and 1st pl. inclusive stem *ma-l*mo- are found only in Chadic as
independent pronouns; the 1st sg. stem *mi-l*me- serves as the basis of the 1st sg. verbal suffix in Highland
East Cushitic; the 1st pl. stem *wa-l*wo- is found in Egyptian and Chadic (in Egyptian, wy means "I, me").
4. Elamo-Dravidian: The 2nd sg. stem *t[h]i-l*t[hJe- is found in Elamite in the 2nd sg. and pl. verb ending -I
and in Dravidian in the Parji appositional marker -I of the 2nd sg. in pr' ontinalized nouns and as a verb
suffix of the 2nd sg.

78
0
5. Altaic: The 1st sg. stem *mi- has become bi "I" in the Ataic daughter languages, while the 1st pl. stem *ma-
has become ba in Mongolian (= 1st pl. exclusive); the initial *m- is preserved in the oblique cases, however;
the 2nd sg. stem *t[hJi- has become ei "you" in Mongolian.
6. Sumerian: ma(-e), me-a, me-e "I" are Emesal forms; -me is a 1st pl. possessive suffix, "our"; -zu is a 2nd sg.
possessive suffix, "your".
7. Etruscan: The 1st sg. stem *tni-l*me- is preserved in (nominative) mi "I", (accusative) mini "me"; the 2nd
sg. stem may be preserved in the pronoun stem 0i, but this is uncertain since the meaning of the Etruscan
form is unknown however, the 2nd sg. stem *tPlii-l*t[h]e- is clearly reflected in the Etruscan verbal
imperative endings -ti, -0, -0i.
8. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: The pronouns of the 1st and 2nd persons sg. and pl. are as follows in Chukchi:

Singular Plural

1 yam muri
2 yot turf

9. Gilyak: The 1st pl. inclusive stem * ma-l*ma- is preserved in the 1st pl. inclusive pronoun mer "we" (note
also 1st dual megi); the 2nd sg. stem *t[hfi-/*tPiJe- is preserved in the 2nd sg. pronoun ei "you".

9
 B. Demonstrative Pronoun Stems

Proto- Proto-Indo- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-

Nostratic European Kartvelian Afroasiatic Uralic Dravidian Altaic Sumerian

* sa-I* so- *s0- 81- *sa

* t[h Ja-I * rn Jo- *t[h]a-1 *ta, *ta *an- * te-

*t *
(proximate)

*tPlu-1 *1/7110- *t[hJa-1 *to

*t[Vo- * t[h]a-
(distant)

*k[h]a-1 * kNe-, * *k[hJa-1

*k[h]a- *k[h]o-, *kfhia-
*IcP111-

*dYi-l*dYe- *-d[hie *dYa-l*dYa- *01-1*tYe-

*?i-l*?e- *?e-I*?o-; * t -, * e- *e *y_ * r -, * e-

*?ey-1*?oy-I (distant) (proximate) (proximate)

*?i-

*?a-l*?d- *?e-I*?o- *a -, *e- *1- * a-

(proximate) (distant) (distant)

*na-l*na-, * ne-I* no- *na-l*na- *na,*nd ne-en,

*ni-l*ne-, ne(-e)
* nu-I* no- *no

NOTES:

1. Indo-European: The stem *dYi-l*dYe- is only preserved as a suffixed particle *-d[Ve; the stem *ne-l*no- has
a derivative *?e-no-I*?o-no-.
2. Altaic: The stem *tPiJa-l*t[hJa- is used as the distant demonstrative in Altaic: Mongolian (nom. sg.) tere
(< * le-r-e) "that", (nom. pl.) lede "those"; Tungus (Solon) tari "that"; Manchu tere "that".

Li11
3. Sumerian: The demonstrative stem *?i-l*?e- is found in e "hither, here".
4. Etruscan: The proximate stem *t[hia-l*t[hp- is preserved in ita, to "this"; the stem *kPlia-l*k[hp- is
preserved in eca (archaic ika), ca "this".
5. Gilyak: The proximate stem *tPiJa-1*t[h]a- is preserved in (proximate) trd' "this"; the stem *k[hJa-l*kihia-
is preserved in kud' "that".
6. Eskimo-Aleut: The stem *tPlia-l*t[h]a- is preserved in the Inuit (also called Inupiaq) prefix to -, which may
be added to any demonstrative form whose coreferent has already been focused.
 C. Relative and Interrogative Stems

Prom- Proto-Indo- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto- Proto-

Nostratic European Kartvelian Afroasiatic Uralic Dravidian Altaic Sumerian

* [h] *kw[h]e-1 *ki, *ke * ki-, * ke-

*kw[h]e- *

(relative) *kw[h]i-

*kw[h]ci-1 *kw[h]e-1 *k"1-hia-1 *ku, *ko *ki-,*ke-

*kw[h]a- *kw[h]o-1 * kw[h]o-
(interrogative) *kwfiji-

*mi-l*me- *me-l*mo- *mi -, *min- *ma-l*ma- *mi

(interrogative)

*ma-l* * me-I* mo- ma- * in a-I* *mi

(relative)

*yo *ya-_ *ya--

*?ay-, * ?ya- * ?yo- * ? ay (
(relative and
interrogative)

NOTES:

I. Kartvelian: The relative / interrogative stem *Iva- is found in Svan (interrogative) jar "who?", (relative)
jet-14j "who", (indefinite) jer "somebody. something".
2. Altaic: The interrogative stem * mi-l* me- is found in the Turkish interrogative particles mi, mi, mu, mu.
3. Sumerian: The interrogative stem *mi-1* me- occurs in me-na-am "when?", me-a "where?", me -se "where
to?".
4. Chukchi-Kamchatkan: The interrogative stem *mi-l*me- is preserved in meoin "who?".
5. Eskimo-Aleut: The interrogative stem *lovNa-l*kw[Vo- is preserved in the Inuit interrogative pronoun kina
"who?".