Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, Volume 2 : General Linguistics [1 ed.] 9789401206365, 9789042024717

Citation preview

Evidence and Counter-Evidence

Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics Series Editors:

Peter Houtzagers · Janneke Kalsbeek · Jos Schaeken Editorial Advisory Board:

R. Alexander (Berkeley) · A.A. Barentsen (Amsterdam) B. Comrie (Leipzig) - B.M. Groen (Amsterdam) · W. Lehfeldt (Göttingen) G. Spieß (Cottbus) - R. Sprenger (Amsterdam) · W.R. Vermeer (Leiden)

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008

Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, vol. 33

Evidence and Counter-Evidence Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt Volume 2: General Linguistics

edited by Alexander Lubotsky Jos Schaeken Jeroen Wiedenhof with the assistance of Rick Derksen and Sjoerd Siebinga

Cover illustration: Makah women known as Weisub and Neisub, Neah Bay, Washington, ca.1898 © University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections, NA1375 The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706: 1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: set (volume 1-2): 978-90-420-2469-4 ISBN: 978-90-420-2471-7 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008 Printed in The Netherlands

CONTENTS The editors PREFACE LIST OF PUBLICATIONS BY FREDERIK KORTLANDT

1 3

Willem Adelaar TOWARDS A TYPOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE ANDEAN LANGUAGES

23

Elisabeth de Boer THE ORIGIN OF ALTERNATIONS IN INITIAL PITCH IN THE VERBAL PARADIGMS OF THE CENTRAL JAPANESE (KYÔTO TYPE) ACCENT SYSTEMS

35

V.A. Chirikba ARMENIANS AND THEIR DIALECTS IN ABKHAZIA

51

Katia Chirkova ON THE POSITION OF BÁIMӼ WITHIN TIBETAN: A LOOK FROM BASIC VOCABULARY

69

Karen Steffen Chung LIVING (HAPPILY) WITH CONTRADICTION

93

George van Driem THE LANGUAGE ORGANISM: PARASITE OR MUTUALIST?

101

Roger Finch MONGOLIAN /-GAR/ AND JAPANESE /-GAR-/

113

Stefan Georg YENISEIC LANGUAGES AND THE SIBERIAN LINGUISTIC AREA

151

Ekaterina Gruzdeva HOW TO ORIENT ONESELF ON SAKHALIN: A GUIDE TO NIVKH LOCATIONAL TERMS

169

C. Hoede KNOWLEDGE GRAPH ANALYSIS OF PARTICLES IN JAPANESE

189

Henning Klöter FACTS AND FANTASY ABOUT FAVORLANG: EARLY EUROPEAN ENCOUNTERS WITH TAIWAN’S LANGUAGES

207

CONTENTS

Maarten Kossmann THREE IRREGULAR BERBER VERBS: ‘EAT’, ‘DRINK’, ‘BE COOKED, RIPEN’

225

Riikka Länsisalmi TEACHING PERSONAL REFERENCE IN JAPANESE

237

Elena Maslova DUAL NOMINALISATION IN YUKAGHIR: STRUCTURAL AMBIGUITY AS SEMANTIC DUALITY

249

Roy Andrew Miller THE ALTAIC AORIST IN *-RA IN OLD KOREAN

267

Marc Hideo Miyake AVOIDING ABBA: OLD CHINESE SYLLABIC HARMONY

283

Maarten Mous VOICE IN TUNEN: THE SO-CALLED PASSIVE PREFIX BÉ-

303

Irina Nikolaeva CHUVAN AND OMOK LANGUAGES?

313

Martine Robbeets IF JAPANESE IS ALTAIC, HOW CAN IT BE SO SIMPLE?

337

Elena Skribnik BURYAT EVALUATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

369

Harry Stroomer THREE TASHELHIYT BERBER TEXTS FROM THE ARSÈNE ROUX ARCHIVES

389

Arie Verhagen SYNTAX, RECURSION, PRODUCTIVITY – A USAGE-BASED PERSPECTIVE ON THE EVOLUTION OF GRAMMAR

399

Jeroen Wiedenhof LANGUAGE, BRAINS AND THE SYNTACTIC REVOLUTION

415

PREFACE These two volumes are dedicated to Frederik Kortlandt on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, bringing together contributions by students and colleagues who have found inspiration in his linguistic work. Except for this intellectual association, the texts have little in common. They thus reflect Frederik’s abundant linguistic appetites, ranging from Slavic studies to Indo-European reconstruction, Tibeto-Burman fieldwork and the genesis of human language itself. The list is endless, owing to his knack for taking up an entirely new area of expertise, acquainting himself with its traditions, and proceeding to invigorate its specialists with new evidence, insights and incentives. In obtaining evidence, Frederik’s observations are penetrating and meticulous, but his empiricism does not rely on facts proving the theory. The role of the theory is to allow its own disproof: “a new insight means a new way of looking for counter-evidence rather than a new way of looking at known facts” (List of Publications, no. 104). This paradox is due to the fact that “human beings are driven by ideas” (no. 206). For if humans risk becoming victims of their own ideas, it is the responsibility of science to test these concepts in the exploration of unknown territories. Frederik has intensified this quest into the unknown over the years. Realizing the speed with which traditional cultures succumb to political, economic and technological pressures, he has actively promoted the documentation of little-known written and unwritten languages and their various habitats across the globe. The resulting descriptions not only provide abundant and indispensable data for the analysis of our complex cultural heritage, they constitute a lasting contribution to the development of linguistic science. Dear Frits: your colleagues hope you will enjoy the following pages and are, as ever, looking forward to your straightforward comments. Alexander Lubotsky Jos Schaeken Jeroen Wiedenhof Leiden, 19 June 2006

&WJEFODFÛBOEÛ$PVOUFS&WJEFODF Û'FTUTDISJGUÛ'SFEFSJLÛ,PSUMBOEU Û7PMVNFÛ 44(-Û Û"NTUFSEBNÛÛ/FXÛ:PSLÛ3PEPQJ Û Û

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS BY FREDERIK KORTLANDT

In accordance with Frederik Kortlandt’s own conventions, this list is arranged chronologically by date of authorship rather than date of publication. An online version is available at www.kortlandt.nl, where full text versions of many publications, some as yet unpublished, can also be found.

1969 1 2

“The semantics of the Russian verb”. Review of: Ju.D. Apresjan, Èksperimental’noe issledovanie semantiki russkogo glagola (Moskva: Nauka, 1967). Lingua 27/1 (1971), 53-81. “Exacte methoden in de linguïstiek”. Raster 3/2 (1969), 153-161. 1970

3 4 5

“Sur l’identification des unités phonologiques du castillan”. Linguistics 111 (1973), 43-50. “Phonetics and phonemics of standard Russian”. Tijdschrift voor Slavische Taal- en Letterkunde 2 (1973), 73-83. “O fonologii sovremennogo pol’skogo literaturnogo jazyka”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 19/1 (1974), 53-58. 1971

6 6a 7

“Russian conjugation: Computer synthesis of Russian verb forms”. Tijdschrift voor Slavische Taal- en Letterkunde 1 (1972), 51-80. Russian conjugation: Computer synthesis of Russian verbal forms (Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 1976). Modelling the phoneme: New trends in East European phonemic theory (The Hague: Mouton, 1972). 1972

8 9 10

“The identification of phonemic units”. La Linguistique 9/2 (1973), 119-130. “Optional features in contemporary Russian”. In: A.G.F. van Holk (ed.), Dutch contributions to the 7th international congress of slavists (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), 107-114. The flexion of the Russian substantive. (ms.)



-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

1973 11 11a 12 13 14 14a

“Tones in Wakashan”. Dutch contributions to the 8th international conference on Salish languages (Leiden, 1973) [n.p.]. “Tones in Wakashan”. Linguistics 146 (1975), 31-34. “Russian nominal flexion”. Linguistics 130 (1974), 55-70. “On the history of Baltic accentuation”. In: J.M. Anderson and Ch. Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics II (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974), 295-309. Slavic accentuation: A study in relative chronology (Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 1975). Slavic accentuation: A study in relative chronology. Preprint (Amsterdam, 1974). 1974

15 16 17 18 19

“Old Prussian accentuation”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 88/2 (1974), 299-306. “A note on Shuswap phonemics”. Dutch contributions to the 9th international conference on Salish languages (Leiden, 1974) [n.p.]. “The Slovene neo-circumflex”. The Slavonic and East European Review 54/134 (1976), 1-10. “Notes on Armenian historical phonology I”. Studia Caucasica 3 (1976), 91-100. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 1-9.] “Initial *u in Baltic and Slavic”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 91/1 (1977), 37-40. 1975

20 21 22 23 23a 24

“A note on the Armenian palatalization”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 89/1 (1975), 43-45. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 10-12.] “Jers and nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments”. SlavistiĴna Revija 23 (1975), 405-412. “Albanian and Armenian”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 94 (1980), 243-251. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 13-19.] “I.-E. palatovelars before resonants in Balto-Slavic”. In: J. Fisiak (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology (The Hague: Mouton, 1978), 237-243. “Comment on W. Winter’s paper”. In: J. Fisiak (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology (The Hague: Mouton, 1978), 447. PIE. *gƹHǞiu- ‘to live’. (ms.)

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5



1976 25 26 27

“Historical laws of Baltic accentuation”. Baltistica 13/2 (1977), 319330. “Sur l’accentuation des noms postverbaux en slave”. In: J.M. Meijer (ed.), Dutch contributions to the 8th international congress of slavists (Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 1979), 325-328. “Zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blätter”. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 41/1 (1980), 1-4. 1977

28 29 30

“A history of Slavic accentuation”. Review of: P. Garde, Histoire de l’accentuation slave (Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 1976). Lingua 44/1 (1978), 67-91. “On the history of Slavic accentuation”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92 (1978), 269-281. “On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European”. Lingua 45 (1978), 281-300. 1978

31 31a

32 33 34 35 36

“Notes on Armenian historical phonology II: The second consonant shift”. Studia Caucasica 4 (1978), 9-16. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 20-25.] “Patmahamematakan hnĺɠyunabanutɠyan harcɠer B: Hayereni patmakan hnĺɠyunabanutɠyan aknark (Bařajaynneri erkrord teřašarž)”. [“Voprosy istoriko-sravnitel’noj fonetiki II: Oĺerk istoriĺeskoj fonetiki armjanskogo jazyka (Vtoroe peredviženie soglasnyx)”.] Hayocɠ Lezu ev Grakanutɠyun [Armjanskij Jazyk i Literatura] (1983) 1, 63-70. “Proto-Indo-European obstruents”. Indogermanische Forschungen 83 (1978), 107-118. “Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system”. Lingua 49/1 (1979), 51-70. “Hǝo and oHǝ”. Lingua Posnaniensis 23 [Fs. Kudzinowski] (1980), 127-128. “The Old Irish absolute and conjunct endings and questions of relative chronology”. Ériu 30 (1979), 35-53. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 1-23.] “On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels”. Indogermanische Forschungen 84 (1979), 259-272.



-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

1979 37 38 39 40 41 42

42a

Review of: R. L’Hermitte, La phrase nominale en russe (Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 1978). Lingua 48 (1979), 289-291. “Glottalic consonants in Sindhi and Proto-Indo-European”. IndoIranian Journal 23/1 (1981), 15-19. Review of: A. Vaillant, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves V: La syntaxe (Paris: Klincksieck, 1977). Lingua 48 (1979), 393-394. “Three problems of Balto-Slavic phonology”. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 22/2 (1979), 57-63. Review of: M. Hasiuk, Fonologia litewskiej gwary sejneŔskiej (PoznaŚ: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1978). Lingua 49 (1979), 266267. “On the relative chronology of Armenian sound changes”. In: J.A.C. Greppin (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Armenian linguistics (Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1980), 97-106. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 26-33.] “Patmahamematakan hnĺɠyunabanutɠyan harcɠer A: Hayereni hnĺɠyunapɠoxutɠyunneri haraberakan žamanakagrutɠyan masin”. [“Voprosy istoriko-sravnitel’noj fonetiki I: Ob otnositel’noj xronologii ĺeredovanij v armjanskom jazyke”.] Hayocɠ Lezu ev Grakanutɠyun [Armjanskij Jazyk i Literatura] (1983) 1, 54-62. 1980

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Review of: V.M. Illich-Svitych, Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1979). Lingua 51/4 (1980), 346354. “1st sg. middle *-Hǝ”. Indogermanische Forschungen 86 (1981), 123136. Review of: E. Stankiewicz, Studies in Slavic morphophonemics and accentology (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1979). Lingua 52 (1980), 198-200. “More evidence for Italo-Celtic”. Ériu 32 (1981), 1-22. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 25-50.] “Temporal gradation and temporal limitation”. In: A.A. Barentsen, B.M. Groen and R. Sprenger (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 1 [Fs. Ebeling] (1980), 237-246. “On the Armenian personal endings”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 2 (1981), 29-34. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 3438.] “Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11 (1983), 307-324.

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

50



“Innovations which betray archaisms”. Baltistica 18/1 (1982), 4-9. 1981

51 52 52a

53 54 55 56

“Phonemicization and rephonemicization of the Old Irish mutations”. Ériu 33 (1982), 73-83. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 51-64.] “Sravnitel’no-istoriĺeskie kommentarii k bolgarskomu udareniju”. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 25/1 (1982), 91-96. “Sravnitel’no-istoriĺeskie kommentarii k bolgarskomu udareniju”. In: P. Zarev et al. (eds.), Pĭrvi meždunarodni kongres po bĭlgaristika. Dokladi I: IstoriĴeski razvoj na bĭlgarskija ezik (Sofija: BAN, 1983), 169176. Review of: J. Marvan, Prehistoric Slavic contraction (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979). Lingua 56/1 (1982), 98100. “IE *pt in Slavic”. Folia Linguistica Historica 3/1 (1982), 25-28. “On final syllables in Slavic”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11 (1983), 167-185. “A rejoinder”. Lingua 56/2 (1982), 182-183. 1982

57 58 59 60 61 62

62a 63

“Linguistic theory, universals, and Slavic accentuation”. Folia Linguistica Historica 4/1 (1983), 27-43. “Early dialectal diversity in South Slavic I”. In: A.A. Barentsen, R. Sprenger and M.G.M. Tielemans (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 2: South Slavic and Balkan linguistics (1982), 177-192. “K ustanovleniju otnositel’noj xronologii vozniknovenija bolgarskogo dialekta praslavjanskogo jazyka”. Palaeobulgarica / Starobĭlgaristika 8/1 (1984), 106-111. “Greek numerals and PIE glottalic consonants”. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42 (1983), 97-104. “Notes on Armenian historical phonology III: h-”. Studia Caucasica 5 (1983), 9-16. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 39-44.] “Proto-Armenian case endings”. In: International symposium on Armenian linguistics: Reports [Meždunarodnyj simpozium po armjanskomu jazykoznaniju: Doklady] (Erevan: AN Arm. SSR, 1984), 97-106. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 45-51.] “Naxahayereni holovakan ver੾avorutɢyunnerƀ”. [“Padežnye okonĺanija protoarmjanskogo jazyka”.] Banber Erevani Hamalsarani [Vestnik Erevanskogo Universiteta] (1983) 1/49, 64-70. “Demonstrative pronouns in Balto-Slavic, Armenian, and Tocharian”. In: A.G.F. van Holk (ed.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 3: Dutch contributions to the 9th international congress of slavists:



64

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

Linguistics (1983), 311-322. [Partially reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 52-53.] “Long vowels in Balto-Slavic”. Baltistica 21/2 (1985), 112-124. 1983

65 66 66a 67 68 69 70 71 72

“Archaic ablaut patterns in the Vedic verb”. In: G. Cardona and N.H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald (Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1987), 219-223. “Od praindoevropskog jezika do slovenskog (Fonološki razvoj)”. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 32/2 (1989), 41-58. “From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22 (1994), 91-112. “A parasitological view of non-constructible sets”. In: U. Pieper and G. Stickel (eds.), Studia linguistica diachronica et synchronica [Fs. Winter] (Berlin: Mouton, 1985), 477-483. “Old Irish subjunctives and futures and their Proto-Indo-European origins”. Ériu 35 (1984), 179-187. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 65-74.] “On reduced vowels in Slavic”. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 2728 [Fs. Iviĸ] (1984-85), 367-368. “Posttonic *w in Old Irish”. Ériu 37 (1986), 89-92. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 75-79.] “The origin of the Slavic imperfect”. In: R. Olesch and H. Rothe (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Bräuer zum 65. Geburtstag (Köln: Böhlau, 1986), 253-258. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 81-85.] “Vestjysk stød, Icelandic preaspiration, and Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops”. In: M.A. Jazayery and W. Winter (eds.), Languages and cultures: Studies in honor of Edgar C. Polomé (Berlin: Mouton, 1988), 353-357. 1984

73 74 75 75a 76

“PIE. *H- in Armenian”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 5 (1984), 4143. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 54-56.] “The progressive palatalization of Slavic”. Folia Linguistica Historica 5/2 (1984), 211-219. “Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: The comparative evidence”. Folia Linguistica Historica 6/2 (1985), 183-201. “Praindoevropejskie glottalizovannye smyĺnye (Sravnitel’no-istoriĺeskie dannye)”. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (1985) 4, 43-53. “Notes on Armenian historical phonology IV”. Studia Caucasica 6 (1985), 9-11. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 57-59.]

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

77 78

79 80 81 82 83



“Arm. artawsr ‘tear’”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 6 [Fs. Djahukian] (1985), 59-61. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 60-62.] “Old Prussian infinitives in -ton and -twei”. In: B. MetuzĵleKangere and H.D. Rinholm (eds.), Symposium Balticum: A Festschrift to honour Professor Velta RůŌe-DraviŘa (Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1990), 213-218. “Semiotactics as a Van Wijngaarden grammar”. In: J.J. van Baak (ed.), Signs of friendship: To honour A.G.F. van Holk, slavist, linguist, semiotician (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984), 183-186. “Proto-Indo-European tones?”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 14 (1986), 153-160. “The syncretism of nominative and accusative singular in Armenian”. Revue des Études Arméniennes, n.s. 19 (1985), 19-24. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 63-67.] “Slavic imamņ”. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31-32 [Fs. Birnbaum] (1985), 235-239. “Comment on R. Orr’s view”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 14 (1986), 184. 1985

84

85 86 87 88 89

“The origin of the Old English dialects”. In: D. Kastovsky and A. Szwedek (eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries I: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics [Fs. Fisiak] (Berlin: Mouton, 1986), 437-442. “Armenian and Albanian”. In: M. Leroy and Fr. Mawet (eds.), La place de l’arménien dans les langues indo-européennes (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 38-47. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 68-74.] “Lachmann’s law”. In: Th. Vennemann (ed.), The new sound of IndoEuropean: Essays in phonological reconstruction (Berlin: Mouton, 1989), 103-105. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 87-89.] “The formation of the Old Prussian present tense”. Baltistica 23/2 (1987), 104-111. “The Germanic first class of weak verbs”. North-Western European Language Evolution 8 (1986), 27-31. Review of: P. Anreiter, Bemerkungen zu den Reflexen indogermanischer Dentale im Tocharischen (Innsbruck: IBS, 1984). Bibliotheca Orientalis 43 (1986), 557-560. 1986

90

“Notes on Armenian historical phonology V”. Studia Caucasica 7 (1987), 61-65. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 75-78.]



