vajda-2008, LINGWISTYKA [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Dene-Yeniseic Symposium, Fairbanks; Ed Vajda Draft March 3.08 Comments welcome (eddievajda@yahoo.com
) 1
A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages
1
Edward Vajda (Western Washington University)
1.
Introduction
The Yeniseic (Yeniseian) microfamily of central Siberia (upper and middle reaches
of the Yenisei River basin) is genetically unrelated to other families of the Old World.
Yeniseic includes the extinct Kott, Assan, Arin, Pumpokol, and Yugh languages, as well
as the highly endangered Ket, now with fewer than 200 speakers, most over the age of
50. Only Ket and Yugh were documented in modern times. Fortunately, excellent
materials were collected from the last Kott speakers by Finnish linguist M. A. Castrén
(1858). Assan, Arin and Pumpokol disappeared before 1800 and were only sparsely
documented by travelers and explorers. Nevertheless, the extant documentation offers
valuable lexical comparanda that testify eloquently to the value of documenting even the
most obscure of the world's endangered languages before they disappear. Werner (2005)
contains a complete description of all 18
th
century documentation of Yeniseic languages.
Monograph-length descriptions of Modern Ket phonology and grammar include Werner
(1997), Vajda (2004), and Georg (2007).
The prefixing verb structure of Ket differs strikingly from the surrounding Uralic,
Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages of Inner Asia and Siberia. During the past two
centuries, linguists have attempted to link Yeniseic to other Northern Hemisphere
families with a prefixing verb, notably Burushaski, Abkhaz-Adygh (Northwest
Caucasian), Nakh-Dagestanian (Northeast Caucasian), Sumerian, and Na-Dene
(Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit). It is no exaggeration to say that the position of Ket in Inner
Eurasia has up until now remained as enigmatic as that of Basque in Europe, Zuni is the
American Southwest, or Burushaski in South Asia.
The full history of published and unpublished speculation on the external relations of
Yeniseic can be found in Vajda (2001). The earliest suggestion that Ket has a special
historical connection with Native American languages dates back to Adriaan Reeland in
1708 (cf. Vajda 2001:2). The first person to claim a genetic link specifically between
Yeniseic and Athabaskan-Tlingit (Eyak was then unrecognized as a Na-Dene language)
was the Italian linguist Alfredo Trombetti (1923). Since that time, many other linguists,
notably Merritt Ruhlen (1998) have repeated the same suggestion, though typically
including Haida in Na-Dene). No one has produced anything to support this claim beyond
random look-alike words or general typological resemblances. The typical inclusion of
1
I thank Jim Kari, Mike Krauss, and Jeff Leer for valuable comments on earlier drafts. More generally, I
owe a deep debt of gratitude to my Athabaskanist colleagues, without whose decades of contribution to Na-
Dene historical linguistics it would hardly be possible to undertake the comparisons I am attempting here. I
own a similar debt to Siberian Ketologists, particularly the indefatigable Heinrich Werner, for their crucial
documentation of Yeniseic dialects and languages. Werner's work on the now extinct Yugh is similar in
importance to that of Michael Krauss on Eyak, Jeff Leer on Tlingit, or Jim Kari on Ahtna. I deeply thank
Bernard Comrie, director of the Linguistics Divison of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology, Leipzig, for his extensive support and particularly for hosting the Na-Dene Workshop in
August, 2006, where some of these ideas were first publicly presented; and I thank our colleagues at
Leipzig, particularly Juliette Blevins and Don Stilo, as well as Eric Hamp, for their enthusiasm and
encouragement in support of my work. I also thank all of my colleagues from Tomsk Pedagogical
University, where I began my serious work on Ket. Finally, I especially thank Jim Kari and his colleagues
at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for organizing the Dene-Yeniseic Symposium (Feb. 2008), for
which this article was prepared. See also the postscript at the end of this article.
Dene-Yeniseic Symposium, Fairbanks; Ed Vajda Draft March 3.08 Comments welcome (eddievajda@yahoo.com
) 2
Haida in such linkages is indicative of their extremely speculative nature, as there is no
demonstrable genetic relationship between Haida and Na-Dene. But if speculation counts
as discovery, then the beginnings of "Dene-Yeniseic" linguistics belong to Trombetti,
whose initial conclusion has proven to be completely correct
2
.
