Indo-European cladistic nomenclature

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 231-244
Author(s):  
Thomas Olander

Abstract The study examines the terminology currently in use for the higher-level subgroups of the Indo-European family tree. Based on the observation that the terminology is heterogeneous and confusing, the study discusses the central terms, suggesting that the whole language family and its ancestor should be referred to as “Indo-European” and “Proto-Indo-European” respectively. Under the hypothesis that the three first subgroups to branch off were Anatolian, Tocharian and Italo- Celtic, “Indo-Tocharian” is recommended as a suitable name for the non-Anatolian subgroup, and “Indo-Celtic” for the non-Anatolian and non-Tocharian subgroup.

Author(s):  
Hans Nugteren

The Mongolic languages constitute a compact language family with limited written history. Given the paucity of decisive shared features such as sound laws, it has been relatively hard to set up a Mongolic family tree. Owing to the steady increase in the number of sufficiently studied Mongolic languages and dialects in the past 60 years, Mongolists have reached a rough consensus. This chapter will provide a brief overview of published opinions and a survey of phonological, morphological, and lexical arguments traditionally used in classification. In addition, it will attempt to make use of irregular, not easily repeated, developments as an alternative avenue to fine-tune the classification.


Author(s):  
Urmas Sutrop

In this paper the tree model – a well-formed tree is shortly described. After that the language family tree model by August Schleicher is treated and compared with the Charles Darwin’s tree of life diagram and metaphor. The development of the idea of the linguistic trees and the tree of life is considered historically. Earlier models – scala naturae – and tree models, both well-formed and not-well-formed are introduced. Special attention is paid to the scholars connected to Estonia who developed the idea of tree models: Georg Stiernhielm was the first who pictured a language tree already in 1671; Karl Eduard Eichwald published an early tree of animal life in 1829; and Karl Ernst von Baer influenced the tree of  life models and diagrams of Charles Darwin.


2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjen Versloot

The question addressed in this article is whether it is possible to identify the time of the emergence of Frisian from the rest of West Germanic. Some of the criteria used in determining the chronology of Frisian language history are evaluated in terms of their temporal and spatial aspects. Phonological features that appear to differentiate languages from a present-day perspective disappear in a haze of synchronic and diatopic allophonic alternations. Reconstructions of the order of phonological developments often turn out to be best-fit interpretations of changes whose precise character, age and location are hard to determine. Besides, reconstructions of regional distribution are obscured by subsequent migrations and dialect shifts. Consequently, the splits in a language family tree are not bifurcations, but bushes of variation, where only hindsight allows an identification of the chronology and the decisive factors involved.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tore Nesset

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium;">In chapter 1 you learned that Russian belongs to the Slavic language family, which evolved from a reconstructed ancestor language called “Proto-Slavic”. You may ask how we reconstruct ancestor languages and describe language change. This chapter addresses these questions and provides you with some linguistic tools you need in order to analyze the history of Russian.</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Cambria',serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;" lang="EN-US">Click on the links below to learn more!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Cambria',serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;" lang="EN-US"><a href="/index.php/SapEdu/article/downloadSuppFile/3493/146">3.4 Family Tree Model</a><br /></span></p>


2018 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-90
Author(s):  
Michaël Peyrot

Abstract Hittite and Tocharian share an interrogative pronominal stem in m-next to the well known Proto-Indo-European interrogative *kʷi-, *kʷe-, *kʷo-. In Tocharian, the m-interrogative is especially frequent as a formative element in several interrogative, relative and indefinite stems. In this paper, these stems are investigated in detail, and it is argued that the Tocharian A interrogative stem ā-posited by Sieg, Siegling & Schulze in their Tocharische Grammatikis a ghost. Although the reconstruction of the m-interrogative for the oldest stage of Proto-Indo-European is beyond any doubt, it is difficult to use this Anatolian-Tocharian isogloss as an argument for the phylogenetic structure of the Indo-European family tree since in the other branches the m-interrogative may have been lost independently.


2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Drinka

The Indo-European family has traditionally been viewed as a textbook example of genetically related languages, easily fit onto a family tree model. What is less often recognized, however, is that IE also provides considerable evidence for the operation of contact among these related languages, discernable in the layers of innovation that certain varieties share. In this paper, I claim that the family tree model as it is usually depicted, discretely divided and unaffected by external influence, may be a useful representation of language relatedness, but is inadequate as a model of change, especially in its inability to represent the crucial role of contact in linguistic innovation. The recognition of contact among Indo-European languages has implications not only for the geographical positioning of IE languages on the map of Eurasia, but also for general theoretical characterizations of change: the horizontal, areal nature of change implies a stratification of data, a layered distribution of archaic and innovative features, which can help us grasp where contact, and innovation, has or has not occurred.


