Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

Rob Haden <magwich78@...> writes:

> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:55:32 +0200, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg=20Rhiemeier?=
> <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>
> >As to me, I consider such a relationship possible, but I am not fully
> >convinced by the evidence I have seen.  I am pretty certain, though,
> >that IE and Uralic are related.  Both are indeed remarkably similar
> >with regard to morphology.  The IE phonology and syntax, however,
> >shows parallels to Kartvelian (e.g. ablaut alternations; active-stative
> >alignment).  My personal theory is that PIE was a sister language
> >of Proto-Uralic on a substratum related to Kartvelian, or something
> >like that.
>
> Can you elaborate on the similarities between IE and Kartvelian?
I am not an expert on Kartvelian, but I found some information on this
in Gamkrelidze's and Ivanov's book, _Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans_.

First, the phonology.  PIE, if one accepts glottalic theory (which I do),
had a three-way distinction between voiceless, voiced and ejective stops,
as does Kartvelian (and other Caucasian languages); and apparently,
Kartvelian has an ablaut system similar to that of IE.

The common points in syntax are SOV order (a frequent pattern that
proves nothing and is also shared by Proto-Uralic) and active-stative
argument marking.  That is, intransitive subjects are marked like
transitive subjects if they are agents (as in 'The man runs'),
but like transitive objects if they are not (as in 'The stone falls').
Typically, only animate nouns can take agent marking.

This pattern is partly preserved in Kartvelian languages, and traces
of it can be found in IE (active vs. stative verb endings, avoidance
of inanimate transitive subjects, syncretism of nominative and
accusative in neuters (animates had an agentive case in *-s
and an objective case in *-m, later to become nom. and acc.
respectively, while inanimates had an unmarked objective case
and no agentive case).

Why does this point to a substratum?  It is a well-known fact that
learners of a foreign language have the greatest difficulty with
phonology (leading to accents) and syntax.  To give one example:
Native German speakers, when speaking English, often use
the perfect in situations where a native speaker of English
would use the simple past, but the perfect is used in German.
(The German perfect has a wider range of meaning than the
English perfect.)  So when a population switches to another
language, features of their old language tend to be carried over
into the new language in the fields of phonology and syntax
rather than morphology.

> >Possibly, in pre-PIE, the verb agreed with the patient not in number, only
> >in person.
>
> I would say that active verbs agreed with the agent in person, and stative
> verbs agreed with the patient/focus in person.
Yes.  And possibly, transitive verbs agreed with both arguments,
as would be the typical pattern in an active-stative language.
The thematic vowel might be the last remnant of a 3rd person object marker.

Jörg.

____________________________________________________________________________
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail anmelden = 1qm Regenwald schuetzen! Helfen
Sie mit! Nutzen Sie den Serien-Testsieger. http://user.web.de/Regenwald