c-NOSTRATIC-16.htm

PROTO-LANGUAGE PHONEMES

in Nostratic

and Nostratic-derived languages

by Patrick C. Ryan

The purpose of this short essay is to establish as a hypothesis that Nostratic is descended from an ancestor, which, I term Proto-Language — from the form into which it had developed by about 15K BPE.

This date is based on the estimates of Cavalli-Sforza for the separation of the peoples who are broadly grouped under the rubric of speakers of Nostratic (The Great Human Diasporas) from the Eurasiatic branch of the people speaking a Proto-Language-derived language.

During this phase of development, the Proto-Language was passing out of the ergative-type morphology into a nominative-type morphology (G. A. Klimov).

An excellent online resource for data pertaining to the earliest language which is at the TOWER OF BABEL, founded by the late Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin, and now part of the Evolution of Human Languages project at the Santa Fe Institute.

An important new resource for Nostratic studies is the website Nostratica, instituted by Kirill Babaev, the founder of the Cybalist language discussion group at Yahoo! Groups.

At this time, the Proto-Language had developed only a few nominal compounds. The principal types involved the monosyllabic CV roots with PL ¿E, 'voice, -like'; and with PL NA, 'nose, stone, one', which provided a definite singular nuance for roots that could be interpreted collectively; e.g. from PL ME, 'tongue, converse(r)', with ¿E = ME-¿E, 'word(s)'; and with NA = ME-¿E-NA, 'word', which is found in Nama mî (miⁿ), 'to say', cognate formatively and semantically with PIE *mei-no-, 'opinion, view'.

Nama word order is consistently SOV, in which we see the earliest Proto-Language word order.

Although there has been an understandable negative reaction to linking 'race' and language notably because of the racial doctrines of the former National Socialists, responsible scholars have now begun to re-investigate the connections among genetic profiles of populations and culture and language, with the result that the basic Monogenetic Hypothesis (and with it, monogenesis) is gaining substantial credibility through the results of research by physical scientists.

The kind of solid data being generated and careful analysis cannot be "quibbled away" by the liberal ideologues who still chase the butterflies of independent language invention and "borrowing frenzy".

In the Table of Correspondence found after the listing of lexical cognates below, the column entitled PROTO-LANGUAGE shows the earliest syllables before vocalic contrasts were replaced by a contrast of glides and no glide (during the Pontic stage).

Similar tables of equivalence can and have been constructed for the Proto-Language, IE and Afrasian, Altaic, Basque, Beng (Southern Mandé), Blackfoot (Algonquian), Dravidian (incomplete), Etruscan, Hurrian-Urartian, Japanese, Mon/Hmong, Nama, Nama, Nostratic (present essay), (Sino-)Tibetan, Sumerian, and Uralic.

It will be seen that the reconstructed roots of the Proto-Language and the attested roots in the individual (proto-)language essays in the headings below display a very regular system of phonemic correspondences with understandable semantic shifting.

TABLE
OF
Proto-Language / NOSTRATIC
CORRESPONDENCES

THIS TABLE OF EQUIVALENCES HAS BEEN CREATED TO FACILITATE COMPARISON OF THE VALUES PROPOSED BY THE AUTHOR WITH OTHER PROPOSALS (E.G. THOSE MOST RECENTLY PROPOSED BY ALLAN BOMHARD,
WHOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS I HAVE CRITIQUED).

(:) indicates the vowel was originally long
: indicates an attested long vowel

For examples, see in the individual (proto-)language essay listed below by clicking on its name.

PROTO- LAN-
GUAGE

PROTO-INDO- EURO-
PEAN

HIERO-
GLY-
PHIC
EGYP-
TIAN

PROTO-AFRASIAN

The PAA sound inventory has been maintained best in Arabic, for which see the above-reference essay.

