Uralo-Siberian | |
---|---|
(hypothetical) | |
Geographic distribution | Northern Eurasia, the Arctic |
Linguistic classification | Proposed language family |
Subdivisions |
|
Language codes | |
Glottolog | None |
Uralo-Siberian is a hypothetical language family consisting of Uralic, Yukaghir, and Eskaleut. It was proposed in 1998 by Michael Fortescue, [1] an expert in Eskaleut and Chukotko-Kamchatkan, in his book Language Relations across Bering Strait. Some have attempted to include Nivkh in Uralo-Siberian. Until 2011, it also included Chukotko-Kamchatkan. However, after 2011 Fortescue only included Uralic, Yukaghir and Eskaleut in the theory, although he argued that Uralo-Siberian languages have influenced Chukotko-Kamchatkan. [2]
Connections with the Uralic and other language families are generally seen as speculative, [3] including Fortescue's Uralo-Siberian hypothesis. Fortescue's observations have been evaluated by specialists as "inspiring" and "compelling" but are viewed as scattered evidence and still remain highly speculative and unproven and the soundness of the reconstructed common ancestors are challenging to evaluate. [4] [5]
Structural similarities between Uralic and Eskaleut languages were observed early. In 1746, the Danish theologian Marcus Wøldike compared Greenlandic to Hungarian. In 1818, Rasmus Rask considered Greenlandic to be related to the Uralic languages, Finnish in particular, and presented a list of lexical correspondences (Rask also considered Uralic and Altaic to be related to each other). In 1959, Knut Bergsland published the paper The Eskimo–Uralic Hypothesis, in which he, like other authors before him, presented a number of grammatical similarities and a small number of lexical correspondences. In 1962, Morris Swadesh proposed a relationship between the Eskaleut and Chukotko-Kamchatkan language families. In 1998, Michael Fortescue presented more detailed arguments in his book, Language Relations across Bering Strait. His title evokes Morris Swadesh's 1962 article, "Linguistic relations across the Bering Strait".
Fortescue (1998, pp. 60–95) surveys 44 typological markers and argues that a typological profile uniquely identifying the language families proposed to comprise the Uralo-Siberian family can be established. The Uralo-Siberian hypothesis is rooted in the assumption that this distinct typological profile was, rather than an areal profile common to four unrelated language families, the profile of a single language ancestral to all four: Proto-Uralo-Siberian.
None of the four families shows all of these 17 features; ranging from 12 reconstructible in Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan to 16 in Proto-Uralic. Frequently the modern-day descendant languages have diverged further from this profile — particularly Itelmen, for which Fortescue assumes substrate influence from a language typologically more alike to the non-Uralo-Siberian languages of the region.
Several more widely spread typologically significant features may also instead represent contact influence, according to Fortescue (1998):
Apparently shared elements of Uralo-Siberian morphology include the following:
*-t | plural |
*-k | dual |
*m- | 1st person |
*t- | 2nd person |
*ka | interrogative pronoun |
*-n | genitive case |
Fortescue (1998) lists 94 lexical correspondence sets with reflexes in at least three of the four language families, and even more shared by two of the language families. Examples are *ap(p)a 'grandfather', *kað'a 'mountain' and many others.
Below are some lexical items reconstructed to Proto-Uralo-Siberian, along with their reflexes in Proto-Uralic, Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan (sometimes Proto-Chukchi), and Proto-Eskaleut (sometimes Proto-Eskimo or Aleut). (Source: Fortescue 1998:152–158.)
