NOSTRATIC

AND ALTAIC

ALEXANDER VOVIN
Uiversity / Hawai'i
at , Hoolulu

Since the first volume of ih-Svityh's "Opyt sravneniia nostratichekikh

iazykov [An attemptto compare Nostratic languages]" appeared in 1971, it has
continuously n greeted with criticism (Clauson 1973, Andronov 1982,
Serebrennikov 1982, Shcherbak 1984, Vine 1991). The only positive eva1uation
of the Nostratic theory coming from outside of Nostratic seems to belong
to Manaster Ramer (1993, 1994). Despite the fact, demonstratedin the negative
reviews, that an of the etymologies proposed ih-Svith an
dismissed, the task of eva1uatingthe Nostratic theory in genera1remains largely
unaccomplished (Manaster Ramer 1994:157).
he goa1 of this article is three-fold: first, 1 intend to demonstrate that
Nostratic theory cannot dismissed out of hand responsible historica1
linguist as something not being worthy further discussion; second, that much
remains to done within the Nostratic macrofarnily, particularly in the area of
assessment of its intema1 structure and classification, and third, as the title
shows, 1 intend to investigate whether Altaic should included in Nostratic or
.
not.
1will investigate in this article the intltinshis of three members of the
Nostratic farnily: Altaic, Indo-European,and Uralic. he choice of Altaic is due
to the fact that linguistic interests are connected mostly with the Altaic farnily,
especia11ywith its Eastern members: Japanese, Korean, and Manchu-Tungusic.
Besides, 1 have some knowledge of Indo-European and more of Ura1ic. These
three branches of Nostratic, as proposed ich-Svith, cover the Northern
area of Eurasia. Meanwhile, expertise in three "Southern" Nostratic
branches: Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Dravidian is pretty much close to zero,
and that naturally 100 to limiting "base of operation" to the first three
branches nl, with emphasis being interrelationship between Nostratic
and Altaic.
1 consider task to mainly the eva1uation of Vladislav . IllichSvitych's work, and not that of his followers. Therefore, only the first two

258

ALEXANDER VOVIN

NOSRAIC

to Indo-European,

Uralic, and Altaic

1) PN **bok/a/- 'to run away' > PIE *bheug/*bhegw- 'id'; PU *pok-tV- 'to
run'; *p[']Vk- 'run' ( only, if aspirated, then ultd) (ihSvitych 1971:181).
2) PN **bura 'to drill' > PIE *bher- 'to 0011'; PU *pura '[to] 0011'; *bura
'to tum' ( only) (ich-Svityh 1971:186-187).

259

3) PN **ur 'snow/sand storm' > PIE *bher '[to] storm'; PU *urk

'snowstorm'; *r/*ur 'storm', 'snowstorm' (ih-Svith
1971:188-190).
4) PN **skalu 'to split', 'to cut' > PIE *skel 'to split'; PU *sale 'to split', 'to
cut'; *calu 'to cut' (ich-Svityh 1971: 195-197).'
5) PN **gi/i/Qu 'smooth and glimmering' > PIE *ghelhw-/*gblhW'glimmering'; PU *k1!i/ 'smooth and glimmering'; *gilu-/*gila'smooth and glimmering' (ich-Svith 1971:229-230).
6) PN **gop'a 'empty', 'ho11ow' > PIE *geup- 'cavity', 'hole', 'pit'; PU
*koppa 'empty', 'ho11ow'; *goba-/*gobi- 'empty', 'hollow' (ihSvitych 1971:232-233).
7) PN **l 'that over there' > PIE *he-n- 'over there'; PU *- 'that over there';
*- 'that over there' (ich-Svityh 1971:257-258).
8) PN **li-/**le- 'this' > PIE *fiei-/he- 'this'; PU *i-/*e- 'this'; *i-/*e'this' (ich-Svith 1971:270-271).
9) PN **kal' 'to bark ( tree)', 'to skin' > PIE *gol- 'naked', 'bald'; PU
*kal' 'skin', 'naked', 'smooth'; *Kal2/i/- 'to skin', 'naked' (ihSvitych 1971:289-290).
10) PN **Kar'ii 'bark', 'shell' > PIE *ker 'bark', 'skin'; PU *kore/*kere
'bark'; *k'Er'ii 'bark' (ih-Svith 1971:341-343).
11) PN **~r 'frost' > PIE *Rer- 'frost', 'ice', 'frozen snow-crust'; PU *kirte,
*kir 'frozen snow-crust'; *k'irl(a)
'frost'
(lllich-Svitych
1971:353-354).
12) PN **~o 'who' > PIE *kwo 'who'; PU *ko-/*ku- 'who'; *k'o-/*k'astem of interrogative pronoun(ich-Svityh 1971:355-356).
13) PN **lip'a 'sticky' > PIE *leip- 'to stick', 'sticky'; PU *Lipa 'slippery',
'sticky'; *lipa- 'to stick', 'sticky' (ih-Svith 1976:18-20).
14) PN **Larnlu/ 'swamp' > PIE *lehm 'swamp', 'puddle'; PU *Lampe
'swamp', 'lake'; *laamu 'sea', 'swamp' (ih-Svith 1976:29-30).
15) PN **j 'berry' > PIE *mor- 'blackberry'; PU *arj 'berry';
*miirV 'berry' (ih-Svityh 1976:43-45).
16) PN **rni 'what' > PIE *- stem of interrogative adverbs; PU *rni 'what';
* 'what' (ih-Svityh 1976:66-68).
17) PN **peIi ' afraid' > PIE *peI- ' afraid'; PU *pele- ' afraid';
*peeli - ' afraid' (ich-Svityh 1976:98-99).