NOSTRA-
TIC

HV⁽¹⁾

He:

Ø / Ø:

in prepar-ation

î (written i)

Ha:

HA-FHA-FA Ho:wV

Ø / Ø:

â (written a)

Ho:

û (written u)

¿E

HHE

He:

y / i / Ø

Ø / Ø:

yi (written i)

î (written i)

ħi

¿i

ħi

¿A

HHA

yV

¿A-¿E

e / e:

Ha:

Ø / Ø:

y / Ø

y(a) (written i(a)) / î (written i)

â (written a)

¿a

ħa

¿a

ħa

¿O

HHO

Ho:

yu (ü, written u)

û (written )

¿u

ħu

¿u

ħu

P[?]^g E⁽⁵⁾

P[H]E

b(h)V / wV

b / *p

p?i

P[?]^g A⁽⁵⁾

P[H]A

b(h)V / wV

b / *p

p?a

P[?]^gO⁽⁵⁾

P[H]O

b(h)V / wV

ḃu (O&S: bu)

p?wu

pwu

P[?]FE

PF[H]E

bhV

p[h]e:

ḃi (O&S: fi)

p?wi

p^hi:

P[?]FA

PF[H]A

bhV⁽²⁾

p[h]a:

ḃa (O&S: fa)

p?wa

p^ha:

P[?]FO

PF[H]O

bhV

p[h]o:

p
+
p

ḃu (O&S: fu)

p?wu

p^hu:

F[H]E

we:

Emesal: mi
Emegi:
g[~]²i⁽⁶⁾
final: ü (written u)

wi:

F[H]A

wa:

u / u:

û (written u)

wa: .

F[H]O

wo:

u (written u)

û (written u)

wu:

T[?]E

T[H]E

di
rare: di+wV

Ti (retroflex {?})

di
rare: di+wV Ti (retroflex {?})

þi (O&S:

t?i

ti (O&S: či)

T[?]A

T[H]A

d / Ø

da
rare: da+wV

Ta (retroflex {?})

da
rare: da+wV Ta (retroflex {?})

d

+
d

þa (O&S: ča)

t?a

T[?]O

T[H]O

d(V)

d / t

du rare: du+wV

Tu (retroflex {?})

du
rare: du+wV Tu (retroflex {?})
rare: du Tu (retroflex {?})

ţu (O&S: ču)

şu (O&S: çu)

t?wu

twu

T[?]SE

TS[H]E

dhV / d[h]ye(:)NOTE

t[h]e: / t[h]ye(:)NOTE

ði (OS: ĉi)

t?si

tsi

T[?]SA

TS[H]A

dhV⁽³⁾

t[h]a:

t / *d

za

dialectal: ta

ða (O&S: ĉa)

t?sa

tsa

T[?]SO

TS[H]O

dhV/d(h)wV^NOTE

t[h]/t[h]wo:^NOTE

Emesal: tu

Emegi: tu
rare: tu+wV Tu (retroflex {?})
rare: tV+wV Tu (retroflex {?})

Emesal: tu

Emegi: tu
rare: tu+wV Tu (retroflex {?})
rare: tV+wV Tu (retroflex {?})

ḑu (O&S: ĉu)

żu (O&S: ču)

t?swu

tswu:

S[H]E

se:

ši

zi (O&S: ʒi)

si:

S[H]A

sa:

sa
sa+wV

ša
rare: sa+wV

Sa (retroflex {?})

sa
sa+wV ša
rare: sa+wV Sa (retroflex {?})

za (O&S: ʒa)

sa:

S[H]O

so: / swo:^NOTE

su
rare: su

Su (retroflex {?})
su+wV

šu
rare: su+wV

Su (retroflex {?})
final: su+î

š(i)

su
rare: su Su (retroflex {?})
su+wV šu
rare: su+wV Su (retroflex {?})
final: su+î š(i)

zu (O&S: ʒu)

su:

