This paper explores the decline of the Yenisseyan language family, particularly focusing on Ket, the only surviving language from this once widespread group, and examines the historical interactions of these languages with other linguistic families in Siberia. Through a synthesis of historical, etymological, and toponymic evidence, the author traces the language's decline correlated with demographic and societal changes, emphasizing the need for preserving its remaining speakers and resources.

Journal of Old Turkic Studies (JOTS), 2019

Book review: KHABTAGAEVA, B. Language Contact in Siberia: Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic Loanwords in Yeniseian, Brill, Leiden-Boston, 2019, pp. 404, ISBN: 978-90-04-39076-8

2004

Special Note: Out of 54 pages of the 560 page "Eurasian Linguistic Foundations" document, I have extracted data that is reaching 40 pages! I thought there might be pattern(s) that would clarify the movement of Indo-Europeans and their interaction with other linguistic groups. While the data all look like chaos, it is surprising how much of an affect the extinct Akkadian language (last spoken ~3,000 years ago!) has had in our European and Asian linguistic foundations. Hittite, a dead language since 1150 B.C., also plays a big part in the formation of our modern European and Asian languages. Akkadian is one of the oldest Semitic languages and Hittite is considered to be the oldest Indo-European language. It is clear that the patterns shown on Akkadain and Hittite will continue to dominate our search. Hoping to see patterns involving Georgian, Basque and Armenian, I broke them into separate linguistic "correspondences." As will be seen in Part I, "Eurasian Linguistic Foundations," Basque is highly influenced by Latin and corresponds with Slavic, English, et. al. Armenian is not as associated with Greek as linguists would have us believe and Georgian corresponds with Eurasian languages more than expected. However: This discussion, Part II of "Eurasian Linguistic Foundations," attempts to make sense out of the data base of linguistic patterns in Part I. Part II is a work in progress and will be updated and is expected to exceed 200 pages. Part I of this document consists of a data base showing correspondences among Indo-European, Akkadian, Basque, Georgian, Finnish-Uralic, Altaic, and Traditional Chinese, languages. We also include extinct languages, such as Etruscan, Lycian, Milyan (Mylian), Luvian, Tocharian and Hittite. The corresponding words in Part I did not emerge as I expected, and there are many anomalies that need to be addressed which will be presented in Part II of this work. The greatest anomaly involves Akkadian, an extinct and the oldest Semetic language. It is named after Akkad, a major center of the Mesopotamian civilization(s). It was spoken from the 3 rd millennium B.C. until its replacement by Old Aramic by the 8 th century B.C. The language was the lingua Franca of much of the Ancient Near East until the Bronze Age Collapse ~1180-1150 B.C., when major capitals were destroyed, such as Troy, and the Hittite capital, Hatussa. By the Hellenic period the Akkadian language was largely confined to scholars and priests working in temples in Assyria and Babylonia. The last known cuneiform text in Akkadian dates from the 1 st century B.C. (See Wikipedia.org). Because of its central position, such as during the Assyrian Empire (2025-1522 B.C.), traders were no doubt coming from afar to exchange goods with the civilizations of the Near East. Some of the curious affiliations that need to be explained include the Basques (who are located in Iberia (Spain) and southwestern France). They were known as the Vascones by Rome. While the Basque language generally corresponds with Latin-based languages, that we color "red" in Part I, there are many peculiar correspondences with Akkadian. Another language, Finnish-Uralic, displays similar anomalous features relating to Akkadian. Any connection that these or other languages may have to Akkadian would have to be well before the 8 th century B.C. I recommend that an informative application of this data base Eurasian Linguistic Foundations-Discussion on anomalous patterns of cultural exchange.