Random similarities in basic vocabulary are insufficient to demonstrate language
relatedness. A list of look-alike words can be compiled, even using basic vocabulary,
between any human languages. Nor are typological similarities, even involving relatively
uncommon traits such as a rigid prefixing verb structure, a reliable diagnostic for genetic
relatedness in the absence of a system of cognate morphology. The only accepted way of
demonstrating the existence of a language family is to identify a sufficient number of
cognates in basic vocabulary to establish interlocking sound correspondences that are
reflected in the language's grammatical systems, as well; cf. Campbell (1997) for a
thorough, state-of-the-art treatment on the issue of demonstrating genetic relatedness. All
accepted language families share this combination of homologies to an extent that
permits at least partial phonological and morphological reconstruction of an ancestral
proto-language. Though generally not stressed by historical linguists, true evidence of
genetic relationship also provides, by default, external comparative data useful for tracing
the internal historical development of each member language or group of languages.
Word lists or typological comparisons cannot be used in this way. A linguistic debate
about Haida's membership in Na-Dene is no more useful to veterinary science than a
debate about whether unicorns exist. Haida comparisons have failed to shed any light
whatsoever on the historical development of Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, outside the realm
of contact phenomena. The same could be said of the still undemonstrated Altaic
Hypothesis, which is useless for understanding the internal structure of Modern Halh
Mongolian. A Slavic linguist who refuses to accept Indo-European, on the other hand,
would be more like a traveler who denies the existence of the automobile. Many facets of
Slavic linguistic prehistory simply cannot be fully appraised without acknowledging the
demonstrable relationship of Slavic to Baltic, Latin, Iranic, and its other Indo-European
relatives. The unavoidable usefulness of a proven genetic connection between languages
is the best confirmation of its validity.
If Yeniseic is demonstrably relatable to Na-Dene, the evidence should be able to
help solve Na-Dene internal problems by providing hitherto unknown external
2
In this paper I have endeavored to credit other scholars for contributions to what could be called "Dene-
Yeniseic" studies. Although I reject conclusions of genetic relationship made solely on the basis of look-
alike vocabulary or typological resemblances, four earlier publications should be mentioned here. Alfredo
Trombetti (1923), the first to suggest the connection, may also have proposed the first Dene-Yeniseic
cognate: Ket
de'N
and Athabaskan
dine
'people' (though cf 3.3.4). Merritt Ruhlen's (1998) proposed
cognate sets contain several genuine cognates, among over 75% coincidental look-alikes. These are
Ruhlen's comparisons for: head, stone, foot, breast, shoulder/arm, birch/birchbark, old, and burn/cook, and
possibly a few others. The correct identification of cognate words for "birch/birchbark" is particularly
noteworthy, as this basic vocabulary item is specific to families of the northern latitudes. The finding of
these cognates, though it was impossible to confirm them as such in the absence of much more
investigation, represents an important contribution, in retrospect. Also important here is Johanna Nichols'
(1992)
Linguistic diversity in space and time
, which offered an innovative typological/geographical
perspective on where to look for possible genetic links. In the same vain, Michael Fortescue's (1998)
pioneering book
Language relations across Bering Strait
is significant for offering a preliminary inventory
of unusual morphological features shared by Yeniseic and Na-Dene, but not by other Northern Hemisphere
languages.
Dene-Yeniseic Symposium, Fairbanks; Ed Vajda Draft March 3.08 Comments welcome (eddievajda@yahoo.com
) 3
comparative data. Similarly, Na-Dene comparanda should provide answers to questions
in the development of Yeniseic languages that defy resolution based on Yeniseic-internal
data alone. One of the main aims of this article is to demonstrate that this is indeed the
case - first by examining the prefixing verb morphology of both families, then moving on
to explain systematic sound correspondences based on the cognate vocabulary.