volumes of ich-Svith's Nostratic dictionary (ih-Svityh 1971, 1976) are

taken into consideration, and the third volume, though it bears ih-Svith's
name the cover (ih-Svityh 1984), is left out since it is mostly compiled
a.group of Moscow linguists under the direction of . . Dybo. 1 allowed
myself, however, to introduce some rninorchanges, mostly in reconstructions of
Altaic materials, when it was necessary to correct ih-Svith's rnisiakes, or to
make other changes the basis of materials which were not available to him.
Thus, in particular, 1 have made in Nostratic reconstructions in several cases
some changes the basis of recent proposals Alexis Manaster Ramer
(Manaster Ramer 1994).
here is certainly number of individual problems conceming lower-level
reconstructions. Thus, for example, though below 1preserved the reconstruction
of vocalism as presented ih-Svityh, 1 actually believe that it is not
valid any longer and even actually can presented only in tentative form. he
same, though to lesser extent, can applied to PU vocalism, too. However, 1
think that these particular problems should not prevent us from giving
preliiary estiate of the validity of the Nostratic theory: when Indo-European
specialists discuss Indo-Europeanthey still can do it in spite of the fact that there
are still particular unsettled problernsin Slavic or Germanic reconstruction.
he fo11owing evaluation of the Nostratic farnily is based an ultraconservative ro in phonology and semantics. here are 353 Nostratic
etymologies presented in ih-Svityh (1971) and ih-Svityh (1976). 1 have
chosen among them only those which connect Indo-European, Uralic, and
Altaic, or an pair of those three branches. Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and
Dravidian parallels are not included into the fo11owing lists, even if they are
present in ih-Svith's dictionary. 1 have excluded all suspicious parallels,
and the most importantrequirement is that these etymologies have identical or
alrnost identical semantics. 1 also excluded all cases when word is attested in
only one language or dialect within language farnily, even if such cases are
extremely likely proto-language forms. Needless to say, the phonetic
correspondences among the chosen parallels are regular.
Words

AND ALTAIC

'
1

Il1ich-Svitych originally reconstructed PN **calu here; 1 changed it to **skalu following

recent proposal Alexis Manaster Ramer, who demonstrated that PIE clusters could not
originate from PN affricates suggested Illich-Svitych (Manaster Ramer 1994).

260

ALEXANDER VOVIN

18) PN **''/! 'to tear', 'to break', 'to split' > IE *(s)per- 'to tear', 'to
break'; PU * 'to break'; *p'or2ti/*p'tir2ti 'to tear', 'to crush' (ihSvitych 1976:100-101).
19) PN **~apl.la'to hit' > IE *tep- 'to hit', 'to pond'; PU *tappa- 'to hit', 'to
kick'; *t'api 'to hit', 'to forge', *t'api 'to kick' (ich-Svityh
1976:108-109).

.20) PN **wol(a) 'big' > IE *wel 'big'; PU *wola 'many'; *l

'many' (ich-Svith 1976: 109-111).
Words n

to Indo-European and Uralic

1) PN **bara > IE *bher- 'good'; PU *para 'good' (Illich-Svitych 1971:175).