Proto-Uralo-Siberian | Proto-Uralic | Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan | Proto-Eskaleut |
---|---|---|---|
*aj(aɣ)- 'push forward' | *aja- 'drive, chase' | *aj-tat- 'chase, herd' (PC) | *ajaɣ- 'push, thrust at with pole' |
*ap(p)a 'grandfather' | *appe 'father in law' | *æpæ 'grandfather' | *ap(p)a 'grandfather' |
*el(l)ä 'not' | *elä 'not' | *ællæ 'not' (PC) | *-la(ɣ)- 'not' (A) |
*pit(uɣ)- 'tie up' | *pitV- 'tie' (FU) | *pət- 'tie up' | *pətuɣ- 'tie up' |
*toɣə- 'take' | *toɣe- 'bring, take, give' (FU) | *teɣiŋrə- 'pull out' | *teɣu- 'take' (PE) |
Proposed cognates between the languages: [6] [7]
Proto-Yukagir | Proto-Eskaleut |
---|---|
*al 'below' | *atə 'below' |
*amlə 'swallow' | *ama 'suckle' |
*aŋa 'mouth' | *aŋ-va- 'open' |
*cowinə 'spear' | *caviɣ 'knife' |
*kin 'who' | *kina 'who' |
*ləɣ- 'eat' | *iɣa- 'swallow' |
*um 'close' | *uməɣ 'close' |
*n’ə 'get' | *nəɣ 'get' |
*ta 'that' | *ta 'that' |
Uralic | Eskaleut [8] |
---|---|
*ila 'under' | *at(ǝ) 'down' |
*elä 'live' | *ǝt(ǝ) 'be' |
*tuli 'come' | *tut 'arrive, land' |
*ke 'who' | *kina 'who' |
*to 'that' | *ta 'that' |
*kuda 'morning, dawn' | *qilaɣ 'sky' |
*kuda 'weave' | *qilaɣ 'weave' |
According to Ante Aikio (who does not believe that Yukaghir is related to Uralic), the words glossed 'weave' and 'morning' in the last two rows, despite being homonyms in each language, are most likely unrelated. Such instances of coincidental homonymy between languages, which only very rarely happens by chance, suggest that some kind of contact most likely happened, but exact conclusions cannot be drawn with modern information. [8] [9]
Fortescue suggested the following grammatical similarities to point to a relationship:
Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskaleut number and case markers: [10]
Proto-Uralic | Proto-Eskaleut | |
---|---|---|
nom./absolutive sing. | Ø | Ø |
dual | *-kə | *k |
plural | *-t | *-t |
locative | *-(kə)na | *-ni |
accusative sing | *-m | – |
plural accusative | *-j/i | *-(ŋ)i |
ablative | *-(kə)tə | *-kənc |
dative/lative | *-kə/-ŋ | *-ŋun |
Yukaghir and Proto-Eskaleut verbal and nominal inflections: [6]
Pronoun | Yukaghir | Eskaleut |
---|---|---|
trans. 1s | *ŋ | *ŋa |
3pl | *ŋi | *ŋi |
3 poss. | *ntə | *n |
vialis | *-(n)kən | *-(n)kən |
abl. | *-(n)kət | *(m/n)əɣ |
all | *(ŋi)n’ | *-(m/n)un / *ŋus/*-ŋun |
adv. loc./lative | *nə | *nə |
Some or all of the four Uralo-Siberian families have been included in more extensive groupings of languages (see links below). Fortescue's hypothesis does not oppose or exclude these various proposals. In particular, he considers that a remote relationship between Uralo-Siberian and Altaic (or some part of Altaic) is likely (see Ural–Altaic languages). However, Fortescue holds that Uralo-Siberian lies within the bounds of the provable, whereas Nostratic may be too remote a grouping to ever be convincingly demonstrated.
The University of Leiden linguist Frederik Kortlandt (2006:1) asserts that Indo-Uralic (a proposed language family consisting of Uralic and Indo-European) is itself a branch of Uralo-Siberian and that, furthermore, the Nivkh language also belongs to Uralo-Siberian. This would make Uralo-Siberian the proto-language of a much vaster language family. Kortlandt (2006:3) considers that Uralo-Siberian and Altaic (defined by him as consisting of Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese) may be coordinate branches of the Eurasiatic language family proposed by Joseph Greenberg but rejected by most linguists.
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.
The Uralic languages, sometimes called the Uralian languages, are spoken predominantly in Europe and North Asia. The Uralic languages with the most native speakers are Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian. Other languages with speakers above 100,000 are Erzya, Moksha, Mari, Udmurt and Komi spoken in the European parts of the Russian Federation. Still smaller minority languages are Sámi languages of the northern Fennoscandia; other members of the Finnic languages, ranging from Livonian in northern Latvia to Karelian in northwesternmost Russia; and the Samoyedic languages, Mansi and Khanty spoken in Western Siberia.
Ural-Altaic, Uralo-Altaic, Uraltaic, or Turanic is a linguistic convergence zone and abandoned language-family proposal uniting the Uralic and the Altaic languages. It is now generally agreed that even the Altaic languages do not share a common descent: the similarities between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic are better explained by diffusion and borrowing. Just as in Altaic, the internal structure of the Uralic family has been debated since the family was first proposed. Doubts about the validity of most or all of the proposed higher-order Uralic branchings are becoming more common. The term continues to be used for the central Eurasian typological, grammatical and lexical convergence zone.
The Eskaleut, Eskimo–Aleut or Inuit–Yupik–Unangan languages are a language family native to the northern portions of the North American continent, and a small part of northeastern Asia. Languages in the family are indigenous to parts of what are now the United States (Alaska); Canada including Nunavut, Northwest Territories, northern Quebec (Nunavik), and northern Labrador (Nunatsiavut); Greenland; and the Russian Far East. The language family is also known as Eskaleutian, or Eskaleutic.
