t! F
lr.
ez
z,
q] >
CAM BRIDGE
LANGUACE
SURVEYS
Oeneral Editors, W. Sidney Allen, B. Comrie, C. J. Fillmore, E. .I. A. H€nderson, F. W. Householder, R. Lass, J. Lyons,
THE LANGUAGES OF THE SOVIETUNION
R. B. Le Page, P. H. Matthews, F. R. Palmer, R. Posner, J. L. M. Trim
This new serieswill ofer generalaccountsof all the major language familiesof the world. Somevolumeswill b€ organisedon a purely genetic basis,otherson a geographicalbasis,whicheveryieldsthe most convenient and int€lligiblegroupingin eachcase.Som€times,as with the Australian volume,the two in any casecoincide. Each volumewill compareand contrastthe typologicalfeaturesof the languagesit dealswith. It will also trcat the relevantgeneticrelationships, historicaldevelopment,and sociolinguisticissuesarisingfrom their role and usein the world today. The intendedreadershipis the studentof linguistics or generallinguist,but no specialknowledgeof the languagesunder considerationis assumed.Somevolumeswill also havea wider appeal,like thoseon Australia and North America,wherethe future of the languages and their speakersraisesimportant socialand political issues.
BERNARD COMRIE AssociateProfessorof Linguistics Universityof SouthernCalifornia
Already published: The languagesof Austraha R. M. W. Dixon Forthcoming t i tles incl ude: Japanese/Korean-M. Shibataniand Ho-min Sohn Chinese l. Noman and Mei Tsu-lin S. E. Asia "I. A. Matisolf Dravidian R. e As,ter AustronesianR. Blust Afro-Asiatic R. Hetzrcn North AmericanIndian W. Chafe MesoamericanIndian I A. Suarez Slavonic R. Sussex Cermanic R- Lass Celtic D. MacAulay et al. Indo-Aryan C. P. Masica Balkans l. E-,|/r's CreolelanguagesI. F. Hancock Romancelanguag€sR. Posrer
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge London
New York
New Rochelle Melbourne
Sydney
Publishcd by thoProlrSyndicat!of thaUnlvcnllyof Csmbrid8c ThoPltt Bulldln8,Trumpl$tor 6tr!!t, Clmbrldi! cr1 rR? 32Esst57thSta}'tr NowYotk, xy rm22, USA 296Boaconifflld Psrsdc,Mlddh Prrl, M6lbourno 3206.Australia
CONTENTS
Unlwnlty Pm$ r98r O Cambridgo Firstpubllshod r9Et Frint€din Oro.t Brltsln at tho Unlvor6ityPress,Cambridge
Bitish Library Cataloguingia PublicationData Comric,B€rnard Thelanguagos of thc SovietUnion, I. Rusria- Lanluag.r JohnR. t. TitleU. Hewitt,B, G. IIl, Payne, 409_.47P38r.R8 80-4986r rsBN o 52r ?32309 hardcovers rsBN o 52r 298?76 poperback
Tables Preface Abbreviations No/€s on transciptioa Map of the peoplesof the U.S.S.R, Index to map
I LI
Induction
Languageand ethnic group: c€nsusstatistics r.2 Classificationofth€ languages ofthe U.S.S.R r.2.r Oeneticclassification r.2.2 Typologicalclassification 1.2.3 r,2.4 I.3 I.3.r
Sociologicalclassification Historicalbackground Languagepolicy
xviii
I
9 IO II
r5 r9 2\
Pre-Revolutionarypolicy
r.3.2 Sovietpolicy' r.3.3 Autonomougadmitistrativeunits I.4 The influence of Russian Fultlle! reading
2 2.r 2.I.r 2.I.2 2.I.3
viii
Altrlc hDgurges The individuallanguages Turkic languages Mongolianlanguages Tulgusiclanguages
2.2 Phonology 2.3 Morphological structure and catego es 2.4 Syntax Textsin Altaic languages
29
39 42 42 54 57 59
85
Contents
Contents Taturtcxt Buryat taxt Orok text Further r€ading 3 Ur.llc hngurg€s 3.r The individuallanguages languages 3.r.r Balto-Finnic 3.1.2 Lapp 3.I.3 Volgaiclanguages 3.r.4 Permiclanguages 3.r.5 Ugric languages 3.r.6 Samoyediclanguages 3.2 Phonology 3.3 Morphologicalstructureand categories 3.4 Syntax Textsin Uralic languages Estoniantext Khanty text (Vakh dialect) Selkuptext Further reading