2) PN **bergiil 'high' > IE *bhergh/*bhregh 'id.'; PU *p/e/r-kV- 'id.'
(Saoyedic n1)(ich-Svityh 1971:177).
3) PN **br'a 'to ', 'to seethe' > IE *bhre 'id.'; PU *pra 'id.' (ihSvitych 1971: 190).
4) PN **~ajl,1a'glimmer' > IE *sReih 'id.'; PU *saja 'id.' (ih-Svityh
1971:199-200).
5) PN **skl 'to jmp' > IE *(s)Rel 'id.', PU *l 'id.' ( para11elis
dbios) (Illich-Svitych 1971:203-204).
6) PN **gi 'handlarm' > IE *ghes- 'id.', PU *kate- 'id.' (ih-Svith
1971:227).
7) PN **Henka 'to m' > IE *Heng- 'to m', *HIJg--i 'fIre'; PU *l)k
'to m' (Illich-Svitych 1971:245-246).
8) PN **Hera 'to te down', 'to fa1l to pieces' > IE *fier- 'to tme
down', 'to fa1l to pieces'; PU *era- 'to tme down', 'to fa11to pieces'
(Illich-Svitych 1971:246-247).
9) PN **Homsa 'meat' > IE *()mms 'id.'; PU *rnS 'id.' (Illich-Svitych
1971:252-253).
10) PN **s 'ash-tree' > IE *hwes 'id.'; PU *oska 'id.' (Illich-Svitych
1971:255).
11) PN **ja/**joH 'to gird' > IE *iehws- 'to gird', 'girdle'; PU *j
'girdle' (ih-Svityh 1971:278-279).
12) PN **kan 'soft excrescence' > IE *gemb 'excrescence', 'fngs'; PU
*k 'fngs' (Illich-Svitych 1971:291-292).
13) PN **kar/**kr 'crane' > IE *gerH 'id.'; PU *karke/*kurke 'id.'
(Illich-Svitych 1971:292-293).
14) PN **kojHa 'skin', 'bark' > IE *gWei 'skin'; PU *koja 'bark' (lllichSvitych 1971:299-300).

NOSTRAnC

AND ALTAIC

261

15) PN **KPsa 'to die ot', 'to extingish' > IE *gWes- 'to die ot'; PU
*kpsa-/ *kopsa- 'to die ot' (ih-Svith 1971:311).
16) PN **~ap'a 'paw' > IE * 'paw', 'hoof; PU *kappa 'paw' (ihSvitych 1971:347).
17) PN **l- 'to lick', 'to l' > IE *lak- 'to lick', 'to l'; PU *lakka- 'to
lick', 'to l' (ih-Svith 1976: 15).
18) PN **iejna 'soft', 'weak' > IE *lei 'soft', 'weak'; PU *iejna 'weak'
(ich-Svith 1976:26-27).
19) PN **iiwa 'dirt' >IE *l() 'dirt', 'silt'; PU *iiwa 'dirt', 'sand',
'marsh' (ih-Svith 1976:27).
20) PN **ion~a 'to ' > IE *lenk 'to '; PU *iol)ka 'to ' (ichSvitych 1976:27-28).
21) PN **Lawsa 'not stretched', 'weak' > IE *les 'not stretched', 'weak';
PU *Lawsa 'not stretched', 'weak' (ich-Svith 1976:31-32).
22) PN **man '', '1' > IE *mIo/n 'man'; PU *an '', 'person'
(ich-Svith 1976:58-59).
23) PN **mL 'to break to pieces' > IE *mel- 'to break to pieces', 'to grind';
PU *moLa- 'to break', 'to break to pieces' (ich-Svith 1976:69-70).
24) PN **m: 'to wash' > IE *mesg- 'to wash', 'to dive'; PU *mske- 'to
wash' (ich-Svith 1976:71-72).
25) PN **nirni '' > IE *m 'id.'; PU *nim 'id.' (ich-Svityh
1976:82-83).
26) PN **Ntiq 'now' > IE *- 'id.'; PU *Ntik 'id.' (lllich-Svitych
1976:97-98).
27) PN **p'o'jqa!**p'odqa 'thigh' > IE *bhe/dh/ 'id.'; PU POClka
'id.' (Illich-Svitych 1976:102-103).
Words n