91

92 93

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

“Nominal accentuation in contemporary standard Russian”. In: A.A. Barentsen, B.M. Groen and R. Sprenger (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 8: Dutch studies in Russian linguistics (1986), 367-371. “Sigmatic or root aorist?”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 8 (1987), 49-52. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 79-82.] “The laryngeal theory and Slavic accentuation”. In: A. Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1988), 299-311. 1987

94 95 96 97

98 99

“PIE. *s in Albanian”. In: A.A. Barentsen, B.M. Groen and R. Sprenger (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 10: Dutch studies in South Slavic and Balkan linguistics (1987), 219-226. “On the development of PIE. final syllables in Tocharian”. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 2 (1988), 80-88. “The Tocharian word for ‘woman’”. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 2 (1988), 77-79. “The Aeolic optative”. In: R. Beekes, A. Lubotsky and J. Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie: Akten der 8. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft [Leiden, 1987] (Innsbruck: IBS, 1992), 235-239. “The Greek 3rd pl. endings”. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49 (1988), 63-69. “Lithuanian statýti and related formations”. Baltistica 25/2 (1989), 104-112. 1988

100 “Remarks on Winter’s law”. In: A.A. Barentsen, B.M. Groen and R. Sprenger (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 11: Dutch contributions to the 10th international congress of slavists: Linguistics (1988), 387-396. 101 “The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift”. Linguistique Balkanique / Balkansko Ezikoznanie 31 (1988), 71-74. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 83-87.] 102 “Proto-Germanic obstruents”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 27 (1988), 3-10. 102a “Nieuw licht op de Germaanse klankverschuivingen”. Mededelingenblad van de Vereniging van Oudgermanisten 2/2 (1988), 23.

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5



103 “Van Wijk’s Altpreussische Studien revisited”. In: B.M. Groen, J.P. Hinrichs and W.R. Vermeer (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 12 [Gs. van Wijk] (1988), 89-97. 104 “The making of a puzzle”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 10 (1989), 43-52. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 88-95.] 105 “The Germanic third class of weak verbs”. North-Western European Language Evolution 15 (1990), 3-10. 106 “On methods of dealing with facts and opinions in a treatment of the progressive palatalization of Slavic”. Folia Linguistica Historica 9/2 (1989), 3-12. 107 “Der polabische Wortakzent”. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 49/1 (1989), 163-170. 108 “The accentuation of neuter nouns in Slovene and West Bulgarian”. SlavistiĴna Revija 37 [Gs. Rigler] (1989), 31-37. 1989 109 “The Germanic weak preterit”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 28 (1989), 101-109. 110 “Tokie šalti rytai”. Baltistica 28/1 (1993), 45-48. 111 “The spread of the Indo-Europeans”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 18 (1990), 131-140. 112 “Eight Indo-Uralic verbs?”. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 50 (1989), 79-85. 112a “Vosem’ indo-ural’skix glagolov?”. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (1992) 1, 101-104. 113 “On the meaning of the Japanese passive”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 24 (1992), 97-108. 1990 114 “The fate of the sigmatic aorist in Tocharian”. In: B. Schlerath (ed.), Tocharisch: Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft [Berlin, 1990]. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, suppl. 4 (Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, 1994), 61-65. 115 “The Germanic seventh class of strong verbs”. North-Western European Language Evolution 18 (1991), 97-100. 116 “Arm. canawtɠ ‘known’”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 12 (1991), 1-4. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 96-97.] 117 “The Old Norse i-umlaut”. North-Western European Language Evolution 20 (1992), 27-31.



-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

1991 118 “A note on the Tocharian dual”. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 5 (1991), 5-10. 119 “Kluge’s law and the rise of Proto-Germanic geminates”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 34 (1991), 1-4. 120 “The Germanic fifth class of strong verbs”. North-Western European Language Evolution 19 (1992), 101-107. 121 “Le statif indo-européen en slave”. Revue des Études Slaves 64/3 [Gs. Lépissier] (1992), 373-376. 1992 122 “The Germanic sixth class of strong verbs”. North-Western European Language Evolution 23 (1994), 69-73. 123 “Old High German umlaut”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 37 (1993), 19-20. 124 “On breaking”. North-Western European Language Evolution 24 (1994), 15-19. 125 “The origin of the Japanese and Korean accent systems”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 26 (1993), 57-65. 1993 126 “Proto-Armenian numerals”. In: J.E. Rasmussen (ed.), In honorem Holger Pedersen: Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft [Kopenhagen, 1993] (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1994), 253-257. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 98-101.] 127 “Intervocalic *-w- in Armenian”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 14 (1993), 9-13. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 102-103.] 128 “The Proto-Germanic pluperfect”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 40 (1994), 1-5. 129 “Absolute and conjunct again”. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55 (1994), 61-68. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 91-97.] 130 “General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction”. Rask 2 (1995), 91-109. 1994 131 “The accentual system of the Freising manuscripts”. In: J. Kos et al. (eds.), Zbornik Brižinski spomeniki (Ljubljana: SAZU, 1996), 141-151. 132 “The etymology of Latvian nãkt ‘to come’”. Linguistica Baltica 3 (1994), 191-193. 133 “Palatalization of dentals in Armenian”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 15 (1994), 27-31. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 104-106.]

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5



134 “On the accent marks in the First Freising Fragment”. In: A.A. Barentsen et al. (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 23: Studies in South Slavic and Balkan linguistics (1996), 167-171. 134a “O naglasnih znamenjih v Brižinskem spomeniku I”. SlavistiĴna Revija 42/4 (1994), 579-581. 135 “The Germanic fourth class of weak verbs”. North-Western European Language Evolution 25 (1995), 137-139. 136 “Lithuanian verbs in -auti and -uoti”. Linguistica Baltica 4 [Gs. Kuryřowicz] (1995), 141-143. 137 “The sigmatic forms of the Armenian verb”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 16 (1995), 13-17. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 107-109.] 1995 138 “The High German consonant shift”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 46 (1996), 53-57. 138a “Korrektur”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 47 (1997), 231. 139 “The Proto-Armenian verbal system”. In: D. Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Armenian linguistics (Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1996), 35-43. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 110-116.] 140 “The development of the Prussian language in the 16th century”. In: A. Bammesberger (ed.), Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1998), 55-76. 141 “PIE. lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic”. In: D.Q. Adams (ed.), Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp, vol. II [Journal of Indo-European Studies, monograph 25] (1997), 26-31. 142 “How old is the English glottal stop?”. North-Western European Language Evolution 31-32: Germanic studies in honor of Anatoly Liberman (1997), 175-179. 142a “Glottalisatie”. NRC Handelsblad (21 juni 1997), 51. 143 “Labials, velars and labiovelars in Germanic”. North-Western European Language Evolution 30 (1997), 45-50. 144 “The alleged early apocope of *-i in Celtic”. Études Celtiques 32 (1996), 91-97. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 99-106.] 1996 145 “The dual endings of the Indo-European verb”. Studia Indogermanica Lodziensia 2 (1999), 71-73.



-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

146 “PIE. *j in Albanian”. In: A.A. Barentsen et al. (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 23: Studies in South Slavic and Balkan linguistics (1996), 173-176. 147 Review of: Chr. Ehret, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (ProtoAfrasian): Vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995). Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 17 (1996), 183-189. 148 “Arm. caœr ‘laughter’”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 17 (1996), 5559. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 117-119.] 149 “The Tocharian imperfect”. Historische Sprachforschung 109/2 (1996), 169-174. 150 “Thematic and athematic verb forms in Old Irish”. In: A. Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997), 133-137. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 107-111.] 151 The Prussian Catechismus I: An electronic text edition. www.kortlandt.nl/editions/cat1.html (1996). 152 The Prussian Catechismus II: An electronic text edition. www.kortlandt.nl/editions/cat2.html (1996). 153 The Prussian Enchiridion: An electronic text edition. www.kortlandt.nl/editions/ench.html (1996). 154 The Freising Manuscripts: An electronic text edition. www.kortlandt.nl/editions/freis.html (1996). 155 “Two Old Prussian fragments”. In: A. Bammesberger (ed.), Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1998), 115119. 156 “Are Mongolian and Tungus genetically related?”. Acta Orientalia (Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae) 51 (1998), 235-237. 156a “Are Mongolian and Tungus genetically related?”. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 3 (1998), 61-65. 157 “Old Irish ol ‘inquit’”. Études Celtiques 32 (1996), 143-145. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 113-115.] 158 “Syntax and semantics in the history of Chinese”. The Journal of Intercultural Studies [Osaka] 25 (1998), 167-176. 159 The Elbing Vocabulary: An electronic text edition. www.kortlandt.nl/editions/elbv.html (1996). 160 Simon Grunau’s Vocabulary: An electronic text edition. www.kortlandt.nl/editions/grunv.html (1996). 161 “Japanese aru, iru, oru ‘to be’”. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 2 (1997), 167-170. 162 “Indo-European and Chinese: A comment on E.G. Pulleyblank’s view”. International Review of Chinese Linguistics 1/1 (1996), 30-31.

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5



163 Kazania Ďwiļtokrzyskie: An electronic text edition. www.kortlandt.nl/editions/kazsw.html (1996). 163a (with Jos Schaeken) “Kazania ĕwiłtokrzyskie: A text edition”. In: A.A. Barentsen et al. (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 24: Dutch contributions to the 12th international congress of slavists: Linguistics (1998), 317-327. 164 “Rounded nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments”. In: A.A. Barentsen et al. (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 24: Dutch contributions to the 12th international congress of slavists: Linguistics (1998), 309-315. 164a “Zaokroženi nosni samoglasniki v Brižinskih spomenikih”. SlavistiĴna Revija 44/4 (1996), 393-398. 1997 165 Review of: V.E. Orel & O.V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction (Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J. Brill, 1995). Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20/2 (1999), 198-203. 166 “Who is who in the Old Prussian epigram?”. In: A. Bammesberger (ed.), Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1998), 127-128. 167 “On the relative chronology of Celtic sound changes”. Historische Sprachforschung 110/2 (1997), 248-251. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 117-120.] 168 “Lachmann’s law again”. In: E.C. Polomé and C.F. Justus (eds.), Language change and typological variation: In honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the occasion of his 83rd birthday, vol. I: Language change and phonology [Journal of Indo-European Studies, monograph 30] (1999), 246-248. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 121-123.] 169 “The Old Prussian preterit”. In: T.M. Nikolaeva et al. (eds.), ̧̪̩̥̮̭̫̩̪̩ [Fs. Toporov] (Moskva: Indrik, 1998), 144-147. 170 “Arm. nĻr ‘sister-in-law’”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 18 (1997), 7-9. [Reprinted with comments in item no. 194, 120-121.] 171 “De buren van onze voorouders”. Spinoza 97 (Den Haag: NWO, 1997), 9-17. 171a “De talen van de wereld”. Hypothese 14 (september 1997), 3. 172 “The language of the Old Prussian catechisms”. Res Balticae 4 (1998), 117-129. 173 “Baltic Ļ- and ň/jį-stems”. Baltistica 32/2 (1997), 157-163. 174 Review of: M. Fortescue, Indo-European reflections (Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1996). Language 74/3 (1998), 685-686.



-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

175 “The rise and fall of glottalization in Baltic and Slavic”. Linguistica Baltica 7 (1998), 147-150. 1998 176 “The development of *y- in Armenian”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 19 (1998), 15-18. [Reprinted in item no. 194, 122-124.] 177 “Voorwoord”. In: B. Comrie, S. Matthews and M. Polinsky, De grote taalatlas (Haarlem: Schuyt, 1998), 6-7. 178 “Arm. gom ‘am’”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 19 (1998), 19-20. [Reprinted in item no. 194, 125.] 179 “Armenian glottalization revisited”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 19 (1998), 11-14. [Reprinted in item no. 194, 126-128.] 180 “The origin of the Old English dialects revisited”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 51 (1999), 45-51. 181 “Paragogic -e in the Old Prussian epigram”. Baltistica 33/1 (1998), 39-40. 182 “Old Norse taka, Gothic tekan, Greek τζτβδлν”. North-Western European Language Evolution 36 (2000), 59-65. 183 “Reflexes of Indo-European consonants in Albanian”. Orpheus 8 (1998), 35-37. 184 “Double consonants in Old Prussian”. Res Balticae 5 (1999), 75-80. 185 “An analysis of the Prussian First Catechism”. Ponto-Baltica 8-9 (1998-1999), 7-14. 1999 186 “Old Prussian verb classes”. Baltistica 34/1 (1999), 17-21. 187 “An Indo-European substratum in Slavic?”. In: A. Bammesberger and Th. Vennemann (eds.), Languages in prehistoric Europe (Heidelberg: Winter, 2003), 253-260. 188 “Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb”. Indo-Iranian Journal 47/1 (2004), 7-15. 189 “Three notes on the Old Irish verb”. Études Celtiques 34 (1998-2000), 143-146. [Reprinted in item no. 239, 125-128.] 190 “Initial a- and e- in Old Prussian”. Linguistica Baltica 8 (2000), 125127. 191 “Japanese wa, mo, ga, wo, na, no”. In: Proceedings of the second conference on Japanese linguistics and language teaching (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2007), 179-186. 192 “Preaspiration or preglottalization?”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 53 (2000), 7-10. 193 “The Armenian causative”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 20 (1999-2000), 47-49. [Reprinted in item no. 194, 129-130.]

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5



2000 194 194a 195 196 197

Armeniaca: Comparative notes (Ann Arbor: Caravan, 2003). “Introduction”. In: item no. 194, vii-ix. “Old Prussian participles”. Res Balticae 6 (2000), 69-75. “The Prussian accent shift”. Baltistica 34/2 (2000), 193-197. “On Russenorsk”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 54 (2000), 123-127. 198 “The origin of the Goths”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 55 (2001), 21-25. 2001 199 “Diphthongization and monophthongization in Old Prussian”. Res Balticae 7 (2001), 57-65. 200 “Arm. ariwn ‘blood’”. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 21 (2001), 1112. [Reprinted in item no. 194, 131-132.] 201 “OPr. -snį, Lith. -sena, Latv. -šana”. In: J. Marcinkiewicz and N. Ostrowski (eds.), Mvnera lingvistica et philologica Michaeli Hasivk dedicata [PoznaŚskie Studia Bařtystyczne 1] (PoznaŚ: Katedra Skandynawistyki i Baltologii UAM, 2001), 137-139. 202 “Initial laryngeals in Anatolian”. Orpheus 13-14 [Gs. Rikov] (200304), 9-12. 203 “The Indo-Uralic verb”. In: R. Blokland and C. Hasselblatt (eds.), Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary contacts [Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2] (Maastricht: Shaker, 2002), 217-227. 204 “Old Prussian numerals”. Baltu Filoloŀija 11/1 (2002), 43-46. 2002 205 “Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian language”. In: Adam Hyllested et al. (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos [Fs. Rasmussen] (Innsbruck: IBS, 2004), 285-289. 206 “The origin and nature of the linguistic parasite”. In: B.L.M. Bauer and G.-J. Pinault (eds.), Language in time and space [Fs. Winter] (Berlin: Mouton, 2003), 241-244. 207 “Bad theory, wrong conclusions: M. Halle on Slavic accentuation”. In: J. Schaeken, P. Houtzagers and J. Kalsbeek (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 30: Dutch contributions to the 13th international congress of slavists: Linguistics (2003), 237-240. 208 “Early dialectal diversity in South Slavic II”. In: J. Schaeken, P. Houtzagers and J. Kalsbeek (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Lin-



209 210 211 212

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

guistics 30: Dutch contributions to the 13th international congress of slavists: Linguistics (2003), 215-235. “Indo-European e-, a-, o- in Slavic”. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 44-45 [Gs. Birnbaum] (2002-03), 279-282. “Old Irish feda, gen. fedot ‘Lord’ and the 1st sg. absolute ending -a in subjunctives and futures”. In: item no. 239, 129-132. “Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 58 (2003), 510. “Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger futhark”. North-Western European Language Evolution 43 (2003), 71-76. 2003

213 “Indo-Uralic consonant gradation”. In: I. Hyvärinen, P. Kallio and J. Korhonen (eds.), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen [Fs. Koivulehto] (Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 2004), 163-170. 214 “Shortening and metatony in the Lithuanian future”. Baltistica 37/1 (2002), 15-16. 215 “The linguistic position of the Prussian Second Catechism”. Baltistica 37/2 (2002), 205-209. 2004 216 “Indo-Uralic and Altaic”. (ms.) 217 “The inflexion of the Indo-European į-stems in Germanic”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 60 (2005), 1-4. 218 “Balto-Slavic accentuation: Some news travels slowly”. Baltistica 39/1 (2004), 13-17. 219 “The inflexion of the Germanic n-stems”. North-Western European Language Evolution 48 (2006), 3-7. 220 “Final stress in Balto-Slavic mobile paradigms”. Baltu Filoloŀija 13/1 (2004), 71-74. 221 “On the accentuation of the illative”. Baltu Filoloŀija 14/1 (2005), 6769. 2005 222 “From Serbo-Croatian to Indo-European”. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 51 (2005), 113-130. 223 “Hittite ammuk ‘me’”. Orpheus 15 (2005), 7-10. 224 “Holger Pedersen’s Études lituaniennes revisited”. Baltistica 6 priedas (2005), 151-157. 225 “Germanic *Ļǜ and *Ļǝ”. North-Western European Language Evolution 49 (2006), 51-54.