The Paleo-Siberian languages are several language isolates and small language families spoken in parts of Siberia. They are not known to have any genetic relationship to each other; their only common link is that they are held to have antedated the more dominant languages, particularly Tungusic and latterly Turkic languages, that have largely displaced them. Even more recently, Turkic and especially Tungusic have been displaced in their turn by Russian.
The Chukotko-Kamchatkan or Chukchi–Kamchatkan languages are a language family of extreme northeastern Siberia. Its speakers traditionally were indigenous hunter-gatherers and reindeer-herders. Chukotko-Kamchatkan is endangered. The Kamchatkan branch is moribund, represented only by Western Itelmen, with less than a hundred speakers left. The Chukotkan branch had close to 7,000 speakers left, with a reported total ethnic population of 25,000.
Eurasiatic is a hypothetical and controversial language macrofamily proposal that would include many language families historically spoken in northern, western, and southern Eurasia.
Indo-Uralic is a highly controversial linguistic hypothesis proposing a genealogical family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic.
Geographically, Siberia includes the Russian Urals, Siberian, and Far Eastern Federal Districts.
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 that are native to the northern hemisphere. Two distinct models of Borean exist: that of Harold C. Fleming and that of Sergei Starostin.
Uralic–Yukaghir, also known as Uralo-Yukaghir, is a highly controversial proposed language family composed of Uralic and Yukaghir.
Mosan is a hypothetical language family consisting of the Salishan, Wakashan, and Chimakuan languages of the Pacific Northwest region of North America. It was proposed by Edward Sapir in 1929 in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Little evidence has been adduced in favor of such a grouping, no progress has been made in reconstructing it, and it is now thought to reflect a language area rather than a genetic relationship. The term persists outside academic linguistic literature because of Sapir's stature.
Michael David Fortescue is a British-born linguist specializing in Arctic and native North American languages, including Kalaallisut, Inuktun, Chukchi and Nitinaht.
Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages. It is purported to have broken up into the Northern (Chukotian) and Southern (Itelmen) branches around 2000 BCE, when western reindeer herders moved into the Chukotko-Kamchatkans' homeland and its inland people adopted the new lifestyle.
Dene–Yeniseian is a proposed language family consisting of the Yeniseian languages of central Siberia and the Na-Dene languages of northwestern North America.
Siberian languages may refer to any languages spoken in Siberia, including:
Proto-Eskaleut, Proto-Eskimo–Aleut or Proto-Inuit-Yupik-Unangan is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Eskaleut languages, family containing Eskimo and Aleut. Its existence is known through similarities in Eskimo and Aleut. The existence of Proto-Eskaleut is generally accepted among linguists. It was for a long time true that no linguistic reconstruction of Proto-Eskaleut had yet been produced, as stated by Bomhard (2008:209). Such a reconstruction was offered by Knut Bergsland in 1986. Michael Fortescue (1998:124–125) has offered another version of this system, largely based on the reconstruction of Proto-Eskimo in the Comparative Eskimo Dictionary he co-authored with Steven Jacobson and Lawrence Kaplan (1994:xi).
The Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis posits that the Uralic and Eskimo–Aleut language families belong to a common macrofamily. It is not generally accepted by linguists because the similarities can also be merely areal features, common to unrelated language families. In 1818, the Danish linguist Rasmus Rask grouped together the languages of Greenlandic and Finnish. The Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis was put forward by Knut Bergsland in 1959. Ante Aikio stated that it's possible that there exists some connection between the two families, but exact conclusions can't be drawn and the similarities could exist by loaning.
The Chukotko-Kamchatko-Amuric or Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Amuric languages form a hypothetical language family including Nivkh and Chukotko-Kamchatkan. A relationship between these two language groups was proposed by Michael Fortescue in a 2011 paper. He theorized that their common ancestor might have been spoken around 4000 years ago. However Glottolog says that the evidence is insufficient to conclude a genealogical relationship between Nivkh and Chukotko-Kamchatkan.
I would no longer wish to relate CK directly to [Uralo-Siberian], although I believe that some of the lexical evidence [...] will hold up in terms of borrowing/diffusion.
Fortescue's observations are encylopaedic, and often innovative and inspiring, but the picture arrived at is one of disetcta membra [sic]
As a result, F's list of proposed cognates contains numerous gaps, with many stems not found in more than two or three languages among the languages being compared. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to evaluate the soundness of the reconstruction, and more illustrative examples would have helped.