85 87 89 9o 92 95 95 tol t02 t03 r05 to7 l09 I t'l t20 r36 r36
5.3 Morphology 5.4 Syntax Textsin Caucasianlanguages Georgiantext Abkhaz text Further reading
258 26r
Yukagir Ket Nivkh Ammaic (Assyrian) Dungan Textsin Paleosiberian languages Chukchitext Yukagir text Nivkh text Further reading
App€ndix r
Ethnicand linguisticcoinpositionofthe U.S.S.R.accordingto rhe I97OCenSUS
r42 t44 t46
Appendix2 Appendix 3
Ethnicadminislralive areasoflhe U.S.S.F Alphabetsof the languageso[ the U.S.S.R
4.3.2 llanian languages 4.4 Armenian 4.5 Germaniclanguages
r58 t'19 IE4 rE7 r89 r89
5 Crucrsirn hngurges 5.r The individuallanglagesand their subgrouping 5.2 Phonology
r92 194
r96 r96 200
236
6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7
r42 r42
I9I
23r 231 233
238 240
4 Indo-Europemhngu.gee 4.r The Indo-Europeanfamily in the U.S.S.R. 4.2 Balto-Slavoniclanguages 4.2.I SlavoDiclanguages 4.2.2 Balticlanguages 4.3 Indo-lranianlanguages 4.3.r Indic (lndo-Aryan) languages
4.6 Romancelanguages Textsin Indo-Europeanlanguages ofthe U.S.S.R. Lithuaniantext Tadzhik text Armemantext Further reading
26'1 222
6 Prleosibedrn r||d other hngurges 6.r Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguages 6.2 Eskimo-Aleutlanguages
r3E r39 r40
r))
vii
References Addendufi: Recentstatistics and litenture Languageinde( Subject index
266 213 214 274 275 270 2't8
279 282 2E6 290 30r 304
Tables
TABLES
r3 typologyof Lithuanianand Tatar r.r Morphological and 2.r Singularpersonalpronounsin Altaic, Uralic, Indo-European, Chukotko-Kamchatkan 4l ofmodernTurkic languages 2.2 Ceneticclassification 46 of theTungusiclanguages 2.3 Geneticclassification 58 6o 2.4 Kirgiz vowelqualitysystem 6r of Kirgizvowelharmony 2.5 Illustrations vowel harmony 62 IllustrationsofAzerbaydzhan 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.to 3.r 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4-r 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.2 5.r 5.2 5.3
Even vowel system 7o Evenkivowelsystem 7r Illustration of Evenki declension 72 Illustralions of Evenkiconjugation 72 of the Uraliclanguages Geneticclassifrcation 94 gradationin Karelian rr4 Consonant r25 in Estonian Subjectagreement lndefiniteobjectand definiteobjectconjugationsin Hungarlan tz6 'eat' 126 Definiteand indefiniteconjugationsof Mansi leeErzya-Mordvaverbforms(pasttenseof kurd-'catch') showingsubject and objectagreement family(modernlanguages) r43 Branches ofthe Indo-European I5o and tonein Lithuaniandeclension Stress 158 EuropeandialectsolRomany 16I of modernlranianlanguages Ceneticclassification r'12 formsofossete(lron) ser'head' Declensional r'14 Indicativeverb forms in Kurdish olAzerbaydzhan I8I Declensional formsofArmenianbar'word, thing' r9'l Geneticclassificationof the Caucasianlanguages 2or Consonantsystemof Ceorgiao 2ol ConsonantsystemofAvar
5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.I 6.2 6.3 6.4 A.I A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6