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5



226 “Miscellaneous remarks on Balto-Slavic accentuation”. In: M. Kapoviĸ and R. Matasoviĸ (eds.), Tones and theories: Proceedings of the international workshop on Balto-Slavic accentology (Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 2007), 229-235. 227 “Noises and nuisances in Balto-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics”. Baltistica 40/1 (2005), 9-11. 228 “Lithuanian tekĺѠti and related formations”. Baltistica 40/2 (2005), 167-170. 229 “The origin of the Franconian tone accents”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 63 (2007), 1-3. 230 “Proto-Germanic obstruents and the comparative method”. NorthWestern European Language Evolution 52 (2007), 3-7. 2006 231 “More on the Celtic verb”. In: item no. 239, 133-147. 232 “Italo-Celtic”. In: item no. 239, 149-157. 233 “On the relative chronology of Slavic accentual developments”. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 52 (2006), 25-41. 234 “Balto-Slavic accentual mobility”. Baltistica 41/3 (2006), 359-369. 235 “English bottom, German Boden, and the chronology of sound shifts”. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 63 (2007), 5-8. 236 “Accent retraction and tonogenesis”. (ms.) 237 “Old Prussian verb classes reconsidered”. Res Balticae 11 (2007), 2933. 238 “Anglo-Frisian”. (ms.) 239 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007). 239a “Introduction”. In: item no. 239, ix-xi. 240 “Gothic gen.pl. -e“. Historische Sprachforschung 120 (2007), 237-240. 2007 241 “Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect”. (ms.) 242 “Winter's law again”. (ms.) 243 “For Bernard Comrie”. Bernard's birthday book: Die etwas andere Festschrift (Leipzig: MPI-EvA, 2007), 57. 244 “Stative and middle in Hittite and Indo-European”. (ms.) 245 “The development of the Indo-European syllabic resonants in Balto-Slavic”. Baltistica 42/1 (2007), 7-12. 246 “Russian syntax and semantics”. (ms.) 247 “C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian”. (ms.) 248 “Arm. ewœ ‘oil’”. (ms.)



-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5

249 “Slavic historical morphology: Nominal paradigms”. In: P. Houtzagers, J. Kalsbeek and J. Schaeken, (eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 34: Dutch contributions to the 14th international congress of slavists: Linguistics (2008), 397-429. 250 “Björketorp and Stentoften”. (ms.) 251 “The origin of the vestjysk stød”. (ms.) 252 “Issues in Balto-Slavic accentology”. (ms.) 2008 253 254 255 256

“Balto-Slavic phonological developments”. (ms.) “The origin of the Indo-Iranian desiderative”. (ms.) “Rise and development of Slavic accentual paradigms”. (ms.) “Indo-Uralic and Altaic revisited”. (ms.) INDEX

Phonology: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 57, 125, 130, 207 Morphology: 6, 12, 91 Syntax and semantics: 1, 47, 79, 113, 158, 191, 246 Philosophy of language: 67, 130, 206 Mathematical linguistics: 6, 7, 8, 67, 79 Afro-Asiatic: 147, 165 Altaic: 156, 161, 216, 256 – Japanese: 113, 125, 161, 191 – Korean: 125 Amerindian: – Salish: 16 – Wakashan: 11 Chinese: 158, 162 Gilyak (Nivkh): 205 Indo-European: 30, 32, 34, 38, 44, 49, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 80, 93, 111, 130, 143, 145, 161, 162, 174, 187, 241, 243, 244, 247 – Indo-Uralic: 49, 112, 130, 203, 205, 213, 216, 223, 247, 256 Albanian: 22, 85, 94, 146, 183 Anatolian: 202, 223, 241, 244 Armenian: 18, 20, 22, 31, 42, 48, 61, 62, 63, 73, 76, 77, 81, 85, 90, 92, 101, 104, 116, 126, 127, 133, 137, 139, 148, 170, 176, 178, 179, 193, 194, 200, 248 Baltic: 19, 23, 25, 30, 33, 40, 43, 50, 63, 64, 99, 100, 141, 173, 175, 201, 218, 220, 221, 224, 227, 228, 234, 236, 242, 245, 253 – Latvian: 132 – Lithuanian: 41, 99, 110, 136, 214 – Prussian: 15, 78, 87, 103, 140, 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 166, 169, 172, 181, 184, 185, 186, 190, 195, 196, 199, 204, 215, 237 Celtic: 35, 46, 51, 68, 70, 129, 144, 150, 157, 167, 189, 210, 231, 232, 239 Germanic: 30, 55, 72, 88, 102, 105, 109, 115, 119, 120, 122, 128, 130, 135, 143, 182, 192, 198, 217, 219, 225, 230, 235, 240

-*45Û0'Û16#-*$"5*0/4Û#:Û'3&%&3*,Û,035-"/%5



– English: 84, 142, 180, 211, 238 – German: 123, 138, 229 – Scandinavian: 72, 117, 124, 197, 211, 212, 250, 251 Greek: 60, 97, 98 Indo-Iranian: 38, 65, 188, 254 Italic: 46, 232, 239 – Latin: 86, 168 – Spanish: 3 Slavic: 14, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 39, 40, 43, 45, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 69, 71, 74, 82, 93, 100, 106, 121, 141, 187, 207, 208, 209, 218, 222, 226, 228, 233, 234, 236, 242, 245, 249, 252, 253, 255 – Bulgarian: 52, 59, 108 – Polabian: 107 – Polish: 5, 163 – Russian: 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 37, 47, 91, 197, 246 – Slovene: 17, 21, 108, 131, 134, 154, 164, 208 Thracian: 101 Tocharian: 63, 89, 95, 96, 114, 118, 149

&WJEFODFÛBOEÛ$PVOUFS&WJEFODF Û'FTUTDISJGUÛ'SFEFSJLÛ,PSUMBOEU Û7PMVNFÛ 44(-Û Û"NTUFSEBNÛÛ/FXÛ:PSLÛ3PEPQJ Û Û

TOWARDS A TYPOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE ANDEAN LANGUAGES WILLEM ADELAAR

In recent years, important progress has been made toward establishing genealogical connections between the Amerindian languages and language families of South America (e.g. Rodrigues 2000). Nevertheless, extreme genealogical diversity is still found among the Amerindian languages spoken along the western fringes of the Amazonian region and in the open areas of South America’s southern cone. These areas are adjacent or close to the Andean region where genealogical linguistic diversity, though hollowed out by historical events of the past five centuries, remains as intractable as ever. As a result, the center of gravity of the genealogical linguistic diversity in South America has shifted from the east to the west. Lack of progress in solving the genealogical puzzle of the South American languages has stimulated researchers to look for typological connections between the Amerindian languages of the subcontinent with the eventual goal to establish typological areas. From the point of view of linguistic typology, however, the diversity that is found in South America is hardly less formidable than from a genealogical point of view. And again, the east and center of the subcontinent seem to oer more possibilities to establish linguistic areas than the west. It has been a common practice among linguists working on South American languages to make an intuitive distinction between ‘Amazonian’ and ‘Andean’ languages on the assumption that there would be two dierent language types corresponding to these labels. Obviously, this distinction is largely fed by geographical and cultural considerations. If we exclude the southern tip of South America, where the situation is less clear-cut, there appears to be a wide cultural gap between peoples of the Andes and the Pacific coast, on one hand, and those of the Amazonian lowlands, on the other. The western societies tend to be more complex, with age-old sedentary habits and a highly diversified and technically well-developed agriculture. Some of these societies are counted among the great civilizations of the world, whereas for most of the eastern tribes this has never been the case. No matter which perspective one wishes to assume, cultures and languages situated at the border between the two general areas are



8*--&.Û"%&-""3

likely to share elements of both sides, or else, will have to be classified as either typically ‘Andean’ or typically ‘Amazonian.’ From a synchronic point of view, a distinction between Andean and Amazonian languages is not entirely out of the question. For instance, Andean languages tend to have elaborate numeral systems, generally conceived on a decimal basis, which have the potential of counting as far as a hundred thousand or even further. Such numeral systems are often paralleled by the use of knotted threads (quipus) and abacus-type devices, which reflect a quantitative focus in the organization of society. By contrast, the Amazonian languages are known for having numeral systems of extreme poverty. As a matter of fact, some tribes, such as the Pirahã in Brazil, have been reported not to count at all (Gordon 2004, Everett 2005). Languages that are closely related to each other, such as Chiriguano and Paraguayan Guaraní, dier by the fact that the former has an elaborate system of numerals, reflecting its Andean contacts, whereas the latter has only four true numerals. Higher numerals exist in Paraguayan Guaraní but were created artificially by missionaries. Early colonial accounts report that speakers of Tupinambá (closely related to the two former languages) used to indicate numbers higher than four by displaying body parts (e.g. ‘both these hands’ meaning ‘ten’, ‘my hands my feet’ meaning ‘twenty’; Lemos Barbosa 1956). Obviously, for languages situated in the interface regions connecting Andean and Amazonian areas, an elaborate numeral system may betray close or long-standing contacts with the Andean region, whereas the lack of it can be an indication of an Amazonian background. On the other hand, one must also envisage the possibility that numeral systems may be lost or simplified when a non-Amazonian ethnic group moves into an Amazonian environment, especially if we accept the idea that the absence of numerals is cultural (rejection of the concept of counting!) rather than inherited. It may be significant that Andean numerals higher than two do not seem to be helpful for deep reconstruction goals. (The Chibchan family, which extends into Central America, constitutes an exception.) It looks as if the dierent numerals that are in use were either borrowed from other languages or invented independently for each language (or shallow language grouping). Even in the Chiriguano case, where the adoption of decimal numerals cannot be old, the source of the forms for ‘6’ to ‘9’ is obscure (‘5’ is designated by the word for ‘hand’; Dietrich 1986: 170), although further research may yield an explanation. Whereas the cultural and societal dimensions of Andean numerals are not to be underestimated, their time depth seems to be limited. They have little or no relevance for

508"3%4Û"Û5:10-0(*$"-Û130'*-&Û0'Û5)&Û"/%&"/Û-"/(6"(&4



establishing a typological profile of the Andean languages that takes into account earlier stages of development. Agglutinative structure with an exclusive or near exclusive reliance on suxes for all morphological and morphosyntactic purposes has often been mentioned as a typical feature of an alleged Andean language type. Clearly, Aymaran and Quechuan with their ‘Turkic’ or ‘Altaic’ structures, have acted as models of inspiration for this view. It is generally agreed that the Aymaran and Quechuan language groups, whether or not related to each other, have gone through a process of structural and lexical convergence, which lasted for a considerable period of time. It implies that in an initial stage of the contact situation one of the two ancestral languages may have been remodeled to the extent of losing its inherited typological structure. There is not even a need to assume that the remodeled language in its earlier form would have featured the agglutinative suxing structure of its daughter language. When viewed on an Andean scale, however, there does seem to be a drift towards suxation. One may be inclined to assume that the Andean region diverges in this respect from the rest of the New World, where the favored language type appears to be a mix of prefixes and suxes (the prefixes often being personal reference markers). It is true that many languages in the Andean region have extensive suxation and only a few prefixes, if any at all: Barbacoan and Chocoan languages, Páez, Esmeraldeño, Mochica, Uru-Chipaya, Araucanian, Huarpean. At the same time, it can be argued that some languages of the Chibchan family (Chimila, Tunebo or Uwa, possibly Cuna) may have lost the prefix part of a morphological system still present in related languages such as Ika, Kogui, Damana and Muisca. Furthermore, there are other Andean languages that did not follow the trend towards exclusive suxation: Atacameño, Yahgan, the Chon languages (e.g. Tehuelche) and Cholón (a language of the eastern Andean slopes in Peru) retained the mainstream Amerindian mix of prefixes and suxes, although suxation is more elaborate. Araucanian relies on suxation nearly exclusively, but it has a class of possessive modifiers, which may either represent old personal pronouns, or degrammaticalized prefixes. Kamsá or Sibundoy, a language isolate of the eastern Andean slopes in Colombia, has an elaborate prefix system which seems to mirror the extensive suxation of central Andean language groups such as Aymaran and Quechuan. Interestingly, languages that are rather similar in structure to the ‘proto-typical’ central Andean languages Aymaran and Quechuan are the Jivaroan languages, located in the pre-Andean Amazonian lowlands. These languages may be more faithful representatives of the ‘Turkic’



8*--&.Û"%&-""3

agglutinative type than many languages presently or formerly spoken in the Andes themselves. Constituent order is relatively free in Andean languages, although there seems to be a preference for the order in which subject/actor and object precede the verb (SOV). In many languages, including Aymaran and Quechuan, subordinate clauses are strictly verb-final. Languages with a verb-initial constituent order are members of the Arawakan family (Amuesha, Guajiro) of Amazonian provenance. The status of other possible verbinitial languages, such as Esmeraldeño, remains debatable for lack of data. Incomplete descriptive or documentary studies of extinct languages rarely provide all the required information on constituent order, especially if this order is not rigid. A general characteristic of most Andean languages (including Aymaran and Quechuan) is that modifiers must precede the modified in hierarchically organized noun phrases. In some languages, however, adjectives follow the noun whereas other modifiers precede it. Such languages are found in Colombia (Chibchan languages) and in a belt of languages located in northern Argentina and northern Chile (Atacameño, Lule, Quechua of Santiago del Estero). Numerals sometimes align with the adjectives in matters of word order. As far as phonology is concerned, it is often easier to enumerate the characteristic elements that Andean languages lack, rather than those that they do have. Suprasegmental features such as nasality spread and contrastive tone are common features in the Amazonian region, but are rare in the Andes (not in the pre-Andean eastern lowlands!). Nasality spread is found in Chocoan. Some of the Chibchan languages of northern Colombia are tonal (Barí, Chimila). In contrast with the situation of the Amazonian region, vowel systems in Andean languages tend to be simple. Aymaran and Quechuan are renowned for having only three contrastive, qualitatively distinct vowels: a, i (∼e), u (∼o). This system has expanded to a five-vowel system in some of the dialects and in borrowed words. A tri-vocalic system is also found in Amuesha, a pre-Andean Arawakan language that underwent a substantial influence from Quechua (Wise 1976). Other Andean languages normally have five qualitatively distinct vowels (a, e, i, o, u) or six (the same series augmented with an extra vowel which can be either a non-rounded high back vowel, or a high or mid central vowel). More complex vowel systems are found in the far south of the subcontinent (Chon languages, Kawesqar, Yahgan) and in Mochica, a typologically anomalous language of the Peruvian coast. Other vocalic modifications (length, nasality, voicelessness, aspiration, glottalization) are dispersedly distributed in the Andean region but are not very common.

508"3%4Û"Û5:10-0(*$"-Û130'*-&Û0'Û5)&Û"/%&"/Û-"/(6"(&4



The use of uvular or post-velar stops (either in contrast with, or instead of their velar counterparts) is widely found in an area comprising the central and southern Andes (Aymaran, Quechuan, Uru-Chipaya, Callahuaya, Atacameño), as well as in the eastern lowlands of the southern cone of South America (Matacoan, Guaicuruan, Vilela, the Chon languages, also in the Kawesqar or Alacaluf language of southern Chile). Araucanian and Yahgan (and probably Huarpean), which have no uvular stops, are exceptional in this respect. It is interesting to note that uvular stops occur neither in the Amazonian region, nor in the northern Andes. When moving northward on the map, uvular stops resurface in the Mayan language family of Mesoamerica, as well as in Pacific North America. Glottalized stops and aricates (or ejectives) are found in roughly the same area as the uvular and post-velar stops, but there are more exceptions. They are found in Aymaran, some Quechuan dialects, Uru-Chipaya, Callahuaya, Atacameño, Matacoan, Vilela and the Chon languages. On the other hand, it is not entirely absent from pre-Andean Amazonia (Itonama, Jebero, Piaroa). Again, Araucanian and Yahgan (and probably Huarpean) are exceptional because they lack glottalized obstruents. When moving northward on the map, glottalized stops and aricates resurface in Mesoamerica (in the Mayan languages and in Lenca, for instance). It is very dicult to make any generalizations about the distribution of aspirated consonants, which are found in dispersed locations of South America (Arawakan languages, Bora, Cofán, Mosetén, Páez, etc.). However, the characteristic three-fold division of plain, glottalized and aspirated stops and aricates is restricted to the southern part of the Central Andes (Aymaran, some Quechua dialects, Callahuaya, Uru-Chipaya, possibly Atacameño). Moving northward on the map, this three-fold division resurfaces in California (in Pomoan). Retroflex aricates in opposition with alveopalatal aricates are found in several Andean and pre-Andean languages: Quechuan, Jaqaru (Aymaran), Chipaya, Araucanian, Kamsá, Guambiano (Barbacoan), Amuesha and Chamicuro (both Arawakan languages), Gününa Yajich (a Chon language). Given the dispersed locations of these languages it is dicult to establish a pattern. A palatality contrast is very common in the Andean region (with a number of exceptions), but it is usually restricted to resonants and sibilants. A more fully developed palatal / non-palatal distinction, comparable to Irish Gaelic or Russian, which also aects other consonants, is found in Amuesha (Arawakan), in Mochica and in Páez.



8*--&.Û"%&-""3

Some interesting sound contrasts are only found locally. Trilled vibrants have a contrastive status in a number of languages of northern Colombia: in the Chocoan languages, in Damana and Barí (both Chibchan) and in Guajiro (Arawakan). There is an alveolar / interdental contrast in Araucanian. Chipaya and some of the Chon languages (Ona or Selk’nam, Gününa Yajich) have a three-way contrast for sibilants (alveodental/apico-alveolar/retroflex). Apico-alveolar sibilants and aricates may have existed in Mochica, although the evidence is not conclusive. Labial or labio-dental fricatives are rare, as elsewhere in the Americas. They are found in Mochica, Muisca, Páez, Araucanian, in the South Barbacoan languages Cha’palaachi and Tsafiki, in the Aymara dialect of northern Chile, in Kawesqar and in Yahgan. In the pre-Andean eastern lowlands they are found in Betoi, in Huitotoan, in Cofán and in the Matacoan languages (inter alia). From the point of view of morphological and morphosyntactic categories Andean languages are also highly diverse. One of the most salient characteristics is again negative, namely the absence of Amazonian-type classifier systems (cf. Derbyshire and Payne 1990). Such classifier systems, which are largely based on distinctions of shape, are widely found in the pre-Andean Amazonian region, where they are subject to borrowing and imitation. They are not found in the Andes. By contrast, numeral classifiers of the Chinese or Mayan type exist in Cholón, in Mochica and in Cuna (Chibchan). Some shape morphemes that are reminiscent of Amazonian classifiers have been reconstructed for Proto-Chibchan (Constenla 1988). Timote-Cuica, an extinct language family in the Andes of Venezuela, shows evidence of a Bantu-style class system marked by prefixes. However, the data for these languages are too poor to permit any conclusive statement. In most Andean languages, including Aymaran, Quechuan and Araucanian, gender distinctions are not expressed morphologically. As a rule, these languages do not even make a distinction between feminine and masculine deictic pronouns. Surprisingly, two Andean language families, Uru-Chipaya and Chon, do distinguish gender and also exhibit morphological agreement based on gender. In the eastern lowlands of South America several language families have gender and gender agreement: Arawakan, Arawá, Boran, Chapacuran, Mosetén, etc. The way gender distinctions are treated is another expression of the extraordinary typological diversity of the South American subcontinent.