to Uralic and Altaic

1) PN ** 'sma11' > PU *piCV 'sma11' (Ba1tic Fennic only), *

'sma11'( *, *bicV) (ih-Svith 1971:178).
2) PN **bilwi 'clod' > PU *pilwe 'id.', *bulYt 'id.' ( only) (IllichSvitych 1971:179-180).
3) PN **r()/**r() 'dst', 'loose grond' > PU *r 'dst', 'dirt',
'grond'; *f1'dst', 'loose grond' (Illich-Svitych 1971:187-188).
4) PN **Hanga 'to moth' > PU *aIJa 'moth'; *aIJa 'opening',
'moth' (Illich-Svitych 1971:244-245).
5) PN **//rni 'to sck', 'to swallow' > PU *irn- 'to sck'; *ii.rnV-'to
sck', 'to swa11ow' (Illich-Svitych 1971:248-249).

262

I1

I1

LXANDR

VOVIN

6) PN **?- negative verb > PU *- id.; *- id. (ih-Svith

1971:264-265)
7) PN **k1 'fish' > PU *ka1a 'fish', *ka11V- 'wha1e' (ih-Svityh
1971:288-289).
8) PN **kaJl/ 'to go', 'to stroH' > PU *k- 'to go', 'to stroll'; *kiil- 'to
' (ich-Svityh 1971:293-295).
9) PN **koja 'moth', 'larva' > PU *koja 'moth'; *kuja 'moth', 'larva'
(ich-Svityh 1971:298,-299).
10) PN **kojwa 'birch' > PU *kjw 'birch'; * 'birch' (ih-Svityh
1971:300).
11) PN **k 'to skin' > PU *k'-/*ku'- 'id.'; *koLa- 'id.' (ihSvitych 1971:300-301).
12) PN **ktil' 'to feel cold', 'cold' > PU *kULma 'cold', 'to feel cold';
*l'V 'to feel cold', 'cold' (ich-Svith 1971:304-305).
13) PN **kUi 'snake', 'worm' > PU *ki 'worm'; *kuli 'snake',
'worm' (ih-Svityh 1971:308-309).
14) PN ** 'upside down' > PU *l 'upside down'; *k'om(a)
'upside down' (ich-Svityh 1971:310--311).
15) PN **Kii 'fog' > PU *ktimta 'fog', 'smoke'; *kiida- 'fog' (ihSvitych 1971:312).
16) PN **IS:wing 'armpit' > PU *kajI)a1a 'id.'; *k'awiI)i 'id.' (ihSvitych 1971:312).
17) PN **IS:a/lIa 'tongue' > PU *kl 'tongue', *k' 'tongue', 'to
speak' (ih-Svith 1971:346-347).
18) PN **IS:e 'who' > PU *ke- 'who', *k'e- 'who' (ih-Svityh
1971:348-349).
19) PN **IS:ul 'to fa' > PU *kul- 'to fa'; *k'ulV- 'to fa1l' (ichSvitych 1971:358-359).
20) PN **iii~ 'to pierce', 'to prick' > PU **iiikk 'to pierce', 'to prick';
*liikii- 'to pierce' (ich-Svityh 1976:28-29).
21) PN **/mlu 'bird-cherry tree' > PU *m 'bird-cherry tree';
*/d/ime 'bird-cherry tree' (ih-Svityh 1976:37-38).
22) PN **mifia 'woman', 'fema1e relative' > PU * 'daughter-in-law';
*mi[fi/n]a 'woman', 'daughter-in-law' (] *, *bQ-min 'woman';
*minol-i 'daughter-in-law'). not given ih-Svith (- ..)
(ih-Svityh 1976:68-69).
23) PN ** 'to turn' > PU *mur- 'to turn'; * 'to turn' (ihSvitych 1976:74-75).

NOSRAnC

AND AL TAIC

263

24) PN **fi'i'r 'young', 'newly rn' > PU *fir 'id.'; *fiar2V 'id' (ihSvitych 1976:83-85).
25) PN **fiiim 'soft' > PU *fiiimk/*fiimk 'soft'; *fiamV/*fiimV 'soft'
(ich-Svith 1976:86-87).
26) PN **fihr 'wet', 'swamp' > PU *ii&r 'wet', 'swamp'; *firu 'wet',
'swamp' (ih-Svith 1976:89-90).
27) PN **fiiIS:a 'neck', 'jugular vertebrae' > PU *fiika 'vertebrae',
'neck', 'joint'; *fiika 'neck', 'jugular vertebrae', 'coHar'
(ich-Svith 1976:92).
Words

