Nostratic languages (hereinafter referred to as yaz.) Is a hypothetical type of macro-family that unites a number of separate languages and language families of Asia, Africa and Europe. Among them are the Uralic, Altai, Dravidian, Eskimo-Aleut, Indo-European, Kartvelian and other languages. The members of the macro-family presented go back to one nostratic parent language in accordance with the idea of forming this theory. It is advisable to study in more detail the nostratic theory of language, its features and components.
Historical aspect
The above is the theory of the origin of n. lang However, it should be noted that nostratic languages and nostratic linguistics, in accordance with another, less powerful hypothesis, belong to the superfamily, which is determined by a higher level. It is about Borean languages.
It should be noted that the author of the main hypothesis about n. lang became H. Pedersen, a fairly well-known Danish linguist, in 1903. He first mentioned the term being studied. Nevertheless, pairwise comparisons of language families, which are usually included in the Nostratic macro-family, began only in the mid-nineteenth century.
Comparison Attempts
The hypothesis of nostratic languages began to spread wider and wider. Various scholars have made all kinds of comparisons. For example, well-known comparisons such as the Ural-Altai (M. A. Castren, V. Schott), Indo-Ural (N. Anderson, I. Kuno, F. P. Keppen, V. Thomsen), Indo-Kartvel ( . Bopp), as well as the Indo-Semitic (A. Kuni, G. Meller).
It is worth noting that in the early 1960s, the theory of nostratic languages was developed to a large extent by V. M. Illich-Svitych, the Slavic who then lived in Moscow. Somewhat later, this question was successfully advanced by A. B. Dolgopolsky, a scientist from Israel, as well as S. A. Starostin and V. A. Dybo, scientists from Russia. At the same time, some of them were included in the Nostratic and Afrasian families. Other scholars and experts were of the opinion that Afrasian languages are a strictly separate family.
Timeline of separation, composition and ancestral home
You should know that in his fundamental work, Illich-Svitych refers to n. lang following languages:
- Altai languages.
- Afrasian Nostratic languages (Chatal-Guyuk - a place where people practiced these languages; a large-scale settlement of the era of ceramic Neolithic and Eneolithic in the province of Konya).
- Kartvelian languages.
- Indo-European languages.
- Uralic languages.
- Dravidian languages.
This list of Nostratic languages compiled by Illich-Svitych is the most comprehensive. Various scientists have tried to make some corrections to it. It is advisable to separately consider this nuance.
Amendments to the list of languages
Despite the existence of an already formed list of Nostratic languages, S. A. Starostin decided to make his own amendments, based on the calculations of glottochronological nature. So, the scientist made the conclusion that the collapse of the Afrasian language falls on about 10-11 thousand years BC. Around the same time, Mr. lang (10-12 thousand years BC). It was this that became an argument for considering the presented groups of languages as separate macro-families. This situation is a prime example of the kinship of Nostratic languages at the deepest level.
In accordance with the opinion of S. A. Starostin, the first from the nostratic grouping were the Dravidian languages. It is worth noting that more than once attempts were made to include the following languages in the nostratic macro-family:
- Amerindian.
- Eskimo-Aleut.
- Yenisei.
- North Caucasian.
- Sino-Tibetan.
- Nivkh.
S. A. Starostin was of the opinion that from this list only Eskimo-Aleutian languages can be considered Nostratic languages.
Internal classification
It should be noted that all n. lang classified into eastern and western. Starostin suggested that this division is endowed not with a genetic nature, but with an areal one. So, he attributed to the West-Nostratic:
- Indo-European languages.
- Afrasian languages.
- Kartvelian languages.
The eastern nostratic group included:
- Dravidian languages.
- Altai languages.
- Uralic languages.
It is important to add that other theories and classifications are also known at present.
East Nostratic: Altai
Further, it is advisable to consider in more detail the group of East Nostratic languages. So, Altai languages are divided into Tungus-Manchurian, Turkic, Japanese, Mongolian and Korean groups. It should be noted that some scientists doubt the existence of the represented family as a genetic unity (they prefer to talk about the union of languages) and other scientists are absolutely sure. Some scholars are of the opinion that the Mongolian, Turkic, and other languages are included in the nostratic family as independent elements. In other words, they are part of the Nostratic family, and do not form a separate Altai. It is worth considering that the collapse of the Altai languages occurred in the sixth millennium BC.
Dravidian
It is important to keep in mind that the Dravidian languages are very similar to the Uralic. In addition, it has the same features as the Hutt and Etruscan. Many scholars say that the Elamian language is akin to the Dravidian language (indicators of declination are similar here), and Starostin made a conclusion regarding the intermediate position of the Elamic language, that is, between the Nostratic family and the Afrasian languages. The collapse of the Dravidian languages occurred in the fourth millennium BC.
Yukagiro-Chuvan
You should be aware that the Yukagiro-Chuvan languages are intermediate between the Ural and Altai. For this reason, they are combined into one prasemy, which is called the Ural-Yukagir. Most likely, their carriers rose along the East Caspian coast from South Turkmenistan to the Ural River. Further they suffered division into the West Ural and East Ural branches and began to develop territories on both sides relative to the Ural Mountains. At the same time, the Finno-Ugric Sami was heavily dependent on Samoyeds. It is advisable to mark the time of the disintegration of the represented group of languages as the V — III millennium BC.
If we consider an example of a text in the Nostratic language, we can see: the most characteristic feature of n. lang is the sound [m] in the forms of a personal pronoun 1 l., unit hours, as well as the sound [t] (as an option - [d], [s], [č], [š] and so on).
Eskimo-Aleut languages: conclusion
And finally, consider a family of Eskimo-Aleut languages. It is important to note: both phonetically and morphologically, they are very similar to the Ural-Altai (primarily Finno-Ugric). Some scholars are of the opinion that this similarity was acquired due to cohabitation even before writing on a long-term basis. S. A. Starostin said that a system of phonetic parallels and correspondences of a regular nature can be formed between the Prasino-Caucasian and pranostratic languages. By the way, Starostin called Eurasian as a hypothetical superfamily that unites Afrasian, Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian languages.
It must be borne in mind that the nostratic theory has been criticized many times. Even today, many Western linguists simply reject this theory, and very critically. What is the main argument of critics and opponents? They insist that at such a great depth in terms of time, the methods of historical and comparative linguistics, which, moreover, come from the ideas about linguistic divergence within the framework of an extremely simple model of the “family tree”, are not applicable. Nevertheless, in approaches of a general theoretical nature, world linguistics does not deny primarily the development of oral (sounds that become effective thanks to facial expressions and gestures) communications in certain communities of people since the appearance of the first person on the planet, as well as elements of the division of labor and its tools.
It is worth considering that R. Dickson, a world-famous specialist in Australian languages, has a sharply negative attitude to the nostratic group of languages. In addition, the presented figure is a professor, a correspondent of the British Academy, as well as one of the leading typologists in modern times. It is important to add that he wrote numerous works on comparative studies, linguistic typology, social linguistics, English, field linguistics, as well as on the languages of the natives of South America, Australia and Oceania. In addition, R. Dixon could develop extremely intense and active organizational activities. Thus, he presented his sharply negative attitude to the language family in question through the book The rise and fall of languages (1997).
Naturally, various world-famous figures, including J. Matisoff, L. Campbell and others, expressed critical remarks both regarding the methodology as a whole and regarding the reconstruction of the private plan. S. Starostin responded to criticism in his own work entitled "On the proof of linguistic kinship." It was there that he carried out a detailed analysis of the arguments indicated by the opponents of macrocomparativistics, and also presented his counterarguments.