508"3%4Û"Û5:10-0(*$"-Û130'*-&Û0'Û5)&Û"/%&"/Û-"/(6"(&4



Case marking on noun phrases expressed by means of suxes or postpositions is common in Andean languages. A surprising exception is Araucanian, which has one single nominal postposition used for a wide array of oblique case relations. It may be a consequence of a general tendency to avoid nominal morphology, which seems to characterize this language. Accusative case marking is found in several central Andean languages (Aymaran, Quechuan, Barbacoan, Páez, also in the pre-Andean Jivaroan languages), but less so in the northern Andes (cf. Constenla 1991) and in the south. Some northern languages, viz. Chimila, Ika (both Chibchan) and Cholón, feature a disambiguating ax that indicates an actor in opposition to an (unmarked) object. It may be tempting to refer to such markers as ergative, but the general structure of the languages in question does not favor such an analysis. True ergative case marking is found in the Chocoan languages, in (Chibchan) Tunebo, and possibly in the extinct Puquina language. Solid ergativity is furthermore attested in the Panoan languages of the Amazonian lowlands of Peru (Valenzuela 2000). The formal distinction between possessed and non-possessed roots is a wide-spread phenomenon in Mesoamerica (Mayan, Uto-Aztecan) and in the eastern lowlands of South America (Arawakan, Cariban, TupiGuaraní). It is nearly unknown in the Andean region, except in the Arawakan languages (Amuesha, Ashéninka, Guajiro, etc.) established on its eastern slopes. However, such a distinction was also found in Mochica, where the dierence could be expressed either lexically, or morphologically. Interestingly, Mochica only had non-morphological means at its disposal to indicate the possessor of a noun, whereas most Amerindian languages that distinguish possessed from non-possessed roots indicate the person of the possessor morphologically. The Atacameño language marked possessed roots with a sux, but there is no evidence of competing roots on the lexical level. The distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs is formally expressed in some of the northern Andean languages (Ika, Muisca, Cholón). However, in most of the central Andean languages (including Aymaran and Quechuan) the transitive / intransitive distinction hardly plays a role. Like in English, these languages have verbs such as ‘to break’ and ‘to turn’ that can be used both in transitive and in intransitive contexts. This is remarkable considering the high level of explicitness of the morphological categories otherwise expressed in these languages. As many Amerindian languages elsewhere in the continent, some Andean languages encode both the subject and an object in a verb form. Some languages (e.g. Ika) distinguish dierent types of objects. In suxing languages, such as Aymaran, Quechuan, Araucanian and Mosetén,



8*--&.Û"%&-""3

the combined encoding of subject and object may produce highly complex (and sometimes unpredictable) endings to account for all the possible combinations in the dierent verbal sub-paradigms (tense, mood, nominalization, etc.). Since the distinction between transitive and intransitive may be fluid (see above), the encoded object often represents an indirect (human) object, rather than a direct object. The stative-active distinction, which is attested in eastern lowland languages (e.g. Arawakan, Tupi-Guaraní) and in languages of the Gran Chaco (Guaicuruan), has not been found in the Andes. However, it is found in pre-Andean Arawakan languages such as Guajiro. Some languages (Araucanian, Mochica) have well-developed morphological passives. Mochica even had a special case marker for agents of passive verbs. Other languages have special verb forms of which the ‘passive’ status is debatable (Muisca) or peripheral (Cholón). By contrast, many languages, including Aymaran and Quechuan, have no morphological passive at all. Some morphological derivations in specific Quechuan dialects are semantically reminiscent of a passive, but their syntactic status is not that of a passive as generally accepted. In most Andean languages, as in some pre-Andean languages with an Amazonian background (for instance, the Arawakan languages Amuesha, Ashéninka, Guajiro etc.), the verbal morphology is extremely rich and varied. There is no space to discuss the enormous variety of semantic distinctions that can be encoded in the verbs of Andean languages. We shall mention the case of switch-reference, which assigns dierent endings to a subordinate verb in an adverbial construction depending on whether their subject is identical with, or dierent from the subject of the verb to which they are subordinated. Elaborate switch-reference is found in Tsafiki (Barbacoan), in Quechuan, in Jaqaru (Aymaran), in Jivaroan, in Panoan and in Uru-Chipaya. As one can appreciate, the switch-reference belt apparently runs across the Andes, rather than that it coincides with it. Interestingly, the Barbacoan, Panoan and Uru-Chipaya languages seem to share formal elements in their switch-reference paradigms which may be coincidental but deserve a closer investigation. Outside the Andean area, switch-reference has been attested in parts of western North America (e.g. in the northern, Numic branch of Uto-Aztecan). Andean languages such as Aymaran, Quechuan and Uru-Chipaya have a set of morphological nominalizations, which may encode relative tense and which can be combined with case markers to form dierent types of adverbial clauses and complement clauses. They are also used to form relative clauses. Case markers cannot be attached to finite verb forms, as

508"3%4Û"Û5:10-0(*$"-Û130'*-&Û0'Û5)&Û"/%&"/Û-"/(6"(&4



is often the case in Amazonian languages (Tupi-Guaraní, Cholón). Araucanian, which lacks case markers, also relies on nominalizations to form complement clauses and relative clauses. Personal reference systems in Andean languages generally reflect the classical Amerindian pattern of 1 st person, 2 nd person, 3 rd person, 1 st person inclusive (also known as 4 th person). The number distinction is usually the product of a secondary development, although it plays an important role in Araucanian, which distinguishes singular, plural and dual in the pronominal morphology. Originally, the inclusive plural may have referred to the group to which both speaker and hearer belonged. The Aymaran languages exhibit the four-person pattern in its purest form (possibly of all Amerindian languages). In many languages the inclusive has developed into a plain non-singular 1 st person (e.g. in Araucanian, in Ecuadorian Quechua, in Cholón and in Muisca). Others have introduced a secondary inclusive (e.g. Quechuan at an early stage). Barbacoan languages (e.g. Guambiano, Tsafiki) exhibit a dierent pattern that separates 1 st person from the other grammatical persons. Aymaran and Quechuan are well known for having strict and compelling systems of evidentials that indicate data source. They may find their expression in the verbal paradigm (Aymaran) or in enclitic elements operating at the sentence level (Quechuan). Extensive systems of evidentials have been reported for other Andean languages as well, such as Tsafiki (Barbacoan) and Páez, and for pre-Andean eastern lowland languages, including Panoan and the Tucanoan languages (Aikhenvald 2004). It is possible that other Andean languages (Araucanian and Uru-Chipaya, for instance) have similar phenomena which still await systematic comparative interpretation and treatment. As for now, it is too early for a definite statement as to which Andean languages distinguish evidential categories and which languages do not. The preceding pages only give a very general impression of the typological variety to be found in the languages of the Andean region. We must conclude that there is still very little evidence that can be helpful for recognizing and delimiting linguistic typological areas, let alone, an Andean linguistic area that would encompass the entire region. Most conceivable characterizations of Andean languages are negative: Andean languages are predominantly suxing case-marking languages, which have no prosodic nasality, no tone, no complex vowel systems, no nominal classifier systems (other than numeral), no gender (except for two language families), no stative-active systems and no well developed ergativity (except in one language family and in one language). The most ‘exotic’ language from an Andean point of view is Mochica. Its unique



8*--&.Û"%&-""3

linguistic characteristics (phonology, numeral classifiers, possessed vs. non-possessed nouns) and its location on the northern coast of Peru are matched by an extraordinary cultural development in the past, which may be indicative of external contact or migration (cf. Shimada 1999). Another language that stands out in many respects is Araucanian (Mapuche). Its lack of nominal morphology, including case, is matched by extensive noun incorporation, another phenomenon otherwise absent from the Andes. As we have seen, it diers from the surrounding languages also from a phonological point of view. Leiden University REFERENCES Adelaar, Willem F.H., with the collaboration of Pieter C. Muysken. 2004 The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004 Evidentiality. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid 2005 18 th Century Cholón. Utrecht: LOT. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo M. in press El chipaya. La lengua de los hombres del agua. Lima. Constenla Umaña, Adolfo 1988 “Indicios para la reconstrucción de clasificadores en el sintagma nominal protochibcha (1)”. Filología y Lingüística 14/2, 111-118. San José C.R: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. 1991 Las lenguas del Area Intermedia: Introducción a su estudio oral. San José C.R: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Derbyshire, Desmond C., and Doris L. Payne “Noun classification systems of Amazonian languages”. In: Doris L. 1990 Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages, pp. 243-71. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dietrich, Wolf 1986 El idioma chiriguano. Madrid: Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana. Everett, Daniel L. “Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã”. Cultural 2005 Anthropology 46/4, 621-646. Fernández Garay, Ana V. 1998 El tehuelche. Una lengua en vías de extinción. Valdivia (Chile): Estudios Filológicos, Anejo 15. González de Pérez, María Stella, and María Luisa Rodríguez de Montes (eds.) 2000 Lenguas Indígenas de Colombia. Una visión descriptiva. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

508"3%4Û"Û5:10-0(*$"-Û130'*-&Û0'Û5)&Û"/%&"/Û-"/(6"(&4



Gordon, Peter 2004 “Numeral cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia”. Science 306 (15 Oct. 2004), 496-499. Lemos Barbosa, A. 1956 Curso de Tupi Antigo. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria São José. Mithun, Marianne 1999 The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna “‘Ge-Pano-Carib’ x ‘Jê-Tupí-Karib’; sobre relaciones lingüísticas pre2000 históricas en Sudamérica”. In: Luis Miranda Esquerre (ed.), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica (Lima, 4-6 August 1999), vol. 1, 95-104. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, Facultad de Lenguas Modernas. Sakel, Jeanette 2004 A Grammar of Mosetén. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Shimada, Izumi “Evolution of Andean diversity: Regional formations (500 B.C.E.-C.E. 1999 600)”. In: Frank Salomon and Stuart B. Schwartz (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Volume III: South America, part 1, 350-517. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Smeets, Ineke 1989 A Mapuche Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. Valenzuela Bismarck, Pilar M. “Ergatividad escindida en wariapano, yaminawa y shipibo-konibo”. In: 2000 Hein van der Voort and Simon van de Kerke (eds.), Essays on Indigenous Languages of Lowland South America (Contributions to the 49th International Congress of Americanists, Quito, 1997; ILLA Series no. 1), 111-128. Leiden: CNWS. Wise, Mary Ruth “Apuntes sobre la influencia inca entre los amuesha: Factor que oscurece 1976 la clasificación de su idioma”. Revista del Museo Nacional 42, 355-366. Lima. Zamponi, Raoul 2003 Betoi (Languages of the World/Materials 428). München: Lincom Europa.

&WJEFODFÛBOEÛ$PVOUFS&WJEFODF Û'FTUTDISJGUÛ'SFEFSJLÛ,PSUMBOEU Û7PMVNFÛ 44(-Û Û"NTUFSEBNÛÛ/FXÛ:PSLÛ3PEPQJ Û Û

THE ORIGIN OF ALTERNATIONS IN INITIAL PITCH IN THE VERBAL PARADIGMS OF THE CENTRAL JAPANESE (KYÔTO TYPE) ACCENT SYSTEMS ELISABETH DE BOER

1. Introduction Nowadays, the prosodic systems of most modern Japanese dialects can be described as pitch accent systems. 1 These pitch accent systems developed as a result of a reduction of the number of tonal oppositions that still existed in earlier stages of the language. In old manuscripts, these original and more numerous tonal oppositions were expressed by means of socalled tone dots, which were in use from the 11 th to the early 14 th century, when the markings became confused and were abandoned. The value of the tone dots was based on the tone value of Middle Chinese tones, or rather on how Middle Chinese tones were regarded in Japan at the time. As in these earlier stages the pitch of (almost) every syllable was distinctive, the prosodic system of the Japanese language at this stage can be analyzed as a level tone language. 2 As the old tone dot material stems from the capital of Kyôto in the (late) Early Middle Japanese (800-1200) and (early) Late Middle Japanese (1200-1600) periods, I refer to this stage in the historical development of Japanese prosodic systems as the Middle Kyôto dialect. The relationship between the tone dot attestations and modern dialectal oppositions is such that for practical purposes we can equate the tone system of the 11 th to early 14 th centuries with the tone system of Proto Japanese. There is, however, some controversy surrounding the correct interpretation of the value of the tone dots. On the one hand there is the prevalent theory, which has been around since the early 1920s, and which has ruled since the 1950s (cf. Kindaichi, 1951), and on the other hand there is what has become known as ‘Ramsey’s theory’, which was published by Samuel In a small number of dialects all pitch distinctions have disappeared. Contour tones were rare, and are usually considered to be the result of contractions. The main two Late Middle Chinese tones that were used to express the pitches of Japanese were the ping tone and the shang tone. Ping was represented by a dot at the lower left corner of a character or kana sign (syllabic graph), and shang was represented by a dot at the upper left corner. 1 2



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

Robert Ramsey in 1979, in which the interpretation of the tone dots is the exact reverse of that in the prevalent theory. In my dissertation (2005) I have argued that Ramsey’s reconstruction of the Middle Kyôto pitches, which in general has not found acceptance, 3 must have been correct all along. First of all, as Ramsey already pointed out, it explains a large number of prosodic phenomena in the modern dialects for which the prevalent theory oers no explanation. In addition however, it turns out that – contrary to what is usually believed – it is not in contradiction with descriptions of the Middle Chinese tones by Japanese Buddhist monks from the 9 th to the late 13 th century. (After this period however, the Japanese tone descriptions change radically.) Finally (and this is the most well-known aspect of Ramsey’s theory), it is the only theory that oers an explanation for the peculiar geographical distribution of the dierent accent types in Japan. 2. The two main pitch accent types in Japan and their geographical distribution I will limit myself in this section to an introduction of the two main accentual types of Japan. These are called the Tôkyô type and the Kyôto type. The Kyôto type accent systems are limited to a large area in central Japan, in and surrounding the city of Kyôto, which is the former capital of Japan. Although the Tôkyô type accent systems derive their name from the city of Tôkyô, the Tôkyô type accent systems in fact surround the Kyôto type dialect area on all sides. The Tôkyô type accent system can again be divided into two sub-types, the so-called Chûrin type and the Gairin type. (As we shall see below, the main dierence between the two types is that in the Gairin type certain accent classes have lost the pitch fall and become unaccented.) 4 In both the Kyôto type and the Tôkyô type accent systems it is a fall from high (H) to low (L) pitch that is distinctive, and the last H syllable before the pitch fall is regarded as the syllable that carries the accent. This is traditionally marked by means of an apostrophe after the accented 3 As far as I know, there are only two published articles that have expressed support of Ramsey’s reconstruction: Hashimoto (1978), who was familiar with Ramsey’s theory before its publication in 1979, and Kortlandt (1993). 4 In general one can say that the Chûrin type dialects are located closer to the Kyôto type dialect area (Chûrin means ‘middle circle’) while the Gairin type dialects are more peripheral (Gairin means ‘outer circle’) and can be found primarily in northern Honshû and Kyûshû. The pitch accent system of the city of Tôkyô itself belongs to the Chûrin type.

*/*5*"-Û1*5$)Û"-5&3/"5*0/4Û*/Û$&/53"-Û+"1"/&4&Û7&3#4



syllable. In the Kyôto type dialects, in addition, the pitch of the initial syllable of a word is distinctive. This is marked by adding an apostrophe before an initial L syllable. Words that do not contain a fall from H to L pitch, or (as far as the Kyôto type dialects are concerned) an initial L syllable, are regarded as unaccented. According to the prevalent theory, the Kyôto type accent systems, which can only be found in central Japan, are conservative, and the Tôkyô type accent systems are thought to have developed later, out of the Kyôto type. This means we have to accept the idea that precisely the same changes occurred independently in areas that are geographically widely separated and cut o from each other by the area with Kyôto type accent in between. An important assumption of Ramsey’s theory on the other hand, is that the Tôkyô type accent systems, which surround the Kyôto type accent systems on all sides, are conservative and that the present-day Kyôto type pitch accent systems in central Japan are the result of innovations that took place in the mid to late 14 th century. It will be clear that Ramsey’s theory is the only one that explains why Kyôto type accent is surrounded on all sides by Tôkyô type accent, and can only be found in a relatively small central area in Japan. (And in addition, a dialect island of Tôkyô type accent has been preserved in the Totsukawa area, an isolated mountainous pocket in the middle of the Kyôto type accent area.) 3. The two dierent reconstructions of the value of the old tone dots Because of these diering views, proponents of the prevalent view interpret the tone dot material, which after all originated from the present-day Kyôto type dialect area, in such a way that the resulting tone patterns coincide as much as possible with the pitches that can be heard nowadays in the streets of Kyôto. 5 Below I give the pitches of the five bisyllabic noun accent classes with the monosyllabic nominative case particle -ga as an example. These noun accent classes have conventionally been assigned a number, which I have added before the Middle Kyôto data. The number

5 In concrete terms this means that the ping tone dot is interpreted as L and the shang tone dot as H. Ramsey’s interpretation is exactly the reverse. Note that the Middle Chinese ping and shang tones are usually reconstructed as level and rising respectively, but the Japanese Buddhist monks regarded the ping tone as falling and the shang tone as rising. For the background of this interpretation and a more detailed account of the way in which these contour tones were used to mark the pitches of Japanese, see De Boer (2005), part II.