Scientific Reports, 2023

This study reexamines the linguistic phylogeny of the South Caucasian linguistic family (aka the Kartvelian linguistic family) and attempts to identify its Urheimat. We apply Bayesian phylogenetics to infer a dated phylogeny of the South Caucasian languages. We infer the Urheimat and the reasons for the split of the Kartvelian languages by taking into consideration (1) the past distribution ranges of wildlife elements whose names can be traced back to proto-Kartvelian roots, (2) the distribution ranges of past cultures and (3) the genetic variations of past and extant human populations. Our best-fit Bayesian phylogenetic model is in agreement with the widely accepted topology suggested by previous studies. However, in contrast to these studies, our model suggests earlier mean split dates, according to which the divergence between Svan and Karto-Zan occurred in the early Copper Age, while Georgian and Zan diverged in the early Iron Age. The split of Zan into Megrelian and Laz is widely attributed to the spread of Georgian and/or Georgian speakers in the seventh-eighth centuries CE. Our analyses place the Kartvelian Urheimat in an area that largely intersects the Colchis glacial refugium in the South Caucasus. The divergence of Kartvelian languages is strongly associated with differences in the rate of technological expansions in relation to landscape heterogeneity, as well as the emergence of state-run communities. Neolithic societies could not colonize dense forests, whereas Copper Age societies made limited progress in this regard, but not to the same degree of success achieved by Bronze and Iron Age societies. The paper also discusses the importance of glacial refugia in laying the foundation for linguistic families and where Indo-European languages might have originated. Based on the reconstructed proto-words of several Eurasian language families, proto-Kartvelian is suggested to have emerged over 12,500 BP (Before Present standing for years before 1 January 1950), predating proto-Indo-European, proto-Uralic, proto-Altaic, proto-Inuit-Yupik and proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan 1. Currently, the Kartvelian language family (aka the South Caucasian language family) consists of only four extant languages: Georgian, Svan, Megrelian and Laz, with Georgian being the most widely spoken among them. The majority of Kartvelian speakers live in the country of Georgia and northeastern Turkey (Fig. 1). The Megrelian and Laz languages constitute a branch of the South Caucasian languages, which is termed Zan. Most scholars accept the South Caucasian family tree, in which Svan is sister to the clade of the remaining three languages. The application of lexicostatistics and glottochronology for the classification and timing of South Caucasian languages dates the split of the Proto-Kartvelian into Svan and Proto-Georgian-Zan (aka Proto-Karto-Zan) to 3950-4150 BP 2-4 , 4750

Formally titled "Language Connections: Indo-European/Eurasian Words Linking Ancient Pastoralists." What is the original source of the Indo-European languages? This document/database shakes the concept of Proto-European. Were they nomads from the Urals who mixed with the Altaic peoples, including Chinese and then moved as the winds blew as it were across the Eurasian world? They shared too many words (often intermixed) to list here. "I, Mine, Me,"are shocking. These are basic pronouns that could not have been "borrowed," and there are many examples in this document that add to the notion that there was a strong mixing of the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans, Altaic peoples and Chinese. This document is presenting a language of the Eurasian herdsmen (pastoralists), indirectly through a process of elimination, as one analyzes the individual entries in this work. There are a lot of "steppe" correlations with Indo-European lexemes that compel a reevaluation of the concept of the Indo-European language group and its origins. The links between the Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz and Mongols across the steppes of Asia with European lexemes demand a review of our linguistic knowledge. Complicating this issue are the extensive links of the Akkadian lexemes with the Indo-European words. Many may be written off as words absorbed into the Hittite language and passed on to the Germanic tribes. But this does not explain the Finnish-Uralic connections. Were they involved with the Shintasta people Indo-Iranians?, that somehow communicated cultural building, mining, and fortification practices between the Urals and Mesopotamia? In the transformation of languages, the words, milk, whey, and serum stand out in terms of potentially tracking the migration of pastoralist cultures. Note how pastoralist cultures should share the same terms interchangeably. Words included are from the Indo-European Table, including, in addition to the Indo-European, Finnish-Uralic, Baltic, Basque and Georgian languages, these Asian languages are included: Turkish, Gujarati, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Kyrgyz, Mongolian and Traditional Chinese. The Finnish-Uralic linguistic connections with Persian have been explained through the Sintashta (Persian) fortified towns in the Urals. The Sintashta interchange with the Finns may have involved transmission of metals and products. The Sintashta are also believed from their burials to have been one of the earliest chariot horsemen. The Finns have also many linguistic connections with Akkadian, the language of the Assyrians (in Iraq). They also have strong connections to Hittite.