1980 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
George J. Metcalf

Summary Theodor Bibliander (1504–1564) was an important link in developing the concept of the language family that is now called Indo-European. ‘Lector’ for the Greek of the Septuagint at the Münsterschule in Zürich (Zwingli’s successor), Bibliander had early showed aptitude for languages and had devoted himself particularly to Hebrew and related Semitic tongues. As exegete he interpreted the events at Babel (Genesis 10, 11) from the perspective of this knowledge. The ‘confounding’ of language, although it had occurred suddenly, still permitted the resulting languages to show kinship on the order of dialect variations. Thus the descendants of Shem, settling compactly in the vicinity, still gave striking evidence of their close-knit linguistic consanguinity. But the surviving evidence was not so obvious for the descendants of Japheth, who had scattered over Europe as part of God’s plan to populate the earth. Like all languages, these languages too were subject to inevitable change, an inescapable quality of all human institutions. Yet a closer look could still discern this relationship, as evidenced, for instance, in Greek (stemming from Javan), German-(ic) (stemming from Gomer), and Slavic (stemming from Magog). Bibliander’s study of Hebrew had sharpened his sensitivity to the inner structure of the word and to the processes of inflection and derivation, which were manifestations of the ratio which underlay all languages, even ‘barbarian’. Bibliander chose as his examples to prove the ‘Japhetic’ relationship parallel Greek and German affixes. Although not all of his examples stand the test of modern etymology, the procedure remains exemplary, and helped to give credence to the belief in the existence of a ‘Japhetic’ or ‘European’ family of languages.


Diachronica ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Ringe

SUMMARY The distribution of reflexes of 'Nostratic' roots among the first-order subgroups of the proposed family in Illic-Svityc (1971) is not significantly different from a binomial distribution, the type of curve described by random chance similarities of uniform probability. By contrast, Pokorny (1959) shows a very different distribution of Indo-European cognates. This graphically illustrates the fact that the resemblances between recognized language families on which the Nostratic hypothesis is based have never been demonstrated to be greater-than-chance — unlike the resemblances between languages of the Indo-European family, or within any other generally recognized language family. RÉSUMÉ Parmi les sous-groupes de premier ordre de la famille 'nostratique' telle que proposee par Illic-Svityc (1971), on ne retrouve pas de difference significative entre la distribution des reflexes de racines 'nostratiques' et une distribution binomiale, c'est a dire la courbe qui represente des similarites a probabilité uniforme dues au hasard. En contraste, Pokorny (1959) demontre une distribution tout a fait differente pour les mots apparentes dans les langues indo-europeennes. Cela illustre clairement le fait que contrairement aux ressem-blances entre les langues de la famille indo-europeenne ou de n'importe quelle autre famille linguistique generalement reconnue, on n'a encore jamais etabli un caractere plus qu'arbitraire pour les ressemblances entre les families linguis-tiques reconnues sur lesquelles se base l'hypothese nostratique. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Die Verteilung der Reflexe 'nostratischer' Wurzeln innerhalb der Unter-gruppen der ersten Odnung der in Illic-Svityc (1971) vorgeschlagenen Sprach-familie unterscheidet sich nur geringfügig von einer binomischen Distribution, einem Kurventyp, der durch zufallige Ahnlichkeiten gleichformiger Wahr-scheinlichkeiten gekennzeichnet ist Im Gegensatz hierzu zeigt Pokorny (1959) eine ganz andersartige Verteilung der untereinander verwandten Wurzelformen des Indoeuropaischen. Graphisch gesehen, illustriert dies die Tatsache, daß für die Ahnlichkeiten zwischen erwiesenen Sprachfamilien, auf die die nostratische Hypothese sich stutzt, bisher keine groBer als zufallige Ahnlichkeiten nachge-wiesen worden sind — ganz anders also als im Falle der indoeuropaischen Familie oder jeder anderen allgemein anerkannten Sprachfamilie.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hölzl

Negation seems to be a universal linguistic category, yet languages differ vastly in how they express it. Tungusic languages show several interesting and typologically rare phenomena. The paper offers a typological description of negation within the whole language family from an onomasiological perspective. But some remarks on the etymology of certain negators are made as well. There are three main patterns of “standard negation”. The historically oldest type (A) employs a negative verb similar to the Uralic languages, the second pattern (B) is a grammaticalized version of the first (possibly influenced by Nivkh) and the third type (C) is an innovation influenced by Mongolian, in which the negative existential replaced the negative verb. Some preliminary proposals are made for the development of a “conceptual space”, which also includes non-standard negation such as negative copulas, negative existentials, and prohibitives. The discussion contains examples from more than 35 languages.


2010 ◽  
Vol 365 (1559) ◽  
pp. 3829-3843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Heggarty ◽  
Warren Maguire ◽  
April McMahon

Linguists have traditionally represented patterns of divergence within a language family in terms of either a ‘splits’ model, corresponding to a branching family tree structure, or the wave model, resulting in a (dialect) continuum. Recent phylogenetic analyses, however, have tended to assume the former as a viable idealization also for the latter. But the contrast matters, for it typically reflects different processes in the real world: speaker populations either separated by migrations, or expanding over continuous territory. Since history often leaves a complex of both patterns within the same language family, ideally we need a single model to capture both, and tease apart the respective contributions of each. The ‘network’ type of phylogenetic method offers this, so we review recent applications to language data. Most have used lexical data, encoded as binary or multi-state characters. We look instead at continuous distance measures of divergence in phonetics. Our output networks combine branch- and continuum-like signals in ways that correspond well to known histories (illustrated for Germanic, and particularly English). We thus challenge the traditional insistence on shared innovations, setting out a new, principled explanation for why complex language histories can emerge correctly from distance measures, despite shared retentions and parallel innovations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document