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

before the dot refers to the number of syllables of the noun, and the number after the dot to the noun accent class involved. In the charts I have followed the Japanese habit of marking H pitch by means of a black dot and L pitch by means of a white dot. A rise is indicated by and a fall by . Middle Kyôto 6 Modern Kyôto

••-• •◦-• 2.3 ◦◦-• 2.4 ◦•-• 2.5 ◦ -• 2.1

2.2

9

••-• (unaccented) •`◦-◦ •`◦-◦ `◦◦-• `◦•`-◦ 8

Tôkyô (Chûrin)

◦•-• (unaccented) ◦•`-◦ ◦•`-◦ •`◦-◦ •`◦-◦ 7

Tôkyô (Gairin)

◦•-• (unaccented) ◦•-• (unaccented) ◦•`-◦ •`◦-◦ •`◦-◦

According to the prevalent theory, the Middle Kyôto pitch system first developed into a more modern form of Kyôto type accent (LL-H for instance becoming H`L-L), and after this the Tôkyô type accent systems developed by shifting the locus of the pitch fall one syllable to the right. (And if a form contained more than one pitch fall, the second pitch fall was eliminated as for instance in noun class 2.5.) It can be seen, however, that the lack of a merger between noun class 2.2 and 2.3 in the Gairin type dialects, as well as the accent loss for noun class 2.2 in the Gairin type dialects remain unexplained. In Ramsey’s reconstruction, on the other hand, the tone dot material has an important feature in common with the Tôkyô type dialects: whenever the Middle Kyôto dialect had a transition from H to L pitch, the modern Tôkyô type dialects have preserved a pitch fall in the same location. As can be seen below, the pitch fall that occurs before the monosyllabic case particles in Ramsey’s reconstruction is also important in this respect. Because the Kyôto type dialects have this pitch fall regularly one syllable earlier in the word than the Tôkyô type dialects and the Middle Kyôto dialect in Ramsey’s reconstruction, Ramsey’s conclusion was that the Kyôto type

Prevalent reconstruction. The Tôkyô type dialects have an automatic, non-distinctive rise after the first syllable, if the first syllable does not carry the accent. 8 In isolation (i.e. without attached case particle) the pitch of this noun class in modern Kyôto has a stronger resemblance to the Middle Kyôto pitches in the prevalent reconstruction: ` . 9 Also occurs as: - . 6 7

◦•

◦• ◦

*/*5*"-Û1*5$)Û"-5&3/"5*0/4Û*/Û$&/53"-Û+"1"/&4&Û7&3#4



accent systems must have shifted the original locus of the pitch fall one syllable to the left, sometime in or after the early 14 th century: Middle Kyôto 10

◦◦-◦ ◦•-◦ 2.3 ••-◦ 2.4 •◦-◦ 2.5 • -◦ 2.1

2.2

11

Modern Kyôto

Tôkyô (Chûrin)

Tôkyô (Gairin)

••-• (unaccented) ◦•-• (unaccented) ◦•-• (unaccented) •`◦-◦ ◦•`-◦ ◦•-• (unaccented) •`◦-◦ ◦•`-◦ ◦•`-◦ `◦◦-• •`◦-◦ •`◦-◦ `◦•`-◦ •`◦-◦ •`◦-◦

4. The historical developments that follow from Ramsey’s theory The development from the Middle Kyôto dialect in Ramsey’s reconstruction to the modern Tôkyô type dialects was characterized by a reduction of the number of H syllables per word. 12 The initial H syllable of a sequence of H syllables for instance would be automatically lowered. In this way the HH noun class of the Middle Kyôto dialect lost the initial H and merged with the LH noun class. Before this happened however, in the ancestral tone system of the Gairin type dialects, the pitch of the originally L monosyllabic case particles had assimilated to a rising tone contour on a preceding noun and become H. In this way noun class 2.2 became unaccented in the modern Gairin type dialects: LH-L > LH-H. The particle after noun class 2.3 on the other hand, remained L, and noun class 2.3 did not lose the pitch fall: 2.3 HH-L > LH`-L. 13

Ramsey’s reconstruction. Also occurs as: - . The development from Middle Kyôto to Modern Kyôto was: - > - >` `- . 12 A similar development can be seen in a number of Bantu languages that are in the process of developing from level tone languages into pitch accent languages through reduction of the number of H syllables per word. This results in the remaining H syllables becoming increasingly accent-like (Hyman, 1978). 13 In my dissertation I have argued that the leftward shift of the pitch fall in the Kyôto type dialects must have occurred after the initial syllable in a sequence of H syllables was lowered. A strong indication that the initial lowering predates the leftward shift is that the resulting mergers can be found in all dialects that directly surround the Kyôto type accent area, as well as in the Kyôto type accent area itself: We see that Kyôto has preserved a dierence in initial pitch between the same noun accent classes as the dialect of Tôkyô, except that (because of the leftward pitch shift) the distinction is now marked earlier on in the word. 10

•◦ • • ◦ •◦ • ◦• ◦ 11



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

Eventually the initial lowering was generalized to the extent that the pitch of all words that did not have a pitch fall after the first syllable automatically started with LH pitch: HHH > LHH but also LLH > LHH. This is how the automatic, non-distinctive rise after the first syllable in Tôkyô developed. As a result, only a fall from H to L pitch remained distinctive. As a rise in pitch was no longer distinctive, once a pitch fall had occurred in a word, all rises later on in the word were eliminated. In this way, only the first pitch fall in noun class 2.5 remained. According to this account of the historical developments, the fact that initial pitch in Kyôto is distinctive (which makes the pitch accent system of the Kyôto type dialects so fundamentally dierent from that of the Tôkyô type dialects), is something that re-developed as a result of the leftward shift: A L tone that in the Middle Kyôto dialect had still been on the second syllable was now shifted onto the first syllable, and can thus in origin be regarded as a pre-accent. A result of the renewed development of distinctive L pitch in the Kyôto type dialects has been that the only remaining level noun accent class (level L in the Middle Kyôto dialect) was reanalyzed as level H, as this was the only tonal category that was still open. In this reconstruction of the historical developments, therefore, the initial pitch distinction that is so typical of the central Japanese dialects is not ‘old’, as it was not inherited directly from the Middle Kyôto dialect. It only became necessary to mark the pitch of the initial syllable separately again in these dialects because of the leftward shift of the pitch fall. The possibility to have a pitch fall at the end of the word on the other hand (which was preserved in the Tôkyô type dialects), was lost because of this same leftward shift. 14 See for instance the following comparison of the accentual possibilities of three- and four-syllable nouns in Tôkyô and Kyôto (Hirayama, 1960):

14 A small class of shorter nouns (of up to two syllables), such as noun class 2.5, now have an accent fall after the last syllable in the Kyôto type dialects. This exceptional situation is related to the fact that these nouns had a final syllable with a long vowel and a rising pitch in the Middle Kyôto dialect.

*/*5*"-Û1*5$)Û"-5&3/"5*0/4Û*/Û$&/53"-Û+"1"/&4&Û7&3#4 Kyôto

••• `◦◦• `◦•`◦ ••`◦ •`◦◦

•••• `◦◦◦• `◦◦•`◦ `◦•`◦◦ •••`◦ ••`◦◦ •`◦◦◦



Tôkyô

◦•• ◦••` ◦•`◦ •`◦◦

◦••• ◦•••` ◦••`◦ ◦•`◦◦ •`◦◦◦

A shift of the pitch fall to the left in the dialect of Kyôto is the most natural explanation for the lack of accent on the last syllable and the development of the pre-accent. 5. Switches in tonal class membership and alternations in initial pitch in the verbal accent system of the Modern Kyôto dialect The tone patterns of verb and adjective stems in the Middle Kyôto dialect were much simpler than for noun stems. There were for instance only two main tonal classes for verbs and adjectives, which are named type A and type B. 15 Following Ramsey’s reconstruction the stems of type A were low level and the stems of type B were high level. Pitch changes in verbal and adjectival forms were frequent, but they were the result of attached derivational or inflectional suxes. In case such suxes were attached, or in case of compounding, the verbs or adjectives involved would not change their original tonal class, i.e. the pitch of the initial syllable would not change. 16 In the Modern Kyôto dialect on the other hand, clearly related forms such as the simple verb and its causative or passive derivatives, or the continuative form (renyôkei) of the verb or adjective and its attributive/finite form (rentaikei) now often have a dierent initial pitch. In addition, all verbs of type B that have more than two syllables in the renyôkei have switched to type A.

One exception, a small accentual class of verbs labeled B`, will be discussed below. According to the historical developments as presented above, the stability of the initial pitch in the Middle Kyôto dialect had already started to erode before the proposed leftward shift in the Kyôto type dialects because of the automatic lowering of initial H pitch under certain circumstances. These changes however, were still marginal and as we shall see, it is possible to explain the alternation between initial H and initial L pitch in the Modern Kyôto type accent systems just as well by reasoning straight from the Middle Kyôto data. 15 16



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

Taking verb accent as an example, I will show how Ramsey’s idea of a leftward shift of the pitch fall in the 14 th century can explain these developments as the result of regular sound change. As such variation in initial pitch occurs only in case of verbs of type B (verbs of type A always start with H pitch), I will limit the discussion below to verbs of type B. (For examples of the pitches of verbs of type A, see footnote 26.) 6. The Middle Kyôto dialect and the alternation in initial pitch in the dialect of Kôchi I will start with a comparison of the Middle Kyôto data with the Kyôto type dialect of Kôchi on Shikoku, as this dialect is more archaic than the dialect of the city of Kyôto itself. In the Kyôto dialect proper several regularizations have occurred which obscure the origin of the alternations in initial pitch. 17 Below I give the Middle Kyôto data as presented in Martin (1987) 18 and Kindaichi (1964), and the Kôchi data as presented in Kobayashi (1975). The pitches of the Modern Kyôto dialect (also from Martin, 1987) have been added for later reference. (NB: The modern Kyôto forms that I regard as regularizations are underlined.) The number of dierent forms that I compare below is limited: certain verb forms are scarcely attested in the tone dot material, other forms changed considerably in segmental shape since the time of the Middle Kyôto dialect and are therefore hard to use, and yet other (presently current) forms only developed after the Middle Kyôto period. It has also been hard to find confirmation of the pitch pattern of some of the longer verb forms in the description of the dialect of Kôchi by Kobayashi. (I have therefore added a question mark in these cases.) I have included only one example each of the reflexes for the causative of consonant stems and the causative of vowel stems. The 1 st, 3 rd and 5 th 17 The fact that the pitches of Kôchi are more archaic than those of Kyôto is beyond doubt. A comparison with the accent forms in the dialect of Tôkyô shows the archaic nature of the Kôchi dialect, as the Kôchi forms correspond regularly to the reflexes of the Tôkyô type dialects while the Kyôto forms do not. The pitch of nageru below, for example, is LH`L in Tôkyô which corresponds regularly to Kôchi H`LL but not to Kyôto `LLH. It has also been established that in the 17 th century the pitches of the dialect of Kyôto were closer to those of the dialect of Kôchi, as an older, more Kôchi-like stage has been attested in Nô chanting guides that originate from Kyôto. 18 As I follow Ramsey’s reconstruction, Martin’s pitches have of course been reversed. The Middle Kyôto pitches are mostly based on the tone dots in the 11 th century dictionary Ruijumyôgishô. As the rentaikei is hardly used in this work, the pitches of the rentaikei are based on the markings in the 13 th century Buddhist hymn Shiza Kôshiki (see Martin, 1987: 350-351).

*/*5*"-Û1*5$)Û"-5&3/"5*0/4Û*/Û$&/53"-Û+"1"/&4&Û7&3#4



verbs below have vowel-ending stems, and the 2 nd, 4 th and 6 th verbs have consonant-ending stems. 19 Verbs of type B Middle Kyôto rentaikei (attributive/finite) 20 ‘see’

mi.ru

‘wait’

mat.u

‘throw’

nagu.ru 21

‘protect’

mamor.u

‘leave’

hanaru.ru 22

‘rejoice’

yorokob.u

•◦ •◦ ••◦ ••◦ •••◦ •••◦

◦• `◦• •`◦◦ •`◦◦ ••`◦◦ ••`◦◦ `

renyôkei (continuative) ‘see’

mi

‘wait’

mat.i

‘throw’

nage

‘protect’

mamor.i

‘leave’

hanare

‘rejoice’

yorokob.i

Modern Kyôto

◦•` `◦•` `◦◦•` > A (=•••) > A (=••••) > A (=••••) `

•:` •:`) `◦• `◦• `◦• `◦• •`◦◦ > A (=••`◦) •`◦◦ > A (=••`◦) ••`◦◦? > A (=•••`◦) 23

( :

•◦ •◦ ••◦ ••◦ ••◦•

Kôchi

24

19 Verbs with vowel stems dier in length in the rentaikei and the renyôkei, the rentaikei having one syllable more. 20 In the Middle Kyôto period there existed a finite form as well, the shûshikei. Due to syntactical changes the finite form was replaced by the attributive form after the 12 th century, so that in the modern language the rentaikei functions as attributive/finite. 21 The modern form is nageru. 22 The modern form is hanareru. 23 There are all kinds of complications in the renyôkei of monosyllabic vowel stems because contour tones (which were later simplified) played a role in the developments. As a result, the monosyllabic vowel stems are exceptional in that they are the only shorter verbs of type B that have H initial pitch for the renyôkei. 24 In the Middle Kyôto dialect, metathesis of the final H of the stem and the L ending occurred in verbs of four syllables or more, which seems to have left no trace in the modern dialects.



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

deverbal noun ‘see’

mi

‘wait’

mat.i

‘throw’

nage

‘protect’

mamor.i

‘leave’

hanare

‘rejoice’

yorokob.i

causative ‘wait’

mat.ase.ru

‘throw’

nage.sase.ru

x

•• •• ••• ••• ••••

x

•••◦ ••••◦

••`◦◦ > A (=••••)∼`◦◦◦• •••`◦◦ `◦◦◦◦•

•`◦ •`◦ ••`◦ ••`◦ •••`◦?

x

• `◦ • `◦ •`◦◦/> A (=•••) •`◦◦/> A (=•••) •`◦◦◦/> A (=••••)

The first thing that can be seen from the chart above is that length somehow plays a role in whether a verb or verb form of type B starts with a H or a L pitch. We see, for instance, that verbs of type B dier in whether they start with L or H pitch depending on their length, the longer verbs starting with H pitch. The decisive factor, as it turns out however, is the pitch of the second syllable in the Middle Kyôto dialect. As soon as we know this, the initial pitch of the various verb forms in the dialect of Kôchi can be predicted, by shifting this pitch to the first syllable. This connection also explains the connection between length and initial pitch: we see that in the Middle Kyôto dialect a pitch fall would occur just before the inflectional ending of the rentaikei and the renyôkei in verbs of accent type B. In case of the shorter verb stems, the L ending would already fall on the second syllable, and in that case we see that the result is L pitch on the initial syllable in the dialect of Kôchi after the leftward shift. In case of longer verb stems on the other hand, the L of the ending would occur later on in the word, and we see that the initial pitch of the present-day Kôchi dialect is still H. Similarly, as there is a dierence in length between the rentaikei and the renyôkei of verbs with vowel stems, a verb with a bisyllabic vowel stem like nageru ‘to throw’ will have L initial pitch in the renyôkei (Kôchi nage `LH from Middle Kyôto HL) but H initial pitch in the rentaikei (Kôchi nageru H`LL from Middle Kyôto HHL). A dierence in length also explains why derivational suxes like the causative can change the initial pitch of a type B verb from L to H. In case of a short verb, if such a derivational sux was inserted before the inflectional renyôkei or rentaikei ending, the L pitch of the ending no longer fell on the second syllable in the Middle Kyôto dialect, and the resulting

*/*5*"-Û1*5$)Û"-5&3/"5*0/4Û*/Û$&/53"-Û+"1"/&4&Û7&3#4



verb form after the leftward shift in Kôchi has initial H pitch. In this way modern Kôchi matu ‘to wait’ has `LH pitch (from Middle Kyôto HL) while mataseru ‘to make wait’ has HH`LL pitch (from Middle Kyôto HHHL). 7. Verbs of type B` The connection with the pitch of the second syllable becomes even clearer when we also look at the small accentual class labeled type B` by Martin (1987), whose stems had HL instead of HH pitch in the Middle Kyôto dialect. Type B` consists of a small number of bisyllabic consonant stems like aruku ‘to walk’ and kakusu ‘to hide something’. Although bisyllabic consonant stems of type B (like mamoru ‘protect’), will have H initial pitch in Kyôto and Kôchi (due to their length), this special class of B` verbs is exceptional in that it has L initial pitch in both dialects. It can be seen below that this is again directly related to the L pitch on the second syllable of this class of verbs in the Middle Kyôto dialect: Middle Kyôto rentaikei

(attributive/finite)

‘protect’

mamor.u B

‘walk’

aruk.u B`

••◦ •◦◦

Middle Kyôto renyôkei

(continuative)

‘protect’

mamor.i B

‘walk’

aruk.i B`

••◦ •◦•

Kôchi

•`◦◦ `◦◦• Kôchi

Modern Kyôto

•••) `◦◦• > A (=

25

Modern Kyôto

•`◦◦ > A (=••`◦) `◦•`◦ `◦•`◦

8. Regularizations in the Modern Kyôto dialect In the dialect of Kyôto itself, several regularizations have taken place in the verbal accent system. As can be seen from the accent chart for verbs of type B given earlier on, the most large-scale regularization has been the adoption of the pitches of verb type A by those verbs and verb forms that (due to their length) still started with H pitch after the shift. 26 This merger of the longer type B verbs with type A amounts to a simplification as it resulted in the use of only one type of accentual paradigm for all verbs that started with H initial pitch. This merger probably occurred in the early 18 th century (Martin 1987: 353). 25 26

Kobayashi indicates `LHH but Hirayama (1960) has `LLH. The relevant pitches of verbs of type A are:



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

We see, however, that many deverbal nouns derived from these former type B verbs have still preserved a dierent pitch pattern, which includes a pitch fall. 27 In these cases the accent pattern of the derived noun must already have been lexicalised and protected from the merger of longer verbs of type B with type A. Other deverbal nouns however, did follow the productive rule, and adopted the unaccented level H reflex of the deverbal nouns of type A. A dierent kind of regularization has taken place within the individual verbal paradigms: Those verb classes that show dierences in initial pitch between the dierent forms of the verbal paradigm (in other words; the shorter verbs of type B) tend to regularize the pitches in such a way that more and more forms will start with the same initial pitch as the renyôkei: 28 (1) In the paradigm of verbs with monosyllabic vowel stems, more and more forms adopt the H initial pitch of the renyôkei. Frellesvig (2000: 116) for instance, has pointed out that Umegaki (1946) and Hirayama Middle Kyôto rentaikei

(attributive/finite)

◦◦◦ ◦◦◦◦ ◦◦◦◦

‘decorate’

kazar.u

‘begin’

hazimu.ru

‘follow’

sitaga(h).u

renyôkei

(continuative)

‘decorate’

kazar.i

‘begin’

hazime

‘follow’

sitaga(h).i

deverbal noun ‘decorate’

kazar.i

‘begin’

hazime

‘follow’

sitaga(h).i

Kôchi

Modern Kyôto

••• •••• ••••

••• •••• ••••

◦◦• ◦◦• ◦◦◦•

••`◦ ••`◦ ••`◦ ••`◦ •••`◦? •••`◦

◦◦◦ ◦◦◦ ◦◦◦◦

••• ••• ••••

••• ••• ••••

27 Nouns derived from former type B verbs usually have the accent on the first syllable in Kyôto, as in general nouns with the accent shapes HH`L or HHH`L have shifted to H`LL and H`LLL respectively after the 17 th century (cf. ha`nasi ‘talk’, ya`sumi ‘rest’, na`gare ‘stream’, hi`kari ‘light’). The examples included in the chart however (mamori, hanare and yorokobi) all happen to have level H pitch in modern Kyôto, but yorokobi for instance was still attested as HHH`L in Kyôto in the 17 th century. 28 This is probably because the renyôkei is by far the most frequently used verb form as it forms the basis for many verbal suxes. Analogy with the renyôkei is also the cause behind the adoption of the stem vowel e (which replaced earlier u) in the rentaikei of verbs with vowel-ending stems (see footnotes 21 and 22).