2021

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ijb-10.1177_13670069211023157 for Languages and ideologies at the Lower Yenisei (Siberia): Reconstructing past multilingualism by Olesya Khanina in International Journal of Bilingualism

Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 48, No. 1-2, pp.121-150, 2020

Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 2014

The Uralic language family has often been hypothesized to be related to Yukaghir, even though no widely accepted evidence for this theory has been presented so far. The study of Uralic-Yukaghir relations has in part been held back by the scarcity of basic documentary and comparative work on the Yukaghir languages. The publication of A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir (2006) by Irina Nikolaeva, however, has raised Yukaghir lexicology and historical phonology to a level that allows systematic comparison of Proto-Yukaghir and (Proto-)Uralic to be easily carried out. This paper discusses the lexical correspondences between Uralic and Yukaghir languages, and examines to what extent they can be explained as evidence of genetic relationship, products of language contact, or mere chance resemblances. It is argued that there is no clear lexical evidence supporting a genetic connection between the two families, and that no regular sound correspondences between the two proto-languages can be established. A majority of the Uralic-Yukaghir lexical comparisons suggested in earlier references seem to be chance resemblances, but a smaller corpus of probable loanwords supporting contacts between (Pre-)Proto-Samoyed and Proto-Yukaghir can be established.

International Journal of Bilingualism, 2021

Aims and objectives: This paper reconstructs past multilingualism (1900–1930s) among the nomadic people of the Lower Yenisei in northern Siberia, with particular attention to the language ideologies behind it; it is validated by parallels from small-scale communities worldwide. Approach: An ethnographic approach is taken, which interprets sociolinguistic data in view of emic categorizations. Data and analysis: The reconstruction is based on: (a) 1926 census data; (b) ethnographic reports from the 1920s to 1960s; (c) narratives from the 1940s; (d) retrospective sociolinguistic interviews; and (e) ethnonyms of local languages. (a), (b) provide a background for the interpretation of the linguistic data from (c)–(e). Findings: The connection of local social categories/groups to languages was unstable both synchronically and diachronically. Linguistic repertoires described the authenticity of the speech communities better than the command of individual languages. The linguistic indexing ...

2010

This paper discusses the development of hypotheses of classification of the languages of northern Eurasia, from the early “Scythian” hypothesis to the later Nostratic, Eurasiatic, Sino-Caucasian, and Dene-Caucasian proposals. The concept of scientific “proof” is discussed and contrasted with an alternative concept of “best explanation.” Eurasiatic and Dene-Caucasian can then be viewed as testable and fruitful hypotheses that, so far, provide the best explanations for language diversification in northern Eurasia.

International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics

It has long remained an unfortunate situation that while many other welldefined geographical areas of the world have their own specialized linguistic journals, the languages of Central and Northern Eurasia have not had an international forum of a similar scope and standard. The International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics (Brill) is now intended to fill this gap. It will join the company of other well-known regionally specialized linguistic journals such as, for instance, Oceanic Linguistics (University of Hawaii Press), Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area (Benjamins), and the International Journal of American Linguistics (University of Chicago Press). The new journal will use the abbreviation JEAL. Eurasia is the largest continent in the world and covers, in the broad definition, both Europe and all of Asia, including the Near East and the Indian subcontinent. In this context, JEAL will focus on what is traditionally known as Central Eurasia, or also Inner Asia, a region extending, roughly, from Anatolia and eastern Europe in the west to northern China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and Japan in the east, and from the Iranian Plateau and Tibet in the south to Siberia and the Arctic Ocean in the north. Languages spoken in other parts of Eurasia are also potentially relevant to JEAL, but only in case they are discussed in connection with the principal regional focus of the journal. The languages of Central Eurasia, thus defined, are traditionally lumped into two major categories, "Ural-Altaic" and "Palaeo-Asiatic". The former category comprises six genetic language families: Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic, while the latter comprises several small families and close-to-isolates, including Yeniseic (Ket-Kott), Kolymic (Odul-Wadul, or Yukaghir), Kamchukotic (Chukchi-Kamchadal), Amuric (Nivkh-Nighvng), as well as Ainu (Ainuic) and Burushaski. Since all attempts at linking these language families genetically with each other, or with other families, remain controversial, JEAL will treat them as separate entities, but not neglecting their historical and prehistorical contacts. From the point of view of the areal context, language families such as Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, and Eskaleutic

Wékwos n°7, 2024

This article assesses the contribution of palaeogenetics for linguists in determining the origin and spread of Indo-European languages. Since 2015 and the revelation of a vast migration during the Final Neolithic from the Ponto-Caspian steppe to Europe and Central Asia through the archaeological Pit Grave (Yamna), Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures, palaeogenetics has provided successive layers of information to archaeologists and linguists. The study proposes an original homeland in the Ponto-Caspian steppe no later than 4000 BC, as well as the dating and location of the secondary homelands of most of the branches and directions for further research into the model.