K[?]E

K[H]E

g[^]V

k[^]V

g / *j

g / *k

y / *k

gi
gi+wV hi

k?i

K[?]A

K[H]A

gV gyV

g^V

g / *j

g / *k

ga
ga+wV ha

k
k+j

k?a

K[?]O

K[H]O

g / *c

g / *k

gu
gu+wV hu

k?wu

kwu

K[?]XE

KX[H]E

g[^]hV

k[^][h]e:

y / *k

ki
ki+wV

γi (O&S: ġi)

k?xi

kxi:

K[?]XA

KX[H]A

ghV⁽⁴⁾

k[h]a:

k / *ch

ka
ka+wV

γa (O&S: ġa)

k?xa

kxa

K[?]XO

KX[H]O

ghV

k[h]o:

ku
ku+wV

ku
ku+wV hu

γu (O&S: ġu)

k?xu

kxu:

X[H]E

g[^]^wV

g[^]^wV + H (?A)

g[^]^whV

k[^]^we:

c / *k

š²i
š²i+wV

hü (written hu)

š²i

ši (O&S: ĉi)

ši (O&S: ŝi)

ži

çi

X[H]A

g^wV

g^wV + H (?A)

g^whV

k^wa:

ša (O&S: ĉa)

ša (O&S: ŝa)

ža

ça

X[H]O

g^wV g[^]^wV + H (?A)

g^wV

k^wo:V

šu (O&S: ĉu)

šu (O&S: ŝu)

žu

çu

M[H]E

me:

mi:

M[H]A

ma:

M[H]O

mo:

mu:

N[H]E

l[^]V

l[^]e:

li:

N[H]A

la:

n / *q

l / ny

la:

N[H]O

Lo:

Lu (written lu)

lu:

Q[H]E

(n)g[^]V

(n)k[^]e:

g / *q

k / ng (intervocalic)

(n)g[~]³i

initial: n²i (ñi)
(n)k²i

ŋi (O&S: ķi)

ķi

ŋi

ķi

Q[H]A

(n)gV

(n)ka:

g / *q

k / *q

k / ng (intervocalic)

(n)g[~]³a

Emesal final: n²(a) (ñ(a))

Emegi initial: n²a (ña)
(n)k²(a) (written (n)g[~]³(a))

ŋa

ķa

ŋa

ķa

Q[H]O

(n)gV / (n)gwV /
(n)g^wV^NOTE

(n)ko:

k / ng (intervocalic)

(n)g[~]³u

initial: n²u (ñu)
(n)k²u

ŋu (O&S: gu)

ķu

ŋu

ķu

R[H]E

re:

r / R

Li (written li)

ri:

R[H]A

ra:

La (written la)

ra:

R[H]O

Lo:

Lu (written lu)
dialectal: ru

Lu (written lu).

ru:

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

For an explanation of the Proto-Language and Indo-European notational conventions
used in these essays, press here.

For an explanation of the notational conventions of the other languages
used in these essays, click on their names at the head of the Table.

PROTO-LANGUAGE MONOSYLLABLES

In order for readers to judge the semantic plausibility of the analysis of Proto-Language (PL) compounds suggested here, I am including access to a table of Proto-Language monosyllables and the meanings I have provisionally assigned.

Most assignments can be exhaustively supported by data from actually attested forms but a few animates are very doubtful; and this list does not represent the "final" solution of these questions, which will only be approached when other scholars assist in refining it.

Patrick C. Ryan

Summer 1998

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

the latest revision of this document can be found at
HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/proto-language/c-NOSTRATIC-16.htm

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947
PROTO-LANGUAGE@msn.com

NOTES

a. I am aware that some readers, who may entertain the possibility of a Pontic-Nostratic connection between Indo-European and Afrasian, will not be able to accept the possibility of a reconstruction of a language as early as the Proto-Language. To those readers, may I suggest that the Proto-Language reconstruction be merely regarded as an expression of an arbitrary system of notation that allows for the regular relationships of correspondence between Indo-European and Nama.

b. These semantic proposals are based on the meanings of Proto-Language monosyllables deduced from many languages but primarily Egyptian and Sumerian, which, I believe, have conservatively preserved the meanings of these early monosyllables through their writing systems. Whether the meanings are plausible to the reader or not has no bearing on whether the forms are phonologically related.