*/*5*"-Û1*5$)Û"-5&3/"5*0/4Û*/Û$&/53"-Û+"1"/&4&Û7&3#4



(1960) still report L initial pitch in Modern Kyôto for forms (negative, hortative and conditional) which in the latest stage of Kyôto speech have switched to initial H pitch. The only form that has still preserved initial L pitch is the rentaikei (see the data for ‘Young Kyôto’ in Frellesvig (2000), whose informant was born in 1967). (2) Verbs with bisyllabic vowel stems like nageru ‘to throw’ still preserved a dierence in initial pitch in the rentaikei and the renyôkei in Kôchi (due to their dierence in length). This dierence has also been regularized in Kyôto: the rentaikei adopted the L initial pitch of the shorter renyôkei and nageru became `LLH, with L initial pitch just like the rest of the paradigm of this verb class. The only form that still starts with initial H pitch is the deverbal noun, so that we see again how the developments in deverbal nouns are often separate from developments in the verbal forms. (3) It can also be seen in the chart that the regularization to the same initial pitch as the renyôkei has only very recently spread to the causative and passive of monosyllabic consonant stems like matu in Kyôto. In Kôchi we saw that matu and mati (the rentaikei and the renyôkei of ‘to wait’) had `LH pitch, while mataseru ‘to make wait’ had HH`LL pitch. In Modern Kyôto this pitch shape was initially simplified to the level H pitch of verbs of type A, a situation that can still be seen in Umegaki (1946). Later however, an alternative form `LLLH developed, although the level H forms were still predominant (Hirayama 1960: 19). In the latest form of Kyôto type accent (Kobayashi 1976: 138 and Frellesvig, 2000: 116) the forms with L initial pitch are the only type of reflex that remains: the initial pitch of the causative and passive of monosyllabic consonant stems has been regularized to L, like the rest of the paradigm of this verb type. It is interesting that we see no such gradual development from initial H to initial L pitch in the reflexes for the causative of verbs of type B that have bisyllabic vowel-ending stems, like nagesaseru ‘to make throw’. (Umegaki, for instance, already has the forms with initial L pitch.) This probably means that in this verb type, the regularization to the same initial pitch as the renyôkei developed earlier, most likely simultaneously with the development of initial L pitch for the rentaikei. 29 29 The fact that the renyôkei form nage and the stem of nage.sase.ru are segmentally identical, while the renyôkei form mati and the stem of mat.ase.ru are not, may also have played a role.



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

9. The regularizations from two perspectives From the perspective of the prevalent theory, verbs of type B had initial L pitch in the Middle Kyôto dialect, which changed to initial H pitch in case of longer verbs or verb forms in Modern Kyôto. In his article on the recent changes that can be observed in the pitch system of the Kyôto dialect, Frellesvig (2000: 123-124) connects this development with the increase in forms with H initial pitch for monosyllabic vowel stems of type B in the latest form of Kyôto speech (Young Kyôto). He regards monosyllabic vowel stems of type B as merged with class A in Young Kyôto (just as longer verbs of type B had already merged with class A earlier in Modern Kyôto), and sees both mergers as part of a long-term drift towards the elimination of all prosodic features in the lexical representation of verbs (and adjectives). His prediction is therefore that in future Kyôto Japanese, all verbs will automatically start with H initial pitch. I cannot agree with Frellesvig’s claim that in the latest form of Kyôto speech (Young Kyôto) monosyllabic vowel stems of type B have merged with type A, as the rentaikei of these verbs is still distinguished by initial L pitch. The A/B distinction is therefore still needed for a correct prediction of the pitches of this verb class, even if only for one verb form. It is however, possible that this merger will occur some time in the future. More important however, is the fact that from the perspective of Ramsey’s theory, verbs of type B had H initial pitch from the start in the Middle Kyôto dialect, which changed to L in case of a number of shorter verbs or verb forms as a result of the shift. The great increase in verb forms with H initial pitch in Kyôto was due to the reanalysis of the level L stems of verb type A in the Middle Kyôto dialect to level H, also as a result of the shift. This means that there is no reason to expect that initial L pitch in the shorter verbs of type B in Kyôto will disappear some time in the future. The shorter verbs of type B after all have L initial pitch for the renyôkei (the H initial pitch of the renyôkei of monosyllabic vowel stems is exceptional) so that we can in fact expect an increase in forms that start with L pitch in these verbs the future. In two of the three cases above, regularization to the same pitch as the renyôkei has already resulted in an increase in forms with L initial pitch in verb classes that are much more numerous than the monosyllabic vowel stems of type B. 10. Conclusion It will be clear that Ramsey’s reconstruction of the Middle Kyôto pitches and his idea of a leftward shift of the pitch fall in Kyôto is essential in recovering the historical connection between the pitches of the Middle

*/*5*"-Û1*5$)Û"-5&3/"5*0/4Û*/Û$&/53"-Û+"1"/&4&Û7&3#4



Kyôto dialect and initial pitch in the Modern Kyôto dialect. The fact that linguists usually argue on the basis of the prevalent theory obscures this historical connection. Furthermore, the result of the regularizations that have taken place in the dialect of Kyôto has been that a synchronic description of the variation in initial pitch found in this dialect does not immediately show a systematic correspondence with the pitches of the Middle Kyôto dialect, even in Ramsey’s reconstruction. Because of this, many alternations in initial pitch in the dialect of Kyôto may look like historically unmotivated synchronic variation at first. A comparison of the related but more archaic dialect of Kôchi with Ramsey’s reconstruction of the Middle Kyôto pitches nevertheless shows that, in origin, the alternations are the result of regular sound change (the leftward shift of the pitch fall), which in the dialect of Kyôto itself was followed by analogical regularization within the individual verbal paradigms (adoption of the initial pitch of the renyôkei), and a reduction of the number of dierent pitch patterns for verb forms that started with H pitch. Leiden University REFERENCES de Boer, Elisabeth 2005 The historical development of Japanese pitch accent. Part I: The accent patterns of the modern dialects; Part II: The introduction and adaptation of the Middle Chinese tones in Japan. Leiden University dissertation. To be published in: Veröentlichungen des Ostasien-Instituts der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Harrassowitz Verlag. Frellesvig, Bjarke “Accent, word tone and metatony in central Japanese”. In: Nihon 1998 on’inron gakkai (ed.), On’in kenkyû 1, 195-202. “Recent changes in the tonology of Kyoto Japanese”. In: John C. Smith 2000 and Delia Bentley (eds.), Historical linguistics 1995, 1: General issues and non-Germanic languages (Current issues in linguistic theory 161), 111-124. Hashimoto, Mantarô 1978 “Ajia no naka no Nihongo”. Gengo seikatsu 322, 18-27. Hirayama, Teruo 1960 Zenkoku akusento jiten. Tôkyô: Tôkyô-dô. Hyman, Larry, M. “Historical tonology”. In: Vicoria A. Fromkin (ed.), Tone, A linguistic 1978 survey, 257-269.



&-*4"#&5)Û%&Û#0&3

Kindaichi, Haruhiko 1951 “Nihon shisei kogi”. In: Terakawa et al. (eds.), Kokugo akusento ronsô, 629-708. 1964 Shiza Kôshiki no kenkyû. Tôkyô: Sanseidô. Kobayashi, Chieko 1975 Japanese dialects: Phonology and reconstruction of the proto-accentual system. Cornell University dissertation. Kortlandt, Frederik “The origin of the Japanese and Korean accent systems”. Acta linguistica 1993 Hafniensia 26, 57-65. Martin, Samuel 1987 The Japanese language through time. New Haven-London: Yale University Press. Ramsey, Samuel R. “The Old Kyôto dialect and the historical development of Japanese 1979 accent”. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 39, 157-175. “Nihongo akusento no rekishiteki kenkyû”. Gengo 9/2, 64-76. 1980 “Language change in Japan and the Odyssey of a Teisetsu”. Journal of 1982 Japanese studies, 97-131. Umegaki, Minoru 1946 Kyô-kotoba. Tôkyô: Takagiri Shoin.

&WJEFODFÛBOEÛ$PVOUFS&WJEFODF Û'FTUTDISJGUÛ'SFEFSJLÛ,PSUMBOEU Û7PMVNFÛ 44(-Û Û"NTUFSEBNÛÛ/FXÛ:PSLÛ3PEPQJ Û Û

ARMENIANS AND THEIR DIALECTS IN ABKHAZIA 1 V.A. CHIRIKBA

1. Abkhazia Abkhazia is a small country situated between the Republic of Georgia and the Russian Federation on the western Caucasian Black Sea coast. In various times Abkhazia was a kingdom, a principality, a region of the Russian Empire, and a Soviet republic, first with the status of an SSR, and then as an Autonomous SSR within the Georgian SSR. After the collapse of the USSR, in 1993 Abkhazia managed to secede from Georgia as a result of a short but bloody war, and since then has remained a de facto independent though not recognized self-governed state. The Abkhazians, a people speaking a West Caucasian language (akin to Circassian and the recently extinct Ubykh), and who before 1864 comprised the majority of the population of the country, represent the indigenous population. After the Russian incorporation of Abkhazia in 1864, a series of anti-colonial rebellions followed which were severely punished by the Russians, who declared the Abkhazians “a guilty population”. Fearing reprisals, tens of thousands of Abkhazians fled to the Ottoman Empire, while many others were forcefully deported to Turkey. Thus, by the end of the 19 th century, Abkhazia had lost up to 60% of its indigenous population. The emptied lands were subjected to colonization by Russians, Megrelians, Georgians, Svans, Turkish Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Estonians and other groups. 2. The history of the Armenian settlements in Abkhazia The first Armenians settled in Abkhazia in the last decades of the 19 th century, after the Russian-enforced exodus of Abkhazians. Following a Russo-Turkish agreement on population exchange allowing the Muslim peoples of Russia to move to Turkey and the Christian subjects of Turkey, notably the Armenians and Greeks, to come to Russia, many Armenians came to the Caucasian Black Sea coast. The Berlin conference of 1878 allowed the resettlement of Turkish Christians in Russia within a period I would like to thank Hra Martirosyan and Hovann Simonian for their valuable suggestions and corrections on the text of this paper. I also thank Anna Keropian for her kind assistance in working with Armenian informants in Abkhazia. 1



7"Û$)*3*,#"

of three years (Dzidzarija 1982: 440). Besides, an indeterminate number of Armenians used to come to Abkhazia as seasonal workers even before their emigration from Turkey, leasing the land and engaging in the lucrative business of tobacco growing. These Armenians were mainly from the provinces of Trabzon (Trebizond) and Samsun, where the same tobacco varieties were grown. Apart from economical reasons, Armenians were migrating to Abkhazia and elsewhere in the Caucasus because of the persecutions and forced Islamization in Turkey. Thus, at the end of autumn of 1879, 125 Armenians from the kaza (sub-province) of Çaramba (part of the Trebizond vilayet, i.e. province) arrived in Abkhazia. In 1887 Armenians settled in the village of Mtsara (Abx mc’ara > Arm mejara). Several years later, in 1890, Armenians from Ordu settled in the village of Labra in the Ochamchyra region. In 1897 twenty Hamshen families from Samsun moved to the shores of Pitsunda in Abkhazia (Dzidzarija 1982: 439-440; Minasjan 1996: 48). The Armenian immigration to Abkhazia was intensified in the 1890s. Another large wave of Armenian immigration from Turkey took place in the wake of the bloody atrocities of 1915-1916, when tens of thousands of Armenians had to flee the country. Many of these refugees arrived in the Caucasus, in particular in Abkhazia. Having started in the 1870s, the emigration of Armenians to Abkhazia continued up to the Russian revolution of 1917. Czarist policies encouraged this immigration to the Caucasian Black Sea coast for both economical and political reasons, as, on the one hand, Russia needed manpower to develop a region deserted by the expelled Abkhazians, Circassians and Ubykhs and, on the other hand, it needed to colonize the Black Sea coast by a “loyal” Christian population, which included Cossacks, Megrelians, Georgians, Armenians and Greeks. After the 1917 Revolution the immigration took on a more spontaneous character. Thus, in 1923 a group of Hamshen Armenians under the leadership of the partisan Artin Arzumanian managed to leave Turkey and settle in the Gagra district of Abkhazia (Minasjan 1996: 55). But the majority of Armenians were coming now not directly from Turkey, but from or through the Batum and Akhaltsikhe regions of Georgia. The major attractions of the immigration to Abkhazia were the mild subtropical climate and the availability of land. The newly arrived Armenians quickly began to acquire the skills needed for new economical activities. The majority of them started tobacco plantations. In Soviet times, the main occupation became the growing of citrus fruits, tobacco, tea and grapes. Besides, especially in the Gagra region, cattle-breeding on mountain pastures (so-called yayla, or summer camp economy) was popular, as much as in the Hamshen

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*"



homeland. On the whole, the nature, climate and mountainous landscape of Abkhazia resemble much that of the Hamshen area. 3. The Hamshen region in Turkey The region of Hamshen is situated to the east of the Black Sea town of Rize. In Ottoman times it was a part of the Trebizond vilayet of the Empire. The territory of Hamshen is a mountainous area, a part of the Pontic Alps, with deep ravines and high mountains, the highest of which is the Kaçkar (3932 m). By the beginning of the 20 th century there were some 50 Armenian villages in this area. The traditional occupation were agriculture, animal husbandry, crafts and partially trade (Minasjan 1996: 17). Besides Turks, the Hamshen Armenians had as neighbours the Laz, Pontic Greeks and (Adzhar) Georgians, and their material culture was close to that of the Laz (Minasjan 1996: 5). The lack of land and poverty forced many Hamshen people to leave their homeland and go abroad, to the Caucasus, to Russia and even as far as Rumania. Earlier, in the 18 th century, the Hamshen Armenians partially moved to the neighbouring Ordu and Dzhanik (Samsun) regions, both for political and religious reasons (forced Islamization, starting from the 16th century) and for economical reasons. The first large waves of migration of the Hamshens abroad, in particular to the Caucasus, took place after the Turkish-Russian war of 1877-1878. The migration of Armenians took on such a scale that in 1896 the Ottoman government ocially forbade Armenians to leave Turkey. Despite these restrictions, the Armenians were secretly leaving the country. Another large wave of Armenian exodus was caused by the tragic events of 1915-1916. Three main groups of the Hamshen Armenians are known (cf. Vaux 2001): the western (in the province of Rize), the eastern (in the province of Artvin) and the northern (in the regions of Samsun, Ordu, Giresun and Trabzon). Nowadays those Hamshens (called in Turkish heminli), who remained to live in Turkey (the western and eastern groups), are Sunni Muslim and their self-consciousness is ethnic Turkish, with some local peculiarities and with a residual knowledge of Armenian. Probably only elders are aware of their Armenian roots. 2 Those northern Hamshen Armenians who managed to go abroad earlier, in particular to the Caucasus, including Abkhazia, remained Christian and preserved their Armenian identity, language and elements of traditional culture.

2

On the past and present of the Hamshens in Turkey, see Mouradian 2001.



7"Û$)*3*,#"

4. Contemporary situation Even before the early Soviet period with its policy of supporting the minority cultures and languages, the Abkhazian Armenians were engaged in various kinds of cultural activities. Thus, a prominent cultural figure Xa hatur Avdalbekyan organized the Union of Armenian Teachers of Abkhazia and the literary-enlightenment newspaper “Luys” (“The light”). The Union founded an Armenian printing house, a bookshop with Armenian books, and amateur theater groups. The most prominent organizing structure was undoubtedly the Armenian Apostolic Church, which morally supported the Armenians and provided spiritual leadership. The contemporary situation is characterized, on the one hand, by freedom in expressing ethnic identity and in organizing institutions, and, on the other hand, by the dicult economical situation caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and exacerbated by the devastating Georgian-Abkhaz war of 1992-1993. The Armenian cultural institutions in Abkhazia are functioning under the aegis of the cultural-charity organization “Kunk” (“Crane”). There is a Russian-Armenian newspaper “Hamen” published in Sukhum, and in Gagra the local charity organization “Matoc” issues a newspaper with the same title. The Armenian community is represented in the Abkhaz parliament by several deputies, and there are Armenians in the government. There is a functioning Armenian sector in the pedagogical faculty of the state University in Sukhum, which prepares teachers for Armenian schools. Although there are Armenian schools all over Abkhazia, the language of instruction is Standard East Armenian (SEA), which may dier substantially from the dialects they speak. This is a factor which aects the prestige of the local vernacular, regarded as “uncultivated” when compared with Standard Armenian. Despite the eorts of some enthusiasts to publish in Armenian dialects, the majority of Armenian publications in Abkhazia are in SEA. The main problems for the Armenian community in Abkhazia are the continued Russian-Georgian economical embargo of Abkhazia, the broken ties with Armenia and the lack of funds. Though the Armenians so far have preserved their language intact, the urban milieu in Abkhazia is predominantly Russian-speaking, which necessitates a good knowledge of Russian for communication, education and career opportunities. Because of the impossibility (for financial reasons) for many young Armenians to go to study in Armenia, which was the case during the Soviet period, the importance of Russian among the Abkhazia Armenians is rising substantially, to the eect that many Armenians prefer to send their children to Russian instead of Armenian schools. According to the newspaper

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*"



