Indo-Semitic languages

Last updated
Indo-Semitic
(not widely accepted)
Geographic
distribution		 North Africa, Europe, Middle East, Indian subcontinent
Linguistic classification Afroasiatic
Subdivisions
Glottolog None

The Indo-Semitic hypothesis maintains that a genetic relationship exists between Indo-European and Semitic languages, and that the Indo-European and the Semitic language families both descend from a common root ancestral language. The theory is not widely accepted by contemporary linguists, but historically, it had a number of advocates and supporting arguments, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Contents

History of the term and of the idea

The term "Indo-Semitic" was first used by Graziadio Ascoli, [1] a leading advocate of this relationship. Although this term has been used by a number of scholars since, [2] there is no universally accepted term for this grouping at the present time. In German, the term indogermanisch-semitisch, 'Indo-Germanic–Semitic', has often been used, in which indogermanisch is a synonym of "Indo-European". [3] [4]

Several phases in the development of the Indo-Semitic hypothesis can be distinguished.

A proposed relationship between Indo-European and Semitic

In a first phase, a few scholars in the 19th century argued that the Indo-European languages were related to the Semitic languages. The first to do so was Johann Christoph Adelung in his work Mithridates. However, the first to do so in a scientific way was Richard Lepsius in 1836. [5] The arguments presented for a relationship between Indo-European and Semitic in the 19th century were commonly rejected by Indo-Europeanists, including W.D. Whitney and August Schleicher. [6] [ citation needed ] The culmination of this first phase in Indo-Semitic studies was Hermann Möller's comparative dictionary of Indo-European and Semitic, first published in Danish in 1909. [7]

A succinct history of the Indo-Semitic hypothesis is provided by Alan S. Kaye in a review of Allan Bomhard's Toward Proto-Nostratic: [8]

A proposed relationship between Indo-European and Semitic goes back some 125 years to R. von Raumer [note: Lepsius, though, is earlier than that]; but it was G.I. Ascoli who, after examining many items, declared in 1864 that these language families were genetically related. However, A. Schleicher denied the relationship. Scholars waited for a systematic study of IE-Semitic vocabulary until 1873, when F. Delitzsch published his Studien über indogermanisch-semitische Wurzelverwandtschaft; this was followed in 1881 by J. McCurdy's Aryo-Semitic Speech. C. Abel's 400-page dictionary of Egyptian-Semitic-IE roots appeared in 1884. Work by 20th century linguists who have investigated the problem more thoroughly with Afro-Asiatic and/or Semitic data include H. Möller, A. Cuny (in a series of publications from 1912 through 1946, all used by Bomhard), L. Brunner, C. Hodge, S. Levin, A. Dolgopol′skij, V.M. Illič-Svityč, and K. Koskinen.

A larger grouping

In the mid-19th century, Friedrich Müller argued that the Semitic languages were related to a large group of African languages, which he termed Hamitic. This implied a larger grouping, Indo-European–Hamito-Semitic. However, the concept of Hamitic was deeply flawed, relying in part on racial criteria rather than linguistic ones. In 1950, Joseph Greenberg showed that the Hamitic grouping needed to be split up, with only some of the languages it concerned groupable with Semitic. He named this greatly modified grouping Afroasiatic. In principle, then, Indo-European—Hamito-Semitic was replaced by Indo-European–Afroasiatic.

However, Greenberg also argued that the relevant question was not whether Indo-European was related to Afroasiatic but how it was related, such as whether the two form a valid node in a language family tree or were more distantly related. [9] Since the 1980s, adherents of the controversial Nostratic hypothesis, who accept a relationship between Indo-European and Afroasiatic, have begun to move away from the view that Indo-European and Afroasiatic share an especially close relationship, and to consider that they are only related at a higher level.

Continued comparison of Indo-European and Semitic

Although it might seem that the logical connection to pursue was that between Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic or, later, Indo-European and Afroasiatic (ib. 336), in practice scholars interested in this comparison continued to compare Indo-European and Semitic directly. [1] [7] [10] [11] One reason for this seems to be that the study of Semitic had progressed far beyond that of "Hamitic" or, later, Afroasiatic. According to Albert Cuny, [1] who accepted the validity of the Hamito-Semitic grouping:

[I]n the Semitic field, the exact knowledge that now exists ... makes it possible to deal with questions of vocalism almost as well as in the field of Indo-European. This is the justification for the present study.