c. Stopa, Roman. 1986. Schnalze: Ihre Natur, Entwicklung und Ursprung. Bibliotheca Nostratica, Vol. 7. Ed. Gyula Décsy. Bloomington: Eurolingua

d. This word is written with Gardiner H6, 'feather`). When written with the ideograph stroke, it reads šj^e (with -.t, 'feathers, plumage'),corresponding to PIE g^wei-, 'skin, pelt, *feather^e'; and PL XE-¿E, ('body-hair-like'), 'feather'.

Another name for 'feather' was, we submit, jw, the 'hollow one', from the hollowness of a quill. It is this reading that we presume for *šw, 'empty, lacking, *hollow', based on semantic consderations. This reading was employed when H6 was determined by G37, 'sparrow', the determinative for misfortune.

This suggests, among other things, that the air-god Shu (šw) might possibly have been named jw, i.e. Yau, the 'empty one'.

The 'feather', H6, šw also means 'dry' when determined by N5, the 'sun-disk'; presumably, this was also read jw.

Another important word derived from XE-¿E in Egyptian is šn; or, as we would prefer to write it: *šjn, corresponding to PIE g^wi-no-, 'hair', when glossed with Gardiner D3, '(curl of) hair' (*šjn.w), a mater lectionis for the reading with final n.

This word, *šjn.w is based on PL XE-¿E-NA-FA, 'body hair-like-thing-SET' = 'coat of hair/feathers'; as is *šn.w, '(meshes of) net'.

e. Since N[H]A-F[H]A-M[H]A also meant 'feather', XE-¿E was prefixed to it in PIE-derived languages to yield XE-¿E-N[H]A-F[H]A-M[H]A, 'quill'. This is PIE (*g^^wil[l]-). The doubled -ll- of the PIE forms is due to an assimilation of -m to -l-, yielding PIE *g^^will-, 'quill'.

f. Nama utilizes b as a masculine termination, and s as a feminine one, and -i for common gender (neuter). These can be safely ignored when cognates are being proposed.

g. I have come to the conclusion that pre-glottalization, in view of its outcome in voicing, is the likelier actual phonological shape of the stops and affricates I show as post-glottalized (P?); trully [?p]. However, I will continue to notate them as if there were post-glottalized merely to maintain conintuity with what I have wriiten in other essays at this website.

h. The Proto-Language consisted of 90 monosyllables, which are further analyzable into their *C + *V components.

i. (†) This phoneme is realized as a nasalized vowel.

j. Differentiation of meanings deerived from a root with similar or identical forms may have been the principal cause of the introduction of tonal differences.

k. I have long held that what are traditionally called biliterals would have been superfluous if they simply indicated only a sequence of two consonants as m+n discussed above; it could have been more simply written as a sequence of

‌ with determinatives to distinguish among homophones if needed or heterophones, instead of as: , mn. These signs are really triliterals, specifying that the medial component is not simply a vowel (*a) but rather a consonant like j (and, provisionally, in a few cases w), which were actually probably realized as diphthongs or lengthened vowels.

Current HE linguistics relies heavily on Coptic vocalization to reconstruct HE vocalization with, in my opinion, misleading results. Also, PS vowel-patterning models are en vogue; these patterns are not a part of Proto-Afro-Asiatic (I prefer PAA, Proto-Afrasian).

I believe 'alphabetic' writing was made feasible in HE not because of predictable vowel-patterning but because most vowels had been leveled to *a; and only where lengthened (â) or diphthongized (*ai *ê or *au *ô) vowels were present made an indication of interior vocalization desirable through biliterals (really: triliterals).

My former Professor Ignace J. Gelb (Story of Writing) of the University of Chicago maintained to me, in spite of strenuous opposition from me and many others, that Egyptian 'alphabetic' signs were actually syllabic: m = *ma only; and I now believe he was right then.

