Hey, that’s very cool! Thanks for pointing that out. So Chinese is another language that uses a negative in m-. This puts it in the company of Arabic, Greek, Hindi, Persian, and Turkish. Furthermore, Arabic, Chinese, and Turkish have both interrogatives and negatives in m-.
ishmintingas wrote:
I hope Collounsbury will correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the cites he was asking for were to show that the Nostratic hypothesis has recently gained general acceptance amongst the mainstream of the linguistic community. The work you cite is from 1993, and while it may be an excellent presentation of the evidence in favor of the theory, how does it show any recent change in the attitude of other linguists?
I occasionally lurk through the archives of the IndoEuropean mailing list at
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/indo-european.html
and fail to find indications of a wide acceptance of the Nostratic hypothesis.
BTW, if anyone is interested, links to archives of many linguistic lists are at
http://www.linguistlist.org/list-archives.html
including one for Nostratic at
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/nostratic.html
Posted by ismintingas: Finnish and Hungarian are Uralic languages, and this is just one of many pieces of evidence that Indo-European and Uralic are related.
I’ve never heard anything even remotely backing this up. I’ve always heard that the Uralic (or Ugric) languages are of their own family, and are not European languages. It’s an easy assumption to make, since Finland, Hungary and Estonia are all in Europe, but I’ve never read anything saying that Ugric languages are any more European than, say, Basque or Turkish. Do you have any sources that say anything to the contrary? I’d like to see them.
I’ve heard of a theory that links the Ugric languages with Korean and Japanese, but this is not a favored opinion among philologists. Mainstream philologists don’t even link Korean with Japanese.
As to Japanese belonging to the Altaic family: that’s another one I’ve never heard. Mongolian is certainly part of the Altaic family; perhaps you were thinking of it?
Add Classical Latin (a linguistically important language in Europe, no?) to the list of languages without explicit words for “yes” and “no”. To answer a yes/no question, you either repeat the verb (most commonly), or use the words maxime or minime, literally “very much so” or “not at all”.
The negatives that Latin does have are mostly n sounds, though, consistent with her daughter languages. Interestingly, the -ne suffix used in many questions (“Dicis Latinam” = “You speak Latin”; “Dicisne Latinam” = “Do you speak Latin?”) is also an n sound, similar to other languages mentioned here where negation is related to questioning.
Well, Chance, I realize your entire experience of the outside world comes from watching TV, so I’ll make allowances for your ignorance. But in fact, the hypotheses linking Indo-European with Uralic have been around for a long time, as have the links between Uralic and Altaic, and Korean and Japanese with Altaic. I didn’t just make this up. You need to get out more, pal.
If we’re going to discuss the existence of Nostratic, we should move this thread to Great Debates. Nostratic is a highly contested issue, not one that can be settled in this forum.
ishmintingas, perhaps those theories have been around for a long time, but that’s not my point. I really would like to know of some sources backing these up. According to everything I’ve read (and yes, I do read,) Japanese and Korean aren’t able to be linked to any language in Europe or Asia, and not even to the Polynesian languages, nor Chinese, nor to each other. The only non-conventional theory I’m aware of is the linking of Korean to the Ugric languages, but most linguists find this theory lacking, with the mainstream feeling that Korean is in its own family.
Perhaps there was some linguistic Gondwanaland at one point, one from which all languages are descended, but even there, not everyone agrees. I tend to think otherwise, but that’s another discussion altogether…
Has there ever been a hierarchy made that shows which languages are in the same families and what they may have been derived from? That would be extremely interesting to look at.
That is sort of the references to the Nostratic controversy are about. On one side of the controversy are the majority of linguists, who agree more or less on about 20 major language families: Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Nortwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian, Southern Caucasian, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, Khoisan, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, and Austric in the Old World (along with dozens of isolated languages unable to be placed in any group), along with about 5 more language families in New Guinea, about 23 in Australia, and at least 26 more in the Americas (again with many isolated unrelated languages).
A site with a break down of how the world’s languages are grouped in a scheme similar to this is at
http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/
{it is not exactly the same as I outlined because I was using The Facts On File Atlas of Languages- which shows how difficult it is to get exact agreement on some of these questions).
The other side in the controversy, currently very much the minority, believes that these language families can be grouped into several larger groups, which in turn can all be shown to be united in one original language group comprising all languages in the world. The proposed groups which have had the most work done on them so far are Nostratic (believed to comprise Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic- including Korean and Japanese, Southern Caucasian and Dravidian) and Amerind (believed to comprise all native American language families except Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dene). Some even add Chukotko- Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut families along with some isolated languages in Siberia and Ainu, an isolated language in Japan, to Nostratic to make a bigger group they call Eurasian. Another large group which some have proposed is Dene-Caucasian, a combination of the Na-Dene family of North America, with Sino-Tibetan, Northeast Caucasian, Northwest Caucasian and other isolated languages (some add the isolated European languages Etruscan and Basque and call it Dene-Basque).