Direct comparison of Indo-European and Afroasiatic

A new departure was represented by the first installment of Vladislav Illich-Svitych's Nostratic dictionary in 1971, edited by Vladimir Dybo after Illich-Svitych's untimely death. Rather than comparing Indo-European to Semitic, Illich-Svitych compared it to Afroasiatic directly, using his reconstruction of Afroasiatic phonology. [9] This approach has been taken subsequently by other Nostraticists. [12]

Incorporation of Indo-European into a larger language family (Eurasiatic)

In the 1980s, some linguists, notably Joseph Greenberg and Sergei Starostin, began to identify Afroasiatic as a language family considerably more ancient than Indo-European, directly related not to Indo-European but to an earlier grouping from which Indo-European was descended, which Greenberg termed Eurasiatic. This view has been accepted by several Nostraticists, including Allan Bomhard. [12]

Conclusion

The Indo-Semitic hypothesis has thus undergone a paradigm shift. From Lepsius in 1836 through the mid-20th century, the question asked was whether Indo-European and Semitic are related or unrelated, and in attempting to answer this question Indo-European and Semitic were compared directly. This now appears naive, and the relevant units of comparison instead appear to be Eurasiatic and Afroasiatic, the immediate precursors of Indo-European (controversially) and Semitic (uncontroversially). This revised schema still has a long road to go if it is to win general acceptance from the linguistic community.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Afroasiatic languages</span> Large language family of Africa and West Asia

The Afroasiatic languages, also known as Hamito-Semitic or Semito-Hamitic, are a language family of about 400 languages spoken predominantly in West Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of the Sahara and Sahel. Over 500 million people are native speakers of an Afroasiatic language, constituting the fourth-largest language family after Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, and Niger–Congo. Most linguists divide the family into six branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Semitic, and Omotic. The vast majority of Afroasiatic languages are considered indigenous to the African continent, including all those not belonging to the Semitic branch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nostratic languages</span> Proposed superfamily of Eurasian and African languages

Nostratic is a hypothetical language macrofamily including many of the language families of northern Eurasia first proposed in 1903. Though a historically important proposal, it is now generally considered a fringe theory. Its exact composition varies based on proponent; it typically includes the Kartvelian, Indo-European and Uralic languages; some languages from the similarly controversial Altaic family; the Afroasiatic languages; as well as the Dravidian languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">August Schleicher</span> German philologist (1821–1868)

August Schleicher was a German linguist. Schleicher studied the Proto-Indo-European language and devised theories concerning historical linguistics. His great work was A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages in which he attempted to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language. To show how Indo-European might have looked, he created a short tale, Schleicher's fable, to exemplify the reconstructed vocabulary and aspects of Indo-European society inferred from it.

Allan R. Bomhard is an American independent scholar publishing in the field of comparative linguistics. He is part of a small group of proponents of the Nostratic hypothesis, according to which the Indo-European languages, Uralic languages, Altaic languages, and Afroasiatic languages would all belong to a larger macrofamily. The theory is widely rejected by mainstream linguists as a fringe theory. Among Nostratists, he has been described as "a maximalist who casts his nets as widely as possible" among far-flung languages not generally believed to be related.

Mass comparison is a method developed by Joseph Greenberg to determine the level of genetic relatedness between languages. It is now usually called multilateral comparison. Mass comparison has been referred to as a "methodological deception" and is rejected by most linguists, and its continued use is primarily restricted to fringe linguistics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indo-European studies</span> Subfield of linguistics

Indo-European studies is a field of linguistics and an interdisciplinary field of study dealing with Indo-European languages, both current and extinct. The goal of those engaged in these studies is to amass information about the hypothetical proto-language from which all of these languages are descended, a language dubbed Proto-Indo-European (PIE), and its speakers, the Proto-Indo-Europeans, including their society and Proto-Indo-European mythology. The studies cover where the language originated and how it spread. This article also lists Indo-European scholars, centres, journals and book series.

Comparative linguistics is a branch of historical linguistics that is concerned with comparing languages to establish their historical relatedness.

Insular Celtic languages are the group of Celtic languages spoken in Brittany, Great Britain, Ireland, and the Isle of Man. All surviving Celtic languages are in the Insular group, including Breton, which is spoken on continental Europe in Brittany, France. The Continental Celtic languages, although once widely spoken in mainland Europe and in Anatolia, are extinct.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indo-Uralic languages</span> Controversial hypothetical language family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic

Indo-Uralic is a highly controversial linguistic hypothesis proposing a genealogical family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic.

Holger Pedersen was a Danish linguist who made significant contributions to language science and wrote about 30 authoritative works concerning several languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Borean languages</span> Proposed language family

Borean is a hypothetical linguistic macrofamily that encompasses almost all language families worldwide except those native to the Americas, Africa, Oceania, and the Andaman Islands. Its supporters propose that the various languages spoken in Eurasia and adjacent regions have a genealogical relationship, and ultimately descend from languages spoken during the Upper Paleolithic in the millennia following the Last Glacial Maximum. The name Borean is based on the Greek βορέας, and means "northern". This reflects the fact that the group is held to include most language families native to the northern hemisphere. Two distinct models of Borean exist: that of Harold C. Fleming and that of Sergei Starostin.

Rudolf von Raumer was a German philologist and linguist, known for his extensive research of the German language. He was the son of geologist Karl Georg von Raumer.