The Yeniseic verb complex shows a striking system of morphological homologies
with the oldest layer of Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit verb prefixes. Section 2 begins by
demonstrating that Yeniseic verb morphology does not resemble other Old World
prefixing languages. Section 2.2 provides an overview of specific morphological
homologies between Yeniseic and Athabaskan, Eyak, and Tlingit. Successive
subsections describe homologies in tense/mood/aspect affixes (2.2.1), spatial prefixes and
incorporated body part nouns (2.2.2), pronominal elements (2.2.3) and in the pre-root
"classifier" prefixes (2.2.4). Section 3 discusses cognates in basic vocabulary and the
system of sound correspondences they reveal. This section begins with patterns of coda
reduction (3.1) and the emergence of phonemic tone in three types of Yeniseic syllables
(3.2 – 3.5), then turns to onset correspondences (3.6). Section 4 briefly summarizes the
evidence that Yeniseic and Na-Dene share a common linguistic origin. The value of the
comparanda in helping understand the historical development of both Yeniseic and Na-
Dene will be highlighted along the way. My conclusion is that this body of data offers the
first meaningful indication of a genetic relationship between the two language families
and also proves that Na-Dene and Haida cannot possibly form a genetic unit.
In the sections that follow, I will make extensive use of the Proto-Na-Dene
(PND), Proto-Athabaskan-Eyak (PAE) and Proto-Athabaskan (PA) reconstructions that
have been worked out over many decades. The symbol ~ before a reconstructed proto-
form indicates that the author regards it as approximate; this is generally the case with
Leer's (2008) reconstructions linking Tlingit with Athabaskan-Eyak. I will not, however,
generally attempt to offer Proto-Yeniseic forms, which have not yet been worked out
systematically; in fact, at present we still lack a firm reconstruction of the basic Proto-
Yeniseic sound inventory. Instead, I will use cognate forms in the attested Yeniseic
daughter languages to illustrate the points I am trying to make.
2.
Verb affixes and pronominal elements
2.1.
Verb prefixes, typology, and genetic linguistics
This section compares verb structure in a number of geographically disparate
language families, including Yeniseic and Na-Dene, noted for possessing a rigid series of
verb prefixal classes. It will be shown that a wide variety exists in the types of prefixing
verb structures found throughout the world, with Yeniseic and Na-Dene sharing a unique
core of morphological traits. It will be argued that this set of homologies is not due to
typology or coincidence but rather derives from a common genetic origin. The notion that
Yeniseic shows any special linguistic affinity to Southern Eurasia is not born out by the
details of its verb structure.
Yeniseic languages are famous for having a strongly prefixing verb in an area of
the world dominated by suffixation. The Modern Ket verb template is shown in Table 1.
Dene-Yeniseic Symposium, Fairbanks; Ed Vajda Draft March 3.08 Comments welcome (eddievajda@yahoo.com
) 4
Table 1. Modern Ket verb structure
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
P0
suffix
new
subj.
person
agr
clitic
incor-
porated
noun or
adj. root,
or new
verb base
obj
agr.
thematic
con-
sonants
tense/mood
marker
(
s
or
ƒa
)
inanimate
marker
b
tense/mood/
aspect
consonant
(
l
or
n
)
old 1p,
2p
subject
agr
verb
base
animate
subject
plural
Vajda (2007) shows that the Modern Ket verb innovated a new lexical root position
toward the left of the verb complex (position 7) in imitation of the suffixing languages
spoken around it. The new position 8 subject markers in Modern Ket are clitics rather
than true prefixes and often encliticize to the preceding word rather than attaching to the
verb form itself. All productive patterns of Ket verbs thus begin phonologically with a
lexical root, in much the same way as the neighboring Samoyedic, Turkic and Tungusic
languages. The oldest layer of verbs, however, is invariably prefixing and root-final, as is
the case in all documented Yeniseic languages.
Comparison with verbs from extinct Yeniseic languages shown that the Modern
Ket verb grew out of the structural model shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The Proto-Yeniseic verb complex
morphemes outside the
phonological verb
P4
P3
P2
P1
verb base
verbal
complements
(adverb,
object NP, etc.)
shape prefix,
incorporated
body part
noun
animacy
classifier
d
- anim.
b
- inan.
tense, mood,
aspect
(combination of
two markers)
(
s
or
ƒa
) + (
l
or
n
)
subject
agreement
(1 or 2 p)
or stative
resultative
prefix
The prefixing structures of both Modern Ket and Proto-Yeniseic are quite different from
other prefixing verbs of the Old World. Below are verb templates from three languages
(Sumerian, Burushaski and Abkhaz) that have sometimes been linked to Yeniseic as part
of previous speculations about the family's external genetic connections.
