Diachronic Interpretation of Nostratic Etymon *wol[a] Based on Proto-Indo-European *(e)wel- (Gr hw- / ew-) and Proto-Altaic *ulu (~ -o) Forms (According to S. A. Starostin’s Version)

  • Y. V. Kapranov Kyiv National Linguistic University
Keywords: Nostratic, Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Altaic forms, comparative-historical method, method of diachronic interpretation, degrees of language relationship

Abstract

The article represents the diachronic interpretation of the Nostratic *wol[a] verified by S. A. Starostin on the Proto-Indo-European *(e) wel- (Gr hw- / ew-) and Proto-Altaic *ulu (~ -o). These data were taken for analysis from the International Etymological Database Project “The Tower of Babel”. The notion of etymon in general and the Nostratic one in particular have been specified. The Nostratic etymon is understood as a phonomorphological and semantic complex that is interpreted based on the reconstructed etymons at the level of every language family.
The following data has been demonstrated: using the comparative-historical method, the etymologist-macrocomparatist performed the external reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European *(e) wel- (Gr hw- / ew-) “great number; to heap” made on Proto-Tocharian *w'ältse; Ancient Greek *ẹ̄́lomai̯ (ẹ̄lómeno, ẹ̄lésthō), *wáli-; Proto-Slavic *velьmi, -ma; *velьjь, *velīkъ; *vālъ, *vālovъ, *vālī́tī; Proto-Baltic *wal-ī̂-, performed with the help of internal reconstruction, as well as the Proto-Altaic *ulu (~ -o) “big, many; good” made on Proto-Turkic *ulug; Proto-Mongol *olon; Proto-Tungus-Manchu *ule-; Proto-Korean *ōr-. The procedural operations of S. A. Starostin performed with the use of the method of diachronic interpretation have been commented. It helped to assume that the Proto-Language forms of etymons at the level of the language family reach the Nostratic *wol[a]. This made it possible to establish and substantiate the degrees of language relationship between the reconstructed etymons of the two language families and the Nostratic etymon: within the Indo-European language family the following degrees have been registered: trivial – between the Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Slavic; notable – between the Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Tocharian, Ancient Greek, Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic; within the the Altaic language family: trivial – between the Proto-Altaic and Proto-Turkic; notable – between the Proto-Altaic and Proto-Tungus-Manchu; distant – between the Proto-Altaic and Proto-Mongol, Proto-Korean.

References

Benfey, Th. (1869). Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie in Deutschland [History of Linguistics and Oriental Philology in Germany]. Munchen.

Bomhard, A. R. (1995). Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis: History of Research, Current Trends, and Future Prospects. Boston, Massachusetts. USA. 82.

Bomhard, A. R. (2015). A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative Linguistics (With Special Reference To Indo-European). 2d Rev., Corr., and Expand. Ed. Charleston, SC. 2258.

Bromage, Т. O., Schrenk, F., Zonneveld, F. (1995). Paleoanthropology оf the Malawi Rift: аn early hominid mandible from the Chiwondo Beds, northern Malawi. J. Hum. Evol. 28. 71–108.

Burlak, S., Starostin, S. (2005). Sravnitelno-istoricheskoye yazykoznaniye [Comparative-historical linguistics. M.: Akademiya. 432.

Curtius, G. (1862). Philologie und Sprachwissenschaft [Philology and Linguistics]. Leipzig.

Curtius, G. (1867). Zur Chronologie der Indogermanischen Sprachforschung [On the chronology of Indo-European language research]. Leipzig.

Dietz, Fr. (1836–1845) Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen [Grammar of Romance languages]. Bonn. Bd. I–III.

Dolgopolsky, A. (1998). The Nostratic Macrofamily & Linguistic Paleontology. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. 116.

Dolgopolsky, A. (2008). Nostratic Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/196512

Gamkrelidze, T. V., Ivanov, Vyach. Vs. (1984). Indoyevropeyskiy yazyk i indoyevropeytsy. Rekonstruktsiya i istoriko-tipologicheskiy analiz prayazyka i protokultury (v dvukh chastyakh) [Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans. Reconstruction and historical and typological analysis of proto-language and protoculture (in two parts)]. Tbilisi: Izd-vo Tbilisskogo un-ta. 1332.

Greenberg, J. H. (1957). Essays in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-06007-000

Heath, J. (2015). The nature and origin of language. Linguistic Typology. 19. 3. 463–468.

Heeringa, W, Wet, F. de, Huyssteen, G. B. van (2015). Afrikaans and Dutch as closely-related languages: A comparison to West Germanic languages and Dutch dialects. Stellenbosch Papers In Linguistics Plus-Spil Plus. 47. 1–18. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5842/47-0-649

Illich-Svitych, V. M. (1971). Opyt sravneniya nostraticheskikh yazykov (semito-khamitskiy, kartvelskiy, indoyevropeyskiy, ural'skiy, dravidiyskiy, altayskiy) [Experience on comparison nostratic languages (Semito-Hamitic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Ural, Dravidian, Altaic)]. Vvedeniye. Sravnitelnyy slovar (V–K). M. III–IV.

Jacques, G. (2017). A reconstruction of Proto-Kiranti verb roots. Folia Linguistica. 51. 177–215. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2017-0007

Jucquois, G. (1996). Macrocomparisons in genetic linguistics – Observations concerning Nostratic. Linguistique. 32. 2. 149–157.