The Vasconic substrate hypothesis is a proposal that several Western European languages contain remnants of an old language family of Vasconic languages, of which Basque is the only surviving member. The proposal was made by the German linguist Theo Vennemann, but has been rejected by other linguists.

In the tree model of historical linguistics, a proto-language is a postulated ancestral language from which a number of attested languages are believed to have descended by evolution, forming a language family. Proto-languages are usually unattested, or partially attested at best. They are reconstructed by way of the comparative method.

Semitic studies, or Semitology, is the academic field dedicated to the studies of Semitic languages and literatures and the history of the Semitic-speaking peoples. A person may be called a Semiticist or a Semitist, both terms being equivalent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hermann Möller</span> Danish linguist (1850–1923)

Hermann Möller was a Danish linguist noted for his work in favor of a genetic relationship between the Indo-European and Semitic language families and his version of the laryngeal theory.

Proto-Berber or Proto-Libyan is the reconstructed proto-language from which the modern Berber languages descend. Proto-Berber was an Afroasiatic language, and thus its descendant Berber languages are cousins to the Egyptian language, Cushitic languages, Semitic languages, Chadic languages, and the Omotic languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Afroasiatic homeland</span> Hypothetical linguistic homeland of the Proto-Afroasiatic language

The Proto-Afroasiatic homeland is the hypothetical place where speakers of the Proto-Afroasiatic language lived in a single linguistic community, or complex of communities, before this original language dispersed geographically and divided into separate distinct languages. Afroasiatic languages are today mostly distributed in parts of Africa, and Western Asia.

Albert Cuny was a French linguist known for his attempts to establish phonological correspondences between the Indo-European and Semitic languages and for his contributions to the laryngeal theory.

Karl Penka was an Austrian philologist and anthropologist. Known for his now-outdated theories locating the Proto-Indo-European homeland in Northern Europe, Penka has been described as "a transitional figure between Aryanism and Nordicism".

References

  1. 1 2 3 Cuny, Albert (1943). "Recherches sur le Vocalisme, le Consonantisme et la formation des racines en "Nostratique" (Ancêtre de l'indo-européen et du Chamito-sémitique). ParA. Guny. pp. vii, 164. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1943". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 79 (1–2): 131–133. doi:10.1017/s0035869x00101145. ISSN   1356-1863.
  2. ↑ Mallory, J P; Adams, D Q (1997-01-06), "Proto-Indo-European Society", The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, Oxford University PressOxford, pp. 266–286, ISBN   978-0-19-928791-8 , retrieved 2024-06-18
  3. ↑ Delitzsch, Friedrich (1913). "Studien zur Odyssee. II. Odysseus der Bhikshu. Von Carl Fries, I vol. 10″ × 6½″. Pp. viii + 215. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung. 1911. M. 6". The Classical Review. 27 (5): 181–181. doi:10.1017/s0009840x0000545x. ISSN   0009-840X.
  4. ↑ Pedersen, Holger (1908-01-01). "Die idg.-semitische Hypothese und die idg. Lautlehre". Indogermanische Forschungen. 22 (1): 341–365. doi:10.1515/9783110242621.341. ISSN   1613-0405.
  5. ↑ Compare the leading specialist of Afroasiatic Carleton T. Hodge (1998:318): "The positing of a genetic connection between Indo-European and Semitic goes back at least as far as Richard Lepsius (1836)".
  6. ↑ Whitney, William Dwight (1903). "The life and growth of language: An outline of linguistic science". doi:10.1037/13300-000.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. 1 2 Steinmetz, David C. (1970). "Wort und Stunde. Vol. 3, Beiträge zum Verständnis Luthers. By Hermann Dörries. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970. viii + 496. 39, -DM". Church History. 39 (4): 548–549. doi:10.2307/3162942. ISSN   0009-6407.
  8. ↑ Kaye, Alan S.; Bomhard, Allan R.; Bynon, James (1985). "Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic". Language. 61 (4): 887. doi:10.2307/414496. ISSN   0097-8507.
  9. 1 2 Greenberg, Joseph H (2005-03-17). Genetic Linguistics. Oxford University PressOxford. ISBN   978-0-19-925771-3.
  10. ↑ McCall, Daniel F.; Bomhard, Allan R. (1997). "Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis, 1996". The International Journal of African Historical Studies. 30 (2): 473. doi:10.2307/221291. ISSN   0361-7882.
  11. ↑ Levin, Saul (1995-09-21). Semitic and Indo-European. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN   978-90-272-3632-6.
  12. 1 2 Bomhard, Allan R. (1990-12-31), "A survey of the comparative phonology of the so-called "Nostratic" languages", Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, DE GRUYTER MOUTON, pp. 331–358, ISBN   978-3-11-011908-4 , retrieved 2024-06-18

Bibliography of Indo-Semitic studies

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.