Kafkasya Calışmaları - Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / Journal of Caucasian Studies, 2020

The relationships among five Northwest Caucasian languages and Hattic were investigated. A list of 193 core vocabulary words was constructed and examined to find look-alike words. Data for Abhkaz, Abaza, Kabardian (East Circassian), Adyghe (West Circassian) and Ubykh drew on the work of Starostin, Chirikba and Kuipers. A subset list of 15 look-alike words for Hattic was constructed from Soysal (2003). These lists were formulated as character data for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of the languages. The phylogenetic relationships of these languages were investigated by a well-known method, Neighbor Joining, as implemented in PAUP* 4.0. Supporting and dissenting evidence from human genetic population studies and archeological evidence were discussed. This project has produced a provisional set of character data for the Northwest Caucasian languages and, to a limited extent, Hattic. Phylogenetic trees have been generated and displayed to show their general character and the types of differences obtained by alternate methods. This research is a basis for further inquiries into the development of the Caucasian languages. Moreover, it presents an example of the method for contrast queries application in studying the evolution of language families.

In this short paper, I will sum up the findings of my study DID INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES STEM FROM A TRANSEURASIAN LANGUAGE? AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH, published in Scientific Culture in January 2022 and on my profiles on Academia and ResearchGate. 1/ Linguistic studies According to Kassian (2021), Eurasian languages stem from an original Eurasian language, which included Samoyedic languages and split between 18,000 and 8,000 BC. This is consistent with Pagel-Atkinson (2013), postulating that the seven language families of Eurasia form a linguistic superfamily which evolved from a common ancestor around 15,000 years ago, with a homeland in Central Asia, from which Dravidian, Kartvelian and Basque were the first to separate, followed by PIE around 8,700 years ago, which contradicts the theory of Kurgans, postulating a much later formation of PIE.

A comparison of the core reconstructed vocabulary of proto-Turkic, proto-Mongol and proto-Tungus was made. The number of matches falls within the false positives range. The three linguistic families do not have a common vocabulary. A critical assessment of the Altaic Etymological Dictionary by Sergei Starostin is offered.

Prehistoric Language Contact on the Steppes, 2023

There have been numerous attempts to find relatives of Proto-Indo-European, not the least of which is the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic are alleged to descend from a common ancestor. However, attempts to prove this hypothesis have run into numerous difficulties. One difficulty concerns the inability to reconstruct the ancestral morphological system in detail, and another concerns the rather small shared vocabulary. This latter problem is further complicated by the fact that many scholars think in terms of borrowing rather than inheritance. Moreover, the lack of agreement in vocabulary affects the ability to establish viable sound correspondences and rules of combinability. This paper will attempt to show that these and other difficulties are caused, at least in large part, by the question of the origins of the Indo-European parent language. Evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Proto-Indo-European is the result of the imposition of a Eurasiatic language -- to use Joseph Greenberg's term -- on a population speaking one or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages.

Comparative historical studies have established over five hundred lexical correspondences between autochthonous Burushaski words and Indo-European as well as significant grammatical correlations. A genetic relationship has been proposed. Within these correspondences, the correlations of Burushaski with Slavic together with other branches are numerous and regular. These are not the subject of this paper. We concentrate exclusively on Burushaski isoglosses with words or meanings uniquely found in Slavic which consequently often have unclear, difficult or competing etymologies. The stratification of these isoglosses is complex. It appears that we might be dealing with various layers. In some cases, the phonetic and formal make up suggest a correlation of remote antiquity, yet in many instances it is difficult to establish a chronology, although these too could be ancient. Most of the isoglosses may involve cultural borrowing, with the direction of borrowing unclear, but a significant n...

• Explore
• Papers
• Topics

• Features
• Mentions
• Analytics
• PDF Packages
• Advanced Search
• Search Alerts

• Journals
• Academia.edu Journals
• My submissions
• Reviewer Hub
• Why publish with us
• Testimonials

• Company
• About
• Careers
• Press
• Help Center
• Terms
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Content Policy