to Indo-European

and Altaic

1) PN **bAli 'wound', 'pain' > IE * 'wound', 'pain'; *12

'wound' ( only) (ih-Svith 1971:172).
2) PN **ba1ga- 'sparkle' > IE *bhelg-/*bbleg- 'id.'; *ba1kV- 'id.' (
*1-, *pV[+back]lk- 'bright', 'clear', ] *para-Ci- 'clear ') (ihSvitych 1971:174-175).
3) PN **bari 'take' > IE *bher- 'take', 'bring'; *an- 'take', 'get' (
*bar'i-, *bari-) (ich-Svith 1971:176-177).
4) PN **bor'a 'brown', 'grey' > PIE *bher 'brown', *bor2 'brown', 'grey'
( *bor2, *bora) (ih-Svith 1971:183-184).
5) PN **buHi 'to grow' > IE * 'to grow', 'to '; *- 'to
'; ?? PU * 'tree' (ih-Svityh 1971:184-185).
6) PN **biiIS:a 'to bend' > IE *bheug-/*bheugh- 'id.'; *bOka-/*iik-'id.'
(ih-Svityh 1971: 191).
7) PN **dEwHi 'to blow', 'to shake' > IE *dheuH 'to blow', 'to shake';
*dEbi 'blow', 'towave' (ich-Svith 1971:217-218).
8) PN **diga 'fish' > IE *dhgh-u-H 'id.'; *diga 'id.' (ih-Svith cites
only *jiga-sun, a1so] *(d)iwo) (ih-Svityh 1971:219).
9) PN **giipA 'to bend' > IE *gheub- 'to bend', 'bent'; *giibii-/*gobii- 'to
bend' (ich-Svityh 1971:236-237).
10) PN **gUjRa 'wild [anima1]' > IE *ghWer- 'wild [anima1]'; *gora
'game', 'wild anima1' (ih-Svityh 1971:237).
11) PN **gUr 'hot charcoa1s' > IE *gWher-'to rn', 'hot', 'hot charcoa1s';
*gur(V)- 'to rn', 'hot charcoa1s' (ich-Svityh 1971:239).
12) PN **HoIS:i 'point', 'spike' > IE *- 'point', 'spike'; * 'arrow'
( only) (ich-Svityh 1971:251-252).
13) PN **Hora 'to rise' > IE *hwer- 'to rise', 'to move'; *ora-/*ora- 'to
rise', 'to ascend' (ich-Svith 1971:254-255).

264

ALEXANDER VOVIN

14) PN **?i1i 'deer' > PIE *fie1-n- 'deer'; *i1i 'deer' (ich-Svityh
1971:272-273).
15) PN **kam- 'to seize', 'to sqeeze' > PIE *gem- 'to seize', 'to sqeeze',
'to take'; *kam- 'to seize', 'to sqeeze', 'to take' (PU *kam-l/*kamar 'hadfl' is far-fetched sematica11y)(ich-Svityh 1971:290-291).
16) PN **kjw- 'to chew' > PIE *gie-/*gie- 'to chew'; *kRb/a/- 'to
chew'. (ih-Svith 1971:293)
17) PN **~
'black', 'dark' > PIE *ker-(s)- 'black', 'dark'; *k'arla
'black' (ich-Svityh 1971:337-338).
18) PN **~b/i/ '11', 'intestines' > PIE *Kerp/*rep '11', '';
*k'arlbi '11'(ich-Svityh 1971:338-340).
19) PN **Is:.r 'worm' > PIE *kwr-mi- 'id.'; *KorV 'id.' (ih-Svityh
1971 :358).
20) PN **Is:.tipa 'to boil', 'inflate' > PIE *k() 'to OOil'; *k'opa- 'to
inflate', 'to foam', 'to froth' (ich-Svityh 1976:363-365).
21) PN **NajRa '', '1' > PIE *ner 'id.'; *fiarV 'id.' (ich-Svityh
1976:92-93).
22) PN ** 'flea' > PIE *bbls/*pls 'flea'; *ptiraga/*btiraga 'flea'
(ih-Svith 1976:92-93).
23) PN **qo~ 'to set fire', 'fire' > PIE *He[:]t 'fire', 'fireplace'; *ooti
'fire', 'spark' (ich-Svith 1976: 103-104).
24) PN **zap'a 'to l' > PIE *sep- 'to l', 'to ndertake smth.'; *Japa
'to l', 'to arrage' (ich-Svith 1976:111).
Statistical
PU

distribution the above etymologies

PIE
47
44

47

As a1ways, the existence of para11elsbetween the two or more lagages

invite three possible interpretations: 1) 11these para11elsare radom to
; 2) they are 10awords;3) they demonstratethat lagages in qestion are
related. In or case, the possibility of sheer r1eot from the
beginning becase 11 our para11els are based regu1ar phonetic
correspondences, the very existence of those wold impossible in case of
radom para11els.Therefore, we are left with two choices l: 10awords or
heritage.
Borrowing seems a1sonlikely, to the fo11owingconsiderations, thogh
the sma11ernmberof PIE-P para11els l to sch sspicion. First, in the