Table 3. Sumerian verb structure (based on Rubio 2007: 1139)
modal
prefixes
connective
prefix
(possibly
meaning
'also, 'then')
conjugation
(tense/aspect)
prefixes
dative
(indirect
object
pronominal
agreement)
dimensional
prefixes
(locative,
ablative,
etc.)
2, 3p
agreement
(non-
agent)
root
pronominal
suffixes
(agent
agreement)
Table 4. Burushaski verb structure (based on Tikkanen 1995:91)
neg-
ative
d-
thematic
prefix
person/
number/
class
agr.
prefix
causative,
benefactive
root
distrib-
utive
pl.
subject/
action
suffix
1p
subject
agr.
suffix
dur-
ative
non
past
optative,
participle,
converb,
infinitive
2,3p or
plural
subject
agr.
suffix
inter-
rogative
Dene-Yeniseic Symposium, Fairbanks; Ed Vajda Draft March 3.08 Comments welcome (eddievajda@yahoo.com
) 5
Table 5. Partial template of Abkhaz verb affixes, based on examples in Hewitt (1979)
direct obj
prefix
subject
prefix
caus-
ative
root
Suffixes expressing: negation,
tense/mood/aspect, stative/dynamic,
finite/non-finite verb form
The simple presence of an unusual typological feature, such as prefixes arranged in a
rigid series of position classes, does not by itself indicate genetic relationship. To further
illustrate how fundamentally different templatic prefixing languages can be from one
another, Table 6 shows another well-known prefixing position-class verb, that of Bantu.
The interdigitation of pronominal and tense/mood/aspect prefixes in Bantu, though
likewise completely distinct from either Yeniseic or Na-Dene, is nevertheless closer to
both typologically than either is to the other prefixing languages of Eurasia or the
Americas.
Table 6. Ha (Bantu, Tanzania) verb morphology (Harjula 2004:86)
locative
clitic
subject
prefix
several
slots for
TAM
distinctions
object
prefix
root
derivational
suffix
TAM
locative
clitic
As can be seen, prefixing verb morphologies are by no means monolithic typologically.
Yeniseic no more belongs to the southern Eurasian typological area than it does to Africa.
The next section demonstrates that, among the world's prefixing verb systems, the
affinity shared by Yeniseic and Na-Dene goes far beyond mere typology, extending to
intricate specific systems of morphological homologies.
2.2.
Na-Dene and Yeniseic prefixal verb morphology compared
All Na-Dene languages likewise have a strongly prefixing verb structure. This is
one of the morphological hallmarks of the family that distinguishes it from other New
World families. Other North American languages with strongly prefixing verbs, such as
Algonqian and Caddoan (Melnar 2004), show a completely different arrangement of
prefixes. These and other prefixing languages in the New World are as different from
Athabaskan, Eyak and Tlingit as the prefixing languages of southern Eurasia are from
Ket. Modern Navajo verb structure, shown in Table 7, provides an illustration of the type
of prefixation found in Na-Dene languages.
Table 7. Position classes in the Modern Navajo verb
(
for published descriptions, with right-to-left numbering, cf. Young & Morgan 1987:37-8, and Young 2000:18-26)
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 + 2 1
0
"outer objects"
(incorporated
postpositional
construction,
indirect obj.
reciprocal, etc.)
outer
lexical
prefixes
distrib-
utive
plural
/da/
(more
than 2)
direct
object
3
rd
person
subject
inner
prefixes
(shape
prefixes,
etc.)
"
conjugation
"
prefix
relating to
tense/mood/
aspect
(
si, ni,
ƒ
i
)
1
st
, 2
nd
subject
"
classifier
"
(=valence
change
prefix)
¬,
d
l, Ø
indirect obj.
prefix
TAM
verb stem
= set of
root + suffix
allomorphs
expressing
tense, mood,
aspect
disjunct prefixes
|
conjunct prefixes
|
conjugation+subject
|
classifier + stem
iter-
ative
prefix
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]