In my introductory linguistics class we learned a bit about sound change in language and I can give a tentative answer that a to o is not unheard of.
I believe it is fairly common but don’t quote me on that (or rather, you can but I might not be right). In any case a to o would be called raising (I’m assuming the sounds you are talking about sound something like ah and oh). Ah is pronounced with a low hump at the back of the tongue (I believe). Oh is pronounced with mid height hump at the back of the tongue.
So ah to oh is part of a phenomenon that is common in language but it is not the only process that occurs.
Jomo – I’ve read many of your linguistic posts here, so I trust most of them – although I do have to take issue with your analysis of Bulgarians nodding and shaking their heads for no and yes. (I know, not strictly linguistics, but I asked a Bulgarian today to reproduce the motions and they were identical to the American motions, only flip-flopped.) Anyhow, so are you saying that the Finno-Ugric languages are theorized to be related to Indo-European languages? All of the literature I’ve read has indicated otherwise, although there is certainly plenty of influence from Indo-European languages in Hungarian, at least, and I would imagine the other languages. However, the syntax and morphology of the language is quite unlike any I’ve experienced in the other European languages. I’m just curious what the latest literature linking these languages are.
Dammit…incidentally, mother in Hungarian is “anja” and father is “apa.” Not really like “mom” or “dad,” though I suppose father is similar to “papa.” In Polish it’s “mama” and “tata” which do conform to the OP’s observation.
Yes, I agree with Jomo Mojo that a Uralic-Indoeuropean connection has been hypothesised for quite some time. It isn’t just a matter of surface (e.g. lexical) similarities in, say, Hungarian and Slavic, of which there are many. Deep grammatical features are also suspiciously aligned, like the aspect-marking systems.
O, and the better transription of the Greek for ‘no’ is ‘okhi’, rather than ‘oki’, by the way. It’s a chi, not a kappa.
Polykamell, you say:
…mother in Hungarian is “anja” and father is “apa”.
But these should be “anyu” and “apu”, ugye?
OK, let me correct myself, Pulykamell:
apu = Dad
apa = father
anyu = Mum
anya = mother
The “-u” forms are not simply vocative alterations of the “-a” forms, since it is possible also to use the “-a” forms vocatively.
Ez jobb?
internaut
Igen, ez jobb.
You’ve corrected yourself well, although I do not claim to be any sort of Hungarian linguist. As you said, it’s not really a vocative as it is a diminutive. Your explanation is right on, as far as I can tell.
Internaut’s explanation of Uralic-IE relationship is also right on. There is considerable similarity of morphology, syntax, and vocabulary that is hard to atttribute to mere chance. Björn Collinder gives a list of these connections in his book An Introduction to the Uralic Languages. It helps to know technical linguistic terminology to follow the arguments.
Jomo I can probabably follow most of the technical linguistic terms, and if I can ever grab a copy of that book, I’ll have a look at it. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and every web site that I could find on altavista seemed to indicate that Finno-Ugric, although borrowing aspects of neighboring Indo-European languages, is quite distinct from Indo-European. Every language tree I’ve ever seen does not connect the two. Steven Pinker, in * Words and Rules* says Hungarian “is one of the few European languages outside the [Indo-European] family.” He does, however go on to say that “Most linguists think that any traces of a common ancestry between huge families of languages such as Indo-European and Uralic are lost in the mists of time … But a few have proposed that Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic (which includes Turkish, Mongolian, and Azerbaijani) belong to a superfamily called Eurasiatic, the legacy of a hypothetical group that peopled Euarisia toward the end of the last Ice Ago 10,000 years ago.”
Is this the connection y’all are talkin’ about? That they may have had a common ancestor? It sounds pretty shaky, at best. Although, to be honest, it doesn’t sound totally implausable.
The linguist Joseph Harold Greenberg, in Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives:The Eurasiatic Language Family: Grammar argues that the Indo-European family is a branch of a superfamily which includes the following: Uralic and Altaic families, Korean, Japanese, Etruscan and the Eskimo-Aleut languages (plus a few more languages and families I neglected to type) as part of Eurasiatic.
So, basically, there’s the source Chance was looking for. I really am interested to hear what the similarities between these languages in morphology, syntax and vocabulary are, because these similarities must be pretty frickin’ deep, and any relation between these groups of languages is so remote as to be completely useless nowadays. If you know one Indo-European language, it will usually help you with learning another. I’m familiar with several Indo-European languages and I can tell you the help they are with Hungarian is next to nothing, except for the odd Germanic or Slavic cognate.
But these are still theories, and it doesn’t seem to me that they’re quite accepted yet. Heck, there are linguists in Hungary that argue that Hungarian doesn’t belong in the Finno-Ugric family, or, rather, that the Finno and Ugric families should be distinct.
For what it’s worth, “no” in Kiswahili is “lah,” and “yes” is “ndiyo” (say: in-DEE-o)