NOTES (2)

1. In the Proto-Language, there were three vowels: E, A, O.

In Nostratic, there were three vowels: *i, *a, *u.

During the Pontic stage of Nostratic, from which IE and AA developed, there was only one V(owel) [or *A{blautvokal}]: *a ([a], 'central low' — possibly with a stress-unaccented schwa {ə} allophone), which became *é, *ò, *°, or *Ø in IE according to the Ablautsstufe or accent-grade required by the stress-accent; a palatal (^*y), velar ^*w) or no glide preceded the vowel. These glides disappeared in IE, leaving only dorsals and dorsal nasals palatalized by ^*y, and a few apicals and dorsal nasals velarized by (^*w).

In AA, the glides and no glide + *a became *i, *a, and *u. Subsequently, all vowels were conflated into *a but *i and *u lived on as allophones employed to mark various grammatical forms (vowel patterning); it is possible that some root nouns retained *i, *a, and *u.

During the Pontic-Nostratic stage, Nostratic *i, *a, *u that were lengthened by a preceding or following 'laryngeal' (*H*e:. *a:, *o:) and were not reduced to *A though they were preceded by a glide or no glide. When the glides disappeared (v. supra). the lengthened vowels remained intact.

2. Final Early IE voiced aspirated stops + a can become unaspirated: -bha becomes -b(a); -gha becomes -g(a); -dha becomes -d(a).

3. v. 2. supra!

4. v. 2. supra!

5. It is well-known that b is rare in IE as an initial and even questioned by some scholars as a root final. I have found that Early IE *b (from PL P[?]) appears in the stage of IE normally reconstructed as w or bh as when root initial though usually as b when root final. It is uncertain at this time if the presence of a nearby laryngal-pharyngal (H) was the conditioning factor in P[?] becoming IE initial bh as opposed to w though the expected coloring does not seem to occur.

6. The change of bilabial fricative to g[~]² before i is similar to and probably connected in some way with the Armenian change of PIE *wei- to gi, as in PIE *woinyom- becomes Armenian gini, ‘wine'.

7. The *y of this syllable has been modified initially to *H in, at least, some PIE words such as *ok^w-, ‘eye’, and *e:n- (for **a:n **yan), ‘look!’.

8. In one word, PIE *tyeg^w-, 'shyly retreat, be startled', initial PL THSE is represented by IE *t(h)y(e[:]).

c-NOSTRATIC-16.htm

PROTO-LANGUAGE PHONEMES

in Nostratic

and Nostratic-derived languages

TABLE OF Proto-Language / NOSTRATIC CORRESPONDENCES

THIS TABLE OF EQUIVALENCES HAS BEEN CREATED TO FACILITATE COMPARISON OF THE VALUES PROPOSED BY THE AUTHOR WITH OTHER PROPOSALS (E.G. THOSE MOST RECENTLY PROPOSED BY ALLAN BOMHARD, WHOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS I HAVE CRITIQUED).

For examples, see in the individual (proto-)language essay listed below by clicking on its name.

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

For an explanation of the Proto-Language and Indo-European notational conventions used in these essays, press here.

For an explanation of the notational conventions of the other languagesused in these essays, click on their names at the head of the Table.

PROTO-LANGUAGE MONOSYLLABLES

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTES

NOTES (2)

TABLE
OF
Proto-Language / NOSTRATIC
CORRESPONDENCES

THIS TABLE OF EQUIVALENCES HAS BEEN CREATED TO FACILITATE COMPARISON OF THE VALUES PROPOSED BY THE AUTHOR WITH OTHER PROPOSALS (E.G. THOSE MOST RECENTLY PROPOSED BY ALLAN BOMHARD,
WHOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS I HAVE CRITIQUED).

For an explanation of the Proto-Language and Indo-European notational conventions
used in these essays, press here.

For an explanation of the notational conventions of the other languages
used in these essays, click on their names at the head of the Table.