NOSRATIC

AND ALTAIC

265

case of borrowing, the direction of borrowing wold likely either from PIE to
via PU, or from to PIE via PU. However, nder either of these scenarios
the nmber of PIE-PA etymologies not present in PU wold either
insignificat or non-existent. Therefore, since the nmber of PIE-PA is l
slightly less tha nmber of PIE-PU PU-P para11els,both scenarios
exclded. Second, thogh the possibility of borrowing both PIE ad
from PU theoretica11yexists, it easily dismissed historical gronds: the
technologica11ymore advaced PIE societies were nlikely to borrow
from hnter/gatherercommunity l PU. Even more fatastic wold
proposa1 that both PIE have PU "sbstratm"; nothing in the above
para11elsor in their distribtionseems to indicate sch possibility. Fina11y,
of these scenarios easily dismissed phonological gronds.
Let s consider that 11above examples are 10awords.Let s take first six:
1) PN **bok/a/- "to rn away" > PIE *bheg/*bhegw- "id"; PU *pok-tV- "to
rn"; *p[']Vk- "rn" ( l, if aspirated, then nrelated) (ihSvitych 1971:181)
2) PN **bura "to drill" > PIE *bher- "to 0011";PU *pura "[to] 0011"; *bura
"to trn" ( l) (ih-Svith 1971:186-187).
3) PN **r "snow/sad storm" > PIE *bher "[to] storm"; PU *urk
"snowstorm"; *r/*ur "storm", "snowstorm" (ih-Svityh
1971: 188-190).
4) PN **ska1 "to split", "to ct" > PIE *skel "to split"; PU *sa1e "to split", "to
ct"; *1"to ct" (ih-Svityh 1971:195-197).
5) PN **gi/i/l:l "smooth glimmering" > PIE *ghelhw-/*gblhW"glimmering"; PU *kl/i/ "smooth glimmering"; *gil-/*gila"smooth glimmering" (ih-Svith 1971:229-230).
6) PN **gop'a "empty", "ho11ow" > PIE *gep- "cavity", "l", "pit"; PU
*koppa :'empty", "ho11ow"; *goba-/*gobi- "empty" , "ho11ow" (ichSvitych 1971:232-233).
Let s sppose that the fo11owing examples are 11 10anwords with the
direction of borrowing: PIE > PU > . If they are PIE 10anwords in
borrowed via PU, we are faced with phonetic development which will very
difficlt to explain in sitationof borrowing:
C[+voice] > C[-voice] > C[+voice]
C[-st][+st]> C[-stop] > [+stop]
How l PIE voiced stops possibly have borrowed into PU as
voiceless, bt passed to Altaic as voiced? How l PIE clster have

266

LEXNDR VOVIN

wd into PU as single fricative but resurface in as an affricate? If we

assume the opposite direction of wing, that is > PU > PIE, we again
find ourselves in better position:
C[+voice] > C[-voice] > C[+voice]
C[+stop] > C[-stop] > C[-st][+st]
Quite sirnilar1yto the previous scenario, voiced stops voice1ess in
PU, but resurface as voiced in . affricates shift to PU fricatives, but the
1atter generates consonant c1usters in . We will confront the same
phono1ogicalnonsense if we assume that al1these paral1e1sare due to wing
and from PU. Let us add two more examp1es from :
17) PN **peli " afraid" > *pel- " afraid"; PU *pe1e- " afraid";
*pee1i - " afraid" (ih-Svityh 1976:98-99).
18) PN **''// "to tear", "to break", "to sp1it" > *(s)per- "to tear", "to
break"; PU * "to break"; *'r2ii1*'tir2ti "to tear", "to crush"
(ih-Svityh 1976:100-101).
Assurning that these two examples as well as previous six are all PU loanwords
in and , we are faced with the following developments:
PU C[-voice] > C[+voice], C[-voice]
> C[+voice], C[-voice]
PU C[-stop] > C[-st][+st]
> C[+stop]
Under this scenario PU voiceless stops chaotically either voiceless or
voiced in and , yet PU fricatives produce affricates and clusters.
One can possibly bring forward an argument that all these words were
"wd" not from proto-languages, but from different 1anguages and in
different times. However, this is higbly unlikely since all these parallels are
attested throughout these three language farnilies, and, therefore, must go back
to all three proto-languages (the reader will remember that 1 cut off all paral1els
with lirnited attestation). In addition, the regularity in sndns under
such scenario would not exist, and we would faced with the chaotic system
of sndns or with several different systems of sndns which
occur when we deal with loanwords from different languages at different times.
Therefore, the only reasonable solution to this problem is to adrnit that
common genetic origin is the likeliest hypothesis to explain all these parallels.