“Hamen” (Sukhum, No 6, 2003), the total number of pupils in Armenian schools has become less than three thousand, and each year this number reduces. For example, in 2003, the Gagra Armenian School No. 3 counted only 135 pupils, whereas in the Russian school in Gagra, which had 757 pupils, 39 % were ethnic Armenians. The major part of Armenians in Abkhazia are followers of Armenian Apostolic Church, while a minority, mainly the Artvin Armenians, are Catholics. Nowadays, a Polish priest from Sochi comes every fortnight to Gagra and Sukhum to conduct the Catholic service (in the Russian language), whereas the Gregorian Armenians attend the Russian or Abkhaz orthodox churches. Armenians are strictly exogamous, again with the exception of Artvin Armenians, who, at least in the past, allowed marriages between cousins (Catholics with first cousins and Gregorians with second cousins). On the other hand, the Armenians are characterized by ethnic endogamy, preferring Armenian marriage partners. The majority of mixed families used to be with Russians, somewhat less with Georgians, and very few with Abkhazians, although nowadays the number of Abkhaz-Armenian marriages tends to grow. In most mixed families, children learn the languages of both parents. The Armenians have a very stable ethnic identity and are keen to preserve their language and religion. The families are traditionally large compared with other population groups in Abkhazia. 5. The Armenian groups in Abkhazia The major part of Armenians in Abkhazia identify themselves as the “Hamshen Armenians” (Arm hamen-ci); their total number is estimated at present at some 50,000 (cf. Torlakjan 2002: 5). In Russian they are called    , the local Artvin Armenians refer to them by the term yemeci, while the Abkhazians call all Armenians by a common term ayerman() (< Tu ermene) 3. The three subgroups within this larger community are Ordu (Arm ord(i)e-ci), Dzhanik (enik-ci) and Trabzon (tirabizonci), these self-designations being derived from the cities of Ordu, Dzhanik (Samsun) and Trabzon in north-eastern Turkey. Besides, there are Artvin Armenians, who do not identify themselves as the Hamshentsi and who speak an Eastern Armenian dialect. There are also other very small groups

3 The Turkish Abkhazians call their Muslim Hamshen neighbours by the term am´rl, a derivation of Tu heminli.



7"Û$)*3*,#"

from Erzurum, Kars, Alashkert and some other places in Turkey, probably comprising 5 to 8 per cent of all Abkhazia Armenians and representing later immigrants. Finally, there are many families from Armenia proper (from Yerevan, Kirovakan/Vanajor, Spitak), from Tbilisi, Akhalkalaki, Karabakh (the most recent group) and elsewhere. The Armenian vernacular is the language of the family, and it is spoken when Armenians meet on the streets of the city or at the marketplace. Some old(er) people have retained the knowledge of Turkish. The Hamshen and Artvin speakers, if they talk in their own vernaculars, due to the dierences in phonology and morphology, can understand each other with diculty. Lexical dierences can be demonstrated by an example of the expression ‘it rains’ in various forms of Armenian spoken in Abkhazia: SEA anjrew galis

Dzh vraik k.uk.a

O v r ayeg g næ

Tr tatav k.uk.a//g ne

The distribution of various Armenian dialects in Abkhazia is as follows. The Ord(i)etsi speakers live in such villages as Atara Armjanskaja, Labra, Araki of the Oamyra region, Mtsara (Arm mejara) of the Gudauta region and in the cities of Sukhum, Gagra, Gudauta, Novyj Afon and Oamyra. The speakers of Dzhanik (enik-ci) live in the villages of Psou, Amarda, Kazarma, Hapsy, Aibga, Xolodnaja Reka, the city of Gagra in the Gagra region, in the village of Mtsara of the Gudauta region, in the village of Psyrdzkha (Primorskoe) in Novyj Afon, in the village of Jatux of the Sukhum region, in the village of Araki of the Oamyra region, and in the village of Tsebeljda (Abx c’abal > Arm æbel) of the Gulryp region. The Trabzon dialect was spoken by the original Armenian inhabitants of the regions of Trabezond, Bayburt, Gümühane and Giresun in Turkey. The migrants from these cities have established themselves in the cities of Batumi, Poti, Sevastopol’, Yalta, Kerch and in Abkhazia. In Abkhazia, the Trabzon speakers can be found in the villages of Eera, Upper Jatukh near Sukhum (called Burdzh (bur), reportedly after their place of origin in Turkey near Trebizond), Gumsta of the Sukhum region, in the villages of Gulryp, Maara, Pap, Marxjaul, aumjanovka, Ganaxleba, Mjasnikovo of the Gulryp region, kark.ud k.e (“The Stone Heap Village”) of the Gagra region, and in the cities of Gagra, Sukhum and Oamyra.

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*"



6. West Armenian: the Northern Hamshen dialects The three “Hamshen” groups in Abkhazia are very close both culturally and linguistically. Their vocabularies are characterized by many Turkish loanwords, and they include also many Russian words borrowed already in the Caucasus. Some authors regard the Ordu speech as representing the original Hamshen dialect in its pure form (Minasjan 1996: 6). There is a certain level of inter-dialect mix, stimulated by close contacts of the three groups and common inter-marriages. Besides, within the milieu of those who finished Armenian schools and higher educational establishments in the Armenian language, a certain influence of Standard East Armenian is also noticeable, mainly in the vocabulary. I shall characterize the phonetic and morphological features of the three Hamshen groups together, showing common features and noting the specific dierences. 6.1 Vowels The “Hamshen” vocalic system, as described by Aayan (Adjarian 1909: 59), includes the following phonemes: a, e, , i, o, u, ü, and is probably typical for the Eastern group. In our three dialects, which represent the Northern Hamshen speech (Dzhanik, Ordu, Trabzon), the vocalic inventory is as follows: a, æ (= ä), e, , i, o, u. The dierence is thus the lack of the front ü in the northern dialects and the lack of æ in the eastern ones. The most important common Northern Hamshen (NH) vocalic features are: a. The old a becomes o before nasals (a feature shared by other Hamshen groups): SEA beran vs. Dzh p.eron ‘mouth’ SEA ksan vs. O kson ‘twenty’ SEA kami vs. O, Tr komi ‘wind’, etc. The same happens also with Turkish loans: Dzh urbon ‘sacrifice’ < Tu qurban, O obon ‘shepherd’ < Tu çoban, etc., which indicates that the shift was a relatively recent process. The rule does not seem to be applied in the case of the numeral ‘seventy’: SEA, Artv yotanasun, cf. Tr yotanasun, Dzh yot. nasun, O yot.nasun. On polysyllables containing the internal sequence -an- in Hamshen see Achaian (1947: 23).



7"Û$)*3*,#"

b. Diphthongs > monophthongs: SEA ay > e : ayd aysp.es uy > u : morakuyr horakuyr yu > u : haryur

vs. vs. vs. vs. vs.

NH ed espes morkur horkur harur

‘that one’ ‘thus, this way’ ‘maternal aunt’ ‘paternal aunt’ ‘hundred’

c. In Dzhanik the Umlaut process is visible on a somewhat greater scale than in Ordu and Trabzon: SEA Dzh O ors – eys oys ‘four’ ksan – ksen kson ‘twenty’. d. The combination of the nasal with the voiced velar produces phonetically a nasal velar []: O hing [i k] ‘five’ (the velar o-set is starting with a voiced element and ends with the voiceless release). 6.2 Consonants Despite their geographic proximity, the Northern Hamshen dialects display three dierent systems in respect to correspondences in Classical Armenian (CA) consonants. Although in Ordu and Trabzon the stops and aricates have a binary distinction of voiced vs. voiceless aspirated, the Trabzon system evolved in line with Aayan’s description of the development of the “Hamshen” consonants: “only voiced and voiceless aspirated are preserved; the voiced and simple voiceless of the Classical Armenian are both represented by the voiced; the aspirated voiceless remain without change” (Adjarian 1909: 59); in Kortlandt’s (1978: 10) classification, this is type 22 system, whereas the Ordu system is the result of the transformation of the voiceless unaspirated into the voiced ones and the merger of voiced and voiceless aspirated in the latter series (Kortlandt’s type 20). 4 Unlike these two dialects, Dzhanik has a ternary system of stops and aricates: voiced, voiceless aspirated and voiceless unaspirated. The latter 4 My informant from Gagra who claims to be an Ordu speaker has a ternary consonant system identical to that of Dzhanik, but it is unclear whether this is not the result of some Dzhanik intermixture/influence; obviously, more research into the Ordu speech is needed.

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*"



sounds are tense, and when put under emphasis (e.g., when a speaker is asked to repeat himself), they are pronounced with what sounds as weak glottalization, though it is not quite clear whether glottal (ejective) coarticulation is involved, e.g. .ehez [t  ehez] ‘bride’s dowry’, t.un [t n] ‘thou’, p.er-im-gu [perimgu] ‘I (shall) bring hither’, etc. Among the peculiarities in phonetics the following features can be mentioned: a. As noted by Aayan (Adjarian 1909: 59; 1947: 64fn), in Hamshen r turns into  before dentals, and before other consonants – into y, but remains as r before b, p., p, g, k., k, x, m, v: mard > H mat. ‘man’ vs. ors > O oys, Dzh eys ‘four’. There are however many cases where the sequence -r + dental yields y: SEA curt. vs. O cuyd ‘cold’ SEA sard vs. Dzh zayt. ‘spider’ SEA vort.e vs. NH voydex ‘where’, etc. This process can be observed even synchronically (examples from Dzhanik): axp.ær ‘brother’ – im axp.æys ‘my brother’ kur ‘sister’ – im kuys ‘my sister’ ku kuyt ‘thy sister’ b. Aspiration is not strong. c. The fricatives x,  are uvular (i.e. [, ]), as in many other Armenian dialects. d. The pre-nasal vowel becomes nasalized, e.g. Dzh t.un [tn] ‘thou’. e. The rhotic resonant is voiceless at the end of the word: e.g. harur [-r] ˚ ‘hundred’, hazar [-r] ‘thousand’, nir [-r] ‘they’. ˚ ˚ f. Voiced consonants are devoiced in final position: meg [mek] ‘one’, hing [i k] ‘five’. g. In some words the initial laryngeal fricative is pronounced as voiced : hing [i k] ‘five’, haydi [ajdi] ‘go!’ (< Tu), Tr hani [ani] ‘where?’.



7"Û$)*3*,#"

h. Consonants are phonetically palatalized after front vowels: Dzh Dzh O, Tr Tr Tr

xnjer axp.ær ergus irek meg

[ ndzer] [a p ær] [er gus] [i rek] [mek]

‘apple’ ‘brother’ ‘two’ ‘three’ ‘one’

i. In the numeral vatsun ‘sixty’ the combination /ts/ is realized phonetically either as [ts], or as [ts]: [vatsun//vatsun], i.e. with the geminated stop or aricate. The geminated aricate is heard also in the numeral ‘six’: O, Tr vec [vets ]. In Dzhanik, in yot. ‘seven’ and ut. ‘eight’, /t./ is pronounced with a slight gemination. j. In Ordu, when kson ‘twenty’ is counted with the following numerals, it loses the initial k-: SEA Dzh O ksan mek. ksen meg son meg ‘twenty one’ 6.3 Morphology Among morphological peculiarities the following features can be mentioned (cf. Adjarian 1909: 59): a. The infinitive has a sux -u, unlike -el in the other dialects: SEA NH kayl-el vs. kæl-u ‘to go’ p-el vs. p-u ‘to blow’ xos-el vs. xos-u ‘to speak’ b. The verbs with an initial vowel form their Present Indicative and Imperfect by means of the prefix gu-, otherwise with the sux -gu, cf. Tr yes g[*u]-uz-im ‘I want’ vs. yes ber-im-gu ‘I (shall) bring, carry’. c. The ablative is formed, as in Artvin and Tiflis, by means of the sux -men : nuc-men u+e e ‘them-of strong-is = is stronger than them’.

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*"



6.4 Lexicon The Hamshen dialects contain loanwords of Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Georgian, Laz, and Greek origin. On the other hand, Hamshen influenced the local Turkish dialects, which assimilated many items of their local culture, flora and cuisine (see Bläsing 1992; 1995). Examples of Turkish loans in Northern Hamshen are: akrep ama bitun bostan buldurik abux

‘scorpion’ (Dzh gari) ‘but’ ‘all’ ‘cucumber’ (Tr) ‘quail’ (O, Dzh ler) 5 ‘quickly’

daha gene hayd haman lazut (Dzh lazd) vaxt

‘more’ ‘again’ ‘go!’ ‘at once’ ‘maize’ ‘time’, etc.

There are also some cultural words shared with Laz (cf. Vaux 2001), some Georgian words (e.g. Tr aba question particle), and some older Russian loans, such as Tr droga ‘perch’ < Rus   (‘in the waggon’). Sometimes archaic Classical Armenian forms have been preserved in the Hamshen varieties, as opposed to the innovative forms in Standard Armenian, cf. CA mek, SEA menk, Artv, Tr, O menk, as opposed to Dzh mek ‘we’. The numeral ‘seven’ has in Ordu two forms: yot. and oxt.. 7. East Armenian: Artvin The Artvin Armenians originate from the city of Artvin and its environs in the north-east of Turkey. A considerable part of Artvin province is covered with steep mountains, divided into two sections by the Çoruh River. It has the cities of Kars at the north-west, Erzurum at the south and south-east, Rize at the west, the Blacks Sea at the north and the Georgian border at the north-east. Beside the central district (Tu merkez), the province includes seven other districts, namely Ardanuç, Arhavi, Borçka, Hopa, Murgul, avat and Yusufeli. Some of the local subdivisions are still remembered by my informants: ardaneci (from the city of Ardanuç), korjulci (from the village of korjul), ave(t)ci (from the district of avat), xot’ourci (from a place called xot’orur on the right bank of the Çoruh River), etc. More than half of all Artvin Armenians are Armenian Catholics, and regard the Pope as their spiritual leader, while a somewhat smaller 5

Aayan (1947: 232) gives two “Hamshen” forms: leor [lör] and ler.



7"Û$)*3*,#"

part (some 45%) belong to the Gregorian (Armenian Apostolic) Church. The Armenian Catholic Diocese of Artvin (Artuinensis Armenorum) was established in 1850 by Pope Pius IX for Catholic Armenians in that part of the Ottoman Empire and in neighbouring southern Russia. 6 The Catholic Artvinians used to form a rather close group, living a segregated endogamic way of life and not mixing with the other Armenian groups, including the Gregorian Artvinians. Such traditional attitudes are reflected in the term by which the Hamshen Armenians (Artv yemeci) are referred to by the Artvinians: geacik ‘peasants’, while all non-Artvin Armenians are called by them dseci mart’- ‘the stranger’. The first Artvin Armenians, according to my informants, came to Abkhazia between 1905 and 1909. Today Artvin families can be found in the cities of Gagra (ca. 60 families), Gudauta and Sukhum. Outside Abkhazia, there are small Artvin communities in erkessk (formerly Batalpainsk), Labinsk, Krasnodar, Novorossijsk, Aperonsk, Yalta and Taganrog. The traditional occupation of Catholic Artvin Armenians was trade, while Gregorians specialized in small crafts, such as shoe-making. In Turkey, Artvin was spoken in the cities of Artvin, Ardahan, Ardanuç and Olti. According to Achayan (Adjarian 1907: 84), the Artvin dialect occupies an intermediate position between the dialects of Erzurum, Tiflis and Xoy. The following is a brief account of the peculiarities of this littleknown Eastern Armenian dialect. 7.1 Vowels The Artvin vocalic system is as follows: a, e, , i, o, u. The most important vocalic features are: a. Diphthongs became monophthongs (Adjarian 1909: 85): CA Artv ay > e : ayd > ed ‘here’ ayn > en ‘there’ b. The syncope of the penultimate vowel in the structure CVCVC + (C)V…: 7 Cf. http://www.katolsk.no/utenriks/kronologi/orient_armenian_artvin.htm. This syncope resembles a similar phenomenon in the neighbouring Georgian: k’ak’al-i ‘walnut’ vs. k’ak’l-is xe ‘the walnut tree’, bazar-i ‘market’ vs. bazr-is paseb-i ‘the market prices’ (where -is is the genitive sux), but it is also found in other Armenian dialects, e.g., Erzurum, Tiflis kaak ‘city’, gen. kak-i (H. Martirosyan, p.c.). 6 7

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*"

k’ak’al ‘walnut’ tixil ‘hazel-nut’ bazar ‘market’, ert-al ‘go’

– – –

k’ak’li c’a tixli c’a ye ert-lis im bazr-um-u



‘walnut-tree’ ‘hazel-nut tree’ ‘I go to the market’

7.2 Consonants The Artvin phonetic system is similar to that of Tiflis: a ternary system of stops and aricates: voiced, voiceless glottalized and voiceless aspirated. The same system is of course typical for Georgian, Laz and the majority of the other Caucasian languages. 7.2.1 The phonetic realization of consonants and their combinations a. Glottalization and aspiration are not strong, unless under emphasis. b. The rhotic resonant is voiceless at the end of the word: xyar [-r] ‘cucum˚ ber’. c. There are cases in which final -s is lost: SEA Artv yes vs. ye ‘I’ (e.g. ye mn-a-lis im ‘I am staying’) ays vs. e ‘this’ (e.g. e t’un- ‘this house’), etc. d. In the speech of some speakers the root ert- ‘to go’ loses its rhotic in the conjugation: et-lis e ‘he is going’, ye et-lis im ‘I am going’ (for which another informant has ye ert-lis im), but ye uze-lis im ert-al ‘I want to go’. 7.3 Morphology In morphology some noteworthy features are (cf. Adjarian 1909: 85): a. Ablative in -men, as in Tiflis and Hamshen, as contrasted with the SEA in -ic; e.g. nmanc-men ‘from them’; b. The present progressive in -lis, as in Karabakh and Maragha: ye ber-e-lis im ‘I am carrying’; c. The future with prefixal k’u : ye k’u-ber-im ‘I shall bring’. 7.4 Lexicon Beside native words, Artvin borrowed Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Greek, Laz and Georgian words. After Tiflis, it is probably the Armenian dialect



7"Û$)*3*,#"

which was the most heavily influenced by Georgian. To name only a few Georgian words: aba at’am biá da dedá

question particle (aba in ‘and what?’) gogó//go ‘peach’ k’ak’al ‘uncle’ p’ep’elak conjunction ‘and’ tixil ‘mother’

‘girl’ ‘walnut’ ‘butterfly’ ‘hazelnut’

Loanwords from Turkish (or from Arabic and Persian via Turkish) are also abundant: babá bitun k’ayi penera

‘father’ terep ‘side’ ‘all’ taxtabit ‘bed-bug’ ‘boat with flat bottom’ xyar ‘cucumber’ ‘window’

8. Onomasticon Personal names of Abkhazian Armenians are of Armenian, Iranian, or, more rarely Turkish and Arabic origin. Male: Andranik, Arakel, Aram, Arda, Arak, Artak, Artavazd, Artin, Artu, Aot, Avetis, Aykaz, Azad, Boghos, Dikran, Galust, Gevorg, Hakop, Hamayak, Hambartsum, Hrant, Grigor, Harut(yun), Ixan, Karapet, Melik, Misak, Ovanes, Petros, Rafik, Samvel, Sarkis, Smbat, Sedrak, Vagharak, Vazgen, Xaik, Zadyk, Zorik. Female: Anahid(a), Anu, Arewaluys, Astghik, Gayane, Geganu, Gohar, Haykanu, Hripsima, Knarik, Maro, Nanegyul, Pekruhi, Satenik, Seda, amiram, oghakat, Siranu, Siru, Xatun. 9. Conclusions The Armenian dialects spoken in Abkhazia, though showing a considerable level of resilience and vitality, nevertheless are gradually given up in favour of Russian, which process has been accelerated due to the break-up of traditional links with Armenia after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Universal education in Armenian schools in Abkhazia is conducted in Standard East Armenian, which is another factor weakening the position of the vernacular, left to be used only in the family circle.