Kartoteka Etimologicheskogo slovarya slavyanskikh yazykov. Lingvisticheskiye istochniki: fondy instituta russkogo yazyka [Card index of the Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages. Linguistic sources: the foundations of the Institute of Russian Language] (1967). pod red. S. I. Kotkova, A. I Sumkinoy. M.: Nauka. 139.

Klimov, G. A. (1988). Rekonstruktsiya i diakhronicheskaya interpretatsiya v komparativistike [Reconstruction and diachronic interpretation in Comparative Linguistics]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya. M. 3. 9–16.

Korolyova, A. V. (2018). Reconstruction of Early Migration Routes of Homo Populations. Logos. Klaipeda. 94. 159–166.

Leakey, L. S. (1964). A New Species of The Genus Homo From Olduvai Gorge. B.: Nature. 202. 4927. 7–9.

Makovskiy, M. M. (1982). Angliyskiye sotsial'nyye dialekty (ontologiya, struktura,, etimologiya) [English social dialects (ontology, structure, etymology)]. M.: Vysshaya shkola. 135.

Melnychuk, A. S. (1991). O vseobshchem rodstve yazykov mira [On the universal relationship of the languages of the world]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya. 2–3.

Menges, Kh. (1989). Nostratic Linguistics – the 1st International-Symposium. Anthropos. 84. 4–6. 569–574.

Mosenkis, Yu. L. (2007). Obshchemirovoy prayazyk: teoreticheskiye osnovaniya rekonstruktsii [World-wide proto-language: theoretical fundamentals of reconstruction]. Proiskhozhdeniye yazyka i kultury: drevnyaya istoriya chelovechestva. 1, 2. 5–9.

Neroznak, V. P. (1988). Prayazyk: rekonstrukt ili realnost? [Proto-Language: Reconstruction or Reality?]. Sravnitelno-istoricheskoye izucheniye yazykov raznykh semey. Teoriya lingvisticheskoy rekonstruktsii. M. 26-43.

Pedersen, H. (1903) Türkische Lautgesetze. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen. Gesellschaft. 57. 535–561.

Pott, A. F. (1844–1845) Die Zigeuner in Europa und Asien. Ethnographisch-linguistische Untersuchung, vornehmlich ihrer Herkunft und Sprache, nach gedruckten und ungedruckten [The gypsies in Europe and Asia. Ethnographic-linguistic examination, mainly of their origin and language, printed and unprinted]. Quellen. Halle. Bd. 1–2.

Pott, A. F. (1856). Die Ungleichheit menschlicher Rassen, haupsachlich vom sprachwissenschaftlichen Standpunkte, unter besonderer Berticksichligung von des Grafen von Gobineau gleichnamigen [The inequality of human races, chiefly from the linguistic point of view, under the special insistence of the Count of Gobineau of the same name] Werke. Lemgo; Deltmold.

Starostin, S. A. (1989). Sravnitelno-istoricheskoye yazykoznaniye i leksikostatistika [Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatistics]. Lingvisticheskaya rekonstruktsiya i drevneyshaya istoriya Vostoka: materialy k diskussiyam mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii. M. 1. 3–39.

Starostin, S. A. (1996). Word-Final Resonants in Sino-Caucasian. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 24. 2. 281–311.

Starostin, S. A. (1998–2005) The Tower of Babel. http://starling.rinet.ru/

Szemerényi, O. (1980). Vvedeniye v sravnitelnoye yazykoznaniye [Introduction to comparative linguistics]. M. 13.

Tamariz, M. (2017). Experimental Studies on the Cultural Evolution of Language. Annual Review of Linguistics. 3. 389–407. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033807

Tkachenko, O. B. (2007). Issledovaniya po meryanskomu yazyku [Studies on the Merian language]. Kostroma: Infopres. 352.

Tobias, Р. V. (1991). The skulls, endocasts and teeth of Ноmо habilis. Olduvai Gorge. Cambridge. 4. 1–921.

Versloot, A. P. (2017). Proto-Germanic ai in North and West Germanic. Folia Linguistica. 51. 281-324. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2017-0010

Vovin, A. (2002). Building a ‘bum-pa’ for Sino-Caucasian – A reply to Sergei Starostin’s reply. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 30. 1. 154–171.

Yakhontov, S. Ye. (1991). Prarodina nostraticheskikh yazykov [The ancestral home of the Nostratic languages]. Slavistika. Indoyevropeistika. Nostratika: k 60-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya V. A. Dybo. M. 13–17.

Zywiczynski, P., Gontier, N., Wacewicz, S. (2017). The evolution of (proto-)language: Focus on mechanisms. Language Sciences. 63. 1–11. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.06.004
Published
2018-08-21
How to Cite
Kapranov, Y. (2018, August 21). Diachronic Interpretation of Nostratic Etymon *wol[a] Based on Proto-Indo-European *(e)wel- (Gr hw- / ew-) and Proto-Altaic *ulu (~ -o) Forms (According to S. A. Starostin’s Version). Scientific Journal of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University. Series 9. Current Trends in Language Development, (17), 68-80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31392/NPU-nc.series9.2018.17.06