267

NOSTRAIC AND LI

Thus, 1 to the general conclusion that Nostratic theory, at least conceming

Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic, is valid working hypothesis, which cannot
disrnissed right out-of-hand. However, that does not mean that all problems
a,resolved now, and that Nostratic now has the same status as, let us say, IndoEuropean. Be10w 1 intend to address one of the numerous issues which
Nostraticists face and which must solved before Nostratic can reach the same
level of credibility as 10wer-leve1farni1iesconstitutingit.
Let us 100k at the personal pronouns in different branches of Nostratic as
reconstructed . . ih-Svith (1971:6):
PN

PU
PD
PIE

"thou"
"'
**rni
**!iI**Si
*bi/*rnin- *ti/*si
*rni/*rnin-*ti/*tuu*-ti
*me/mene- *te/tewe*me/*rni *se-/*si- (.)
*?n-t, *t-

"we" inc1.
**
*bli/*miin*mii/*me
*[]
*me-s
**m(n)

"we" exc1.
**n

*naam incl.
*ne-/*noo- .
*naj, *n*nahnu

""
**1ii
?*ta
*
*-te

If we isolate the line from this chart and closer look at it, we will
discover that it has strange pecu1iarity, unparalle1ed any other Nostratic
branch:

"'
*bi/*rnin-

"we" incl. "we" excl.

*bii/*miin-

"thou"
*ti/*si

""
?*ta

pronounsexcept "" double forms starting either with *- or *- for

the ft person and either with *s- or *t- for the second person. Let us exaine
personal pronounsin different branches of Altaic:
Personal pronouns in different Altaic branches:
"1"
""
"thou"j
"thee"j
"thou"2
"thou"3
"thee" 3

*
*rnin*si
*sin-

PJ
*ban

*na

*sQ*na

*iin
*
*rnin-/*na- *iin-/*iin..
* san

*ne
*ci < *ti
*cim-/*cin<*tin-

268

NOSRAIC

ALEXANDER VOVIN

*
**bi:t
*mfu-t*s
"" 1
"" 1 . *sn"" 2
""
"" 3 .
"we" excl.
"s" excl.
"we" incl.
"s" incl.

*an

*an

(b)ri
(b)ri

*
*an*bida
*bidan-

*bir2

*ta
*tan-

It becomes clear from this chart that forms with initial *- for the f1rst
person are secondary: they appear only in oblique cases, due to assimilation of
*- nasality to the following formant *--. As for the second person, the
form with initial *t- is attested only in Mongolic, and it is not related to ,
PJ, and forms with *s-, since *t- does not correspond to , PJ, and
*s-. herefore, the isolated Mongolic form an hardly projected onto
level. Therefore, the following reconstrction of pronons seems to in
order:
lsg.
2sg.

*(--)"1"
*- ""
*sV(--) "thou"
?* "tho"

1pl. * V -n-l-r2- "we"

2pl. *sV--l-r2- ""

However, ich-Svityh provides the following correspondences for Altaic and

other Nostratic languages (1971: 147-150):
PN
******t**1**s-

*'**t*1*~-

***t*1*s-

IE
***d*t*s-

PU
***t*t*s-

PD
***t*t*-

***t*t'*sI

Therefore, if admits that and Nostratic personal pronons are related,

that will violate this system of correspondences: *- is not reflex of PN
**-, and *s- is not reflex of PN **1-.Moreover, if we accept *ti
"thou" and *ta "" as , that still will violating correspondences: *t reflect only *t'- and never *t-, and *t' - corresponds to *1-,
bt not to *t- (cf. the chart of personal pronouns in different
Nostratic branches). Compare also PN **- direct object sff1x > IE *; PU