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*"



We are thus probably dealing with a slowly vanishing cultural-linguistic community, which necessitates eorts to fully document the Armenian dialects of Abkhazia and the adjoining areas of the Krasnodar region of Russia. The speech of these particular groups is especially significant for the history of Armenian in view of the fact that they preserve the little known Armenian dialects much in the way as they were spoken in their original homeland in Turkey some 130 years ago, without any later influence of Turkish. Turkish influenced strongly both Hamshen and Artvin groups, which is mostly visible in lexicon, but also probably in other aspects of their language, though this question remains so far unstudied. Besides, a factor common to all these dialects was the contact with Pontic Greek and with Kartvelian languages (Laz or Georgian). In particular, there are certain similarities in Laz and Hamshen phonetics. Thus, Laz glottalized consonants can be pronounced as voiceless stops or aricates, in the manner they are pronounced in Hamshen. Another common feature is the weakness of r: in Hamshen in certain clusters it turns into y, and in Laz in clusters and intervocalically it can turn into zero, cf. Dzh kur ‘sister’ vs. im kuys ‘my sister’, Laz imxos < imxors ‘he eats’, k’ibii < k’ibiri ‘tooth’. Further study is needed to investigate the contact-induced phenomena in Hamshen and its interaction with the neighbouring languages from an areal perspective. There is yet another aspect, which is of undoubted historical interest: the Hamshen and Artvin Armenians might have preserved in their language and toponymy some substrate features of the tongues which were previously spoken in the areas of north-eastern Anatolia. We do not know which languages were spoken by Chalybians, Tibarenians, Carduchians, Taochians, Chaldaeans, Tzanians, Colchians, Macrones, Drilae, Mossynoecians and other ancient tribes indigenous to what is now north-eastern Turkey and mentioned by such classical authors as Herodotus, Strabo and Xenophon. It is assumed that the Hamshen Armenians arrived to their present habitat in the area of Çamlıhemin of north-eastern Turkey in the second half of the 8 th century, originating from the Ayrarat area (Xaikjan 2002: 19). These newcomers might have come in close contact with or even have assimilated the language(s) of the older populations of the area. As noted in this connection by Aayan (1947: 191-192), those words and place names in Hamshen that are not from any known language (such as Turkish, Greek, or Laz) are probably from the lost Pontic language (Pontic borrowings). 8 The lexicon of Hamshen and Artvin Armenians might thus 8

Cf. the list of 34 such substrate place names in Aayan (1947: 192; H. Martirosyan, p.c.).



7"Û$)*3*,#"

shed some light on the ancient ethno-linguistic situation of north-eastern Asia Minor, which has always been linguistically and culturally at the crossroads of civilizations, languages and cultures. Leiden University ABBREVIATIONS Abx Arm Artv CA Dzh H

Abkhazian Armenian Artvin dialect Classical Armenian Dzhanik dialect Hamshen dialect

NH O Rus SEA Tr Tu

Northern Hamshen Ordu dialect Russian Standard East Armenian Trabzon dialect Turkish

REFERENCES Adjarian, H. 1909 1947 Bläsing, U. 1992 1995

Dzidzarija, G. 1982 Kortlandt, F. 1978

Classification des dialectes arméniens. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion. [Aayan, H.] K hnnut hyun Hameni barbai. Yerevan: Academy Press. Armenisches Lehngut im Türkeitürkischen am Beispiel vom Hemin. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Armenisch-Türkisch. Etymologische Betrachtungen ausgehend von Materialen aus dem Hemingebiet nebst einigen Anmerkungen zum Armenischen insbesondere dem Hemindialekt. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Maxadirsvto i problemy istorii Abxazii XIX stoletija. Suxumi: Alaara. “Notes on Armenian historical phonology II (The Second Consonant Shift)”. Studia Caucasica 4, 9-16.

Kuznetsov, I.V. “Xemily i amenskie armiane v kul’turnom kontekste Ponta” [The 2002 Khemshils and the Hamshen Armenians in the Cultural Context of the Pontus]. In: Torlakjan 2002, 129-193. Minasjan, M.G. 1996 Armjane Priernomorja. ast’ pervaja. Armjane v Amene. Gagra. Mouradian, C. “Aperçu sur l’islamisation des Arméniens dans l’Empire ottoman: le 2001 cas des Hamchentsi/Hemili”. In: Islamic Conversions. Religious Identities in Mediterranean Islam. Directed by Mercedes García-Arenal. Maisonneuve et Larose, European Science Foundation, 399-418.

"3.&/*"/4Û"/%Û5)&*3Û%*"-&$54Û*/Û"#,)";*" Torlakjan, B. 2002 Vaux, B. 1999 2001



Etnografija amenskix armjan. Sbornik statej i materialov. – Amenskaja biblioteka no. 1. Krasnodar: “Amshen”.

The phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon Press. “Hemshinli: the forgotten Black Sea Armenians”. Journal of Armenian Studies 6/2, 47-71. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 2002 “Aspects of Armenian dialectology”. In: J. Berns & J. van Marle (eds). Present-day Dialectology. Problems and Findings (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 137), 141-157. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Xaikjan, L. “Stranicy istorii amenskix armjan”. In: Torlakjan 2002, 18-30. 2002

&WJEFODFÛBOEÛ$PVOUFS&WJEFODF Û'FTUTDISJGUÛ'SFEFSJLÛ,PSUMBOEU Û7PMVNFÛ 44(-Û Û"NTUFSEBNÛÛ/FXÛ:PSLÛ3PEPQJ Û Û

ON THE POSITION OF BÁIMӼ WITHIN TIBETAN: A LOOK FROM BASIC VOCABULARY1 KATIA CHIRKOVA

1. Introduction Báimʣ ⲭ傜 is a Tibeto-Burman language, spoken by approximately 10,000 residents of three counties in Sìchuĵn ഋᐍ Province: Jiʩzhàigšu ҍመ⋏; Sšngpĵn ᶮ█ (Zung-chu) and Píngwʩ ᒣ↖; and in Wénxiàn ᮷ ৯ in Gĵnsù ⭈㚳 Province. The Báimʣ people call themselves [RG] and are referred to as Dwags-po in Tibetan. They reside in the immediate neighbourhood of Qiĵng 㖼 (to their South-West), Chinese (East and South) and Tibetan ethnic groups (West and North). The status of the Báimʣ language – separate language or Tibetan dialect – is a matter of controversy. Officially classified as Tibetans in the 1950s, the Báimʣ advanced claims as an independent ethnic group in the 1960s and the 1970s, but were never officially reclassified. The Báimʣ reside in the area historically populated by the DŎ ≀ people, whose descendents they claim to be. Tibetans invaded the DŎ territory in the 7th century and assimilated the local population, which probably subsequently shifted to a form of Tibetan spoken by the invaders.2 The Báimʣ language exhibits a number of non-Tibetan features in its lexicon, morphology and syntax, which are arguably the result of substratum interference of the original language of the DŎ (Huáng & Zhĵng 1995: 116117). Báimʣ is currently considered, in Jackson Sun’s (2003a: 788 n. 29) words, as “merely an aberrant Tibetan dialect”. It is provisionally classified within the Khams group, although it also has a number of Amdo characteristics (Huáng and Zhĵng 1995: 104; Zhĵng 1997: 134-135, 140). Reasons for the grouping of Báimʣ within Khams – never explicitly discussed by its advocates – are presumably the drastic simplification of ____________ 1 Work on Báimʣ, fieldwork and following-up research at Leiden University in 20032005, has been made possible through the generous support of the Frederik Kortlandt Spinoza Project. 2 On the history of the Báimʣ, see Sìchuĵn Shľng Mínzú Yánjiŵsuʧ 1980, ZŁng and Xiĵo 1987 and Chirkova 2005.



,"5*"Û$)*3,07"

the syllable structure, the elimination of ancient Tibetan syllables codas and the presence of tones. As recently argued by Jackson Sun (2003a: 795-796), these are tendencies rather than reliable phonological isoglosses, for which reason Khams “seems to have been arrived at by lumping together a host of mutually unintelligible speech forms” (p. 794). The question of the position of Báimʣ within Tibetan thus remains open. The Báimʣ lexicon is predominantly of transparent Tibetan provenance. However, sound correspondences between the sound system of ancient Tibetan, as reflected in standard Written Tibetan orthography (hereafter WT), and Báimʣ, proposed by Zhĵng (1994) and Huáng & Zhĵng (1995), are less regular than those between WT and established groups of Modern Tibetan dialects. Thus, one WT initial or final often has multiple correspondences in Báimʣ, suggesting several layers of loanwords from various dialects (Huáng & Zhĵng 1995: 91-92). For example, according to Zhĵng’s analysis, WT kh corresponds in Báimʣ to [MJ], but in some words also to [M], [PI], and [W]; WT ar corresponds in Báimʣ to [#] and [D], in a few instances to []] and [], and in some isolated cases to [G] and [] (Zhĵng 1994a: 12, 16). Furthermore, Báimʣ has a number of words of unclear etymology, even in its basic vocabulary. The proportion of these words has never been estimated, nor has basic vocabulary ever been the topic of detailed investigation. In this article, I examine the 100-word Swadesh list (1955) for Báimʣ, as the layer of lexicon which is arguably least resistible to change and which therefore can shed light on the genetic affiliation of this language. I will address the following issues: (1) Proposed sound correspondences; (2) Conformity with sound correspondences between WT and Amdo and between WT and Khams; (3) Unclear etymologies and their possible origins. The 100-word Swadesh list for Báimʣ is given in the appendix. Báimʣ data quoted in this article represent the variety of Báimʣ spoken in the Báimʣ Township of Píngwʩ County, and were collected during my fieldwork there in 2003-2004. Basic vocabulary appears to be fairly stable across the varieties of Báimʣ of Jiʩzhàigšu, Sìchuĵn Province, and

0/Û5)&Û104*5*0/Û0'Û#œ*.âÛ8*5)*/Û5*#&5"/



Wénxiàn, Gĵnsù province.3 When Báimʣ forms collected in Píngwʩ differ from those in Jiʩzhàigšu and Wénxiàn, these forms are also quoted. I compare Báimʣ data to one Khams dialect, sDe-dge (Zàng-Miányʩ yʩyŎn hé cíhuì biĵnxiézʩ 1991), and one Amdo dialect, bLa-brang (Dài & Huáng 1992), both lingua franca’s of each respective group, as well as Zhongu (Sun 2003a), a Tibetan dialect spoken in Sšngpĵn, in the immediate neighbourhood of Báimʣ.4 Occasional comparisons are also made to phonological features of Chos-rje, another Tibetan dialect, which borders the Báimʣ variety of Jiʩzhàigšu (Sun 2003b). Zhongu and Chos-rje data are given here to facilitate the identification of areal features. Both Zhongu and Chos-rje, which are spoken, similar to Báimʣ, in the borderland between Tibetan and Qiĵng, are argued by Sun (2003a: 797, 2003b: 5-6) to diverge sharply in phonology and vocabulary from all major Tibetan dialects. Outlines of Báimʣ phonology are given in Nishida & Sŵn (1990: 109168) and Huáng & Zhĵng (1995: 81-84). In my transcriptions, I follow Huáng & Zhĵng’s analysis of Sŵn Hóngkĵi’s palato-alveolar [5Þ [FW]] ‘stone’ and s- in bya-sgo-nga > [CIW] ‘egg’.

(2)

Báimʣ has only one kind of complex initials, viz. prenasalized consonants, originating in WT initials preceded by the prefixes m- and ‘-. Prenasalization preserves the original voicing of the initial in WT, e.g. ‘di > [PF] ‘this’.

(3)

Unlike Khams and Zhongu, on the other hand, and more in line with Amdo, Báimʣ does not contrast voiced and voiceless nasals, which originate in the former dialects from WT nasals preceded by the prefix s-. For example, WT sna ‘nose’ is [P]-PIQ] in Zhongu, [PC] in sDe-dge, but [P#PIW]] in Báimʣ ([JPCQ] in bLabrang).

(4)

Similar to Khams and Amdo, but in contrast to Zhongu, voiceless fricatives in Báimʣ become aspirated if not preceded by a prefix in WT. For example, WT sha ‘flesh’ becomes [J#] in Báimʣ, [ZJC] in sDe-dge, [ZJC] in bLa-brang, but []] in Zhongu. In a similar fashion, WT sa ‘earth’ is [UJC] in Báimʣ, [UJC] in sDe-dge, [UJC] in bLa-brang, and [U]] in Zhongu. Four exceptions in the Báimʣ 100word list are the words [] ‘louse’, WT shig, the imperative form of the verb ‘come’ [W], WT shog, the perfective/imperative form of the verb ‘die’ [], WT shig, and the interrogative pronoun [UW] ‘who’, WT su.

(5)

Similar to most varieties of Amdo as well as Zhongu (Sun 2003a: 788), and in contrast with Khams, the WT cluster zl- is reflected in



,"5*"Û$)*3,07"

Báimʣ by a dental affricate, viz. [F\], e.g. zla-ba [F\#] ‘moon’ and the perfective form of the verb ‘say, speak’ bzlas [F\]. (6)

The WT cluster spr- becomes [] in Báimʣ. For example, WT sprin ‘cloud’ yields [G] in Báimʣ, which is similar to Amdo, [P], but distinct from Khams dialects, e.g. sDe-dge [VKP].

(7)

WT st becomes [] in Báimʣ. For example, ster [] ‘give’, cf. the same verb in Zhongu [MW] and plural third person pronoun [VQMW]. A possible cognate of the plural suffix [M ], as well as the plural suffix in Guìqióng is the WT form kun ‘all, every, each, whole’. It is for instance used to form the plural form of nouns ending in a consonant in Balti, e.g. snot-kun ‘vessels, pots’, nang-kun ‘houses’ (Read 1934: 5). The form kun is therefore likely to be an archaism preserved in the peripheral languages (cf. Campbell 2000: 11-12).

(2)

The Báimʣ plural inclusive first person pronoun [CTGM ] is similar to Zhongu [C-C] and appears to be cognate with some Qiangic languages, e.g. the exclusive first person pronoun in Prinmi [CT] and îrsŵ [#Tq] (Zàng-Miányʩ yʩyŎn hé cíhuì biĵnxiézʩ 1991: 1345).8

(3)

The adjective [KK] ‘small’ is distinctly Qiangic, cf. [K] ‘small’ in the Rónghóng dialect of Qiĵng (Randy LaPolla, personal communication, March 2005), Zhĵbà [L+L+] ‘small’, Lʯsŵ [LKLK] ‘small’. Huáng & Zhĵng (1995: 94) suggest WT zhib-zhib ‘crumb, powder, fine like powder, refined flower’ as the etymon of Báimʣ [KK]. Different semantics apart, zhib-zhib would not be regular by their own sound correspondences, according to which the expected form would be *[]; compare skrang-zhi > [] ‘dissolve (of a swelling)’ (ibid., p. 90).

____________ 8 Data from Qiangic languages in this section, unless otherwise specified, are quoted from Dài & Huáng (1992).

0/Û5)&Û104*5*0/Û0'Û#œ*.âÛ8*5)*/Û5*#&5"/



(4)

The adjective [NW]VW]] ‘big’ might likewise be related to Qiangic, cf. ShʥxŎng [OÉFWÉ], also [NCFWÉ] (Dài et al. 1991: 193). Note that [NW]VW]] ‘big’ and [KK] ‘small’ are more frequent and productive in word formation than their obvious Tibetan-derived synonyms [V5JG], chen-po, and [V5JWV5JW], chungchung, respectively.

(5)

For the word [NKM] ‘all’, Zhĵng (1994b: 67) suggests WT lingska ‘entire(ly), complete(ly)’ as a probable cognate. However, again it would not fit the sound correspondences for the basic lexicon, the expected form being *[LGM]. The form [VUJR] attested in Mʣjiĵ Township, Jiʩzhàigšu County, on the other hand, is a regular reflexion of WT tshang-ma, cf. Zhongu [VUJ-OQ], sDe-dge [VUJ#OC].

(6)

The distal pronoun [YWN], also used anaphorically as singular third person pronoun, is semantically analyzable into the element [YW] ‘that’, as in [YWN#] ‘there’, literally ‘that location’; and [N] ‘that one’, also used as the third person pronoun. The first element is in most likelihood related to one of the corner pieces of the Tibeto-Burman deictic triangle *i~*u~*a, as discussed in Benedict (1983).

(7)

The adjective [@]Y ] ‘black’ is again probably of Qiangic origin, cf. Prinmi [#], Quèyù [GG], Dàofú [CC]. The Tibetan-derived synonym [P#], nag-po, derives from Khams, cf. sDe-dge [P#P#2], and occurs in Báimʣ only in set expressions, such as [P#Y ~P#R ] ‘darkness’ and [@KP#] ‘very black eyes’.

(8)

The noun [PGPG] ‘breast, milk’ also has cognates in Qiangic languages, cf. Zhĵbà [PP].

(9)

The noun [F\PIW]] ‘knee’ might be related to Amdo, [YKIQ], but is not paralleled in other dialects. The WT etymon pus-mo is to be found in Báimʣ in an arguably later loan, [ROPF\W] ‘kneel’, WT pus-mo ndzugs.

(10) For [PF#] ‘good’, Zhĵng (1994b: 61) suggests the etymon drag ‘noble, honest, best, superior’, which is however expected to yield the form *[V#]. Both words may indeed be related, but in Báimʣ, this adjectival verb is marked by the prefix n- as intransitive or durative. (11) Finally, the adjective [N[N[] ‘round’ is described by Zhĵng (1994b: 62) as being related to WT log-log. Alternative possible



,"5*"Û$)*3,07"

cognates in Qiangic languages are Guìqióng [NN] or îrsŵ [RWNKNK] (Zàng-Miányʩ yʩyŎn hé cíhuì biĵnxiézʩ 1991: 1179). The origin of words not discussed in this section (singular first person pronoun [MJCI7] (not attested in my data, quoted from Huáng & Zhĵng 1995: 106), different forms of the plural first person pronoun, [L#PF