269

*-; PD *-; *-bal*-ba, which exhibits the same broken correspondences

(ich-Svityh 1976:48). It is not possible to claim that there are different
correspondences for lexical and grammatical morphemes, since there are regular
correspondences for other grammatical markers: PN ** nominalizing affix >
*-, *-, IE *-, PU *-mal*ma, PD *-mai, *-mal*-ma.
Thus, the unes,capableconclusion is that personal pronouns are unrelated
to Indo-Eropeanor Uralic personal pronouns. hat creates an obvious
distinction between Altaic side, and Uralic with Indo-Eropean the
other: the origin of IE and PU personal pronouns seems to beyond
an reasonable doubt. IE and PU exhibit, therefore, considerably more closeknit relationship with other than an of them with Altaic, or, as far as
an judge the basis of the chart of personal pronouns, with an other
Nostratic language.
I sum, the review of PIE, PU, and parallels shows that they are
based regular sound correspondences and therefore are not random. he
phonological natre of these correspondences is sch that they cannot
attribtedto borrowing either. That leaves only option: Altaic is likely to
related to both IE and PU. However, taking into consideration the lack of the
personal pronouns,1believe that it prematreto classify Altaic
as "Nostratic": it , in fact, related to Nostratic deeper level, that is to
member of another macrofamily, coordinate with Nostratic. In particular,
some Altaic-Eskimo-Alet and Altaic-Nivx parallels look 1ess promising
than Altaic and Nostratic. However, this problem falls outside the scope and
limits of this paper and 1 will not discuss it here. Before this and an other
questions cold answered with an degree of certainty, must first reach
considerable improvements within reconstruction Altaic proper. Only after this
preliminary work is done, it will safer to compare Altaic with other language
families, and to find its exact place among them.

*bir2

* sir2

*sQ-

AND ALTAIC

Abbreviations

PD
IE
]

PN

Proto-Altaic
Proto-Afro- Asiatic
Proto- Dravidian
Proto- Indo-Eropean
Proto-J apanese
Proto- Korean
Proto- Kartvelian
Proto- Mongolian
Proto-Manch- Tungus
Proto-Nostratic

270

PU

ALEXANDER VOVIN

Proto- Turkic
Proto-Ura1ic

REFERENCES
Andronov, Mikhail S. 1982. "Iz istorii klassifikatsii dravidiiskikh iazykov".
Serebrennikov 1982, 140-194.
Clauson, Gerard. 1973. "Nostratic".
Joumal ! the Royal Asiatic Society
1973.46-55.
Illich-Svitych, Vladislav . 1971. Opyt sraveiia ostraticheskikh iazykov
(seitokhaitskii, kartvel' skii, idoevropeiskii, ural' skii, dravidiiskii, altaiskii),
vol. 1. 1troductio. Coparative dictioary (-l. Moscow: Nauka.
_'
1976. Opyt sraveiia ostraticheskikh iazykov (seitokhaitskii,
kartvel'skii, idoevropeiskii, ural'skii, dravidiiskii, altaiskii), vol. 2. Coparative
dictioary (l-). Moscow: Nauka.
_'
1984. Opyt sraveiia ostraticheskikh iazykov (seitokhaitskii,
kartvel' skii, idoevropeiskii, ural' skii, dravidiiskii, altaiskii), vol. 3. Coparative
dictioary (p-q). Compiled . . Dybo and others the basis of IllichSvitych's files. Moscow: Nauka.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1993. " Illich-Svitych's Nostratic Theory". Studies i
Laguage 17.205-249.
_'
1994. "Clusters or Affricates in Kartvelian and Nostratic?" Diachroica
11.157-170.
Serebrennikov, Boris . 1982. Teoreticheskie osovy klassifikatsii iazykov ira:
rodstva. Moscow: Nauka.
_'
1982.
"Problema
dostatochnosti
osnovaniia
v
gipotezakh,
kasaiushchikhsia geneticheskogo rodstva iazykov". Serebrennikov 1982, 6-62.
Shcherbak, Aleksei . 1984. " nostraticheskikh issledovaniiakh s pozitsii
tiurkologa". Voprosy iazykozaiia 33.6.30-42.
Vine, Brent. 1991.
"Indo-European
and Nostratic".
1dogeraische
Forschuge 96.9-35.