Corsonant systemof Ubykh Consonantsystemofthe Bzhedugdialectof Adyge Vowel system(includingdiphthongs)ofLowland Chechen Locativecasesin the Kubachi dialectofDargva Consonantsystemof Chukchi Verb formsin Aleut dialectsof the U.S.S.R. Verb agreementand focusin Yukagir (pastterseforms) Obstruentsystemof Nivkh (Amur dialect) Russian(Cyrillic)alphabet Chukchi text in current (Cyrillic) orthography Modern Armenianalphabet Armenian text in current orthography Modern Georgianalphabet(mxedruli) Georgiantext in curr€nt orthogmphy
lx zo2 zo4 205 2to 243 253 259 267 286 28'7 288 289 289 289
PREFACE
This book has two main aims:first, to introducethe rcaderto someof the salient linguisticfeaturesofthe variouslanguagesand languages-families ofthe U.S.S.R.; give secondly,to someindication of how the various languagesof the U.S.S.R. interact in a multilingual society,especiallyof how they interact with Russran. andsectionsdealprimarily with Chapterr andtheearlypartsofsubsequentchapters sociolinguisticbackground,while the body of the book deals with structural features. In the sociolinguisticdiscussionI have taken for grantedthe existenceof the U.S.S.R.asamultinationalandmultilingualentity,andhavediscussed thelanguage policiesthat have beenadoptedin the light of this situation,including actual or implied comparisons(on the whole, favourable) with policies of the Tsarist governmentand policiesadopted in other multilingual countries.A different, though,in the currentpolitical situation,unrcalisticpe$pective,would havebeen gained by comparing how the languagesin questionmight have fared if their speakershad formed independentnation-statesoutsidethe U.S.S.R. The selectionof linguistic(phonological,morphological,andsyntactic)topicshas necessarily beenvery rest ctedby the natureofthe volume.Ratherthan attemptto give a superflcialsurveyof everyaspectof languagestructure,I have preferredto concentrateon thoseaspectsof individual languagesand language-families that strike me as particularly interestingand important from a general linguistic viewpoint.For thisreasonconsiderable spaceis,for instance,devotedto phoneticsin Chapter 5 (Caucasianlanguages),to vowel harmony in Chapter 2 (Altaic languages), and to case-markingand negationin Chapter3 (Uralic languages). Likewise,the list ofreferenceshasbeenconsiderablymore restrictedthan would havc beenthe casein a strict introduction to the comparativephilology ofone or otherof the languagefamiliesdiscussed. In gen€ral,no rcfercncehasbeengivenfor statementsabout individual languagesor language-familiesthat are uncontroversialilikewise,straightforwardillustrativeexampleshav€often beentaken or adaptedfrom standardhandbookslistedin thereferences withoutexplicitstatement
Preface
(i.e. in the of the sourcc.Apart from rcferences cited in the text, other references primarily,to direct Furtherreadingscctionsat theendofcachchaptcr)aredesigned, the reader to one or more comprehcnsivegramman of each of the lanSuages languages.In concerned,preferencebeinggivento thosewritten in more accessiblc havebeengivento generalworks dealingwith languagesand addition, references languagepoliciesin the U.S.S.R.,and to handbooksdealingwith the language families covered, But the list of rcferencesis explicitly not claimed to be comprehensive,irr particula! in not including lexicographicalmaterials or monographstudieson specificaspectsof individual languages. discussed, to At the€ndofcachchapterthereis a sampleoftexts in the languages give a more global, functioning picture of theselanguages.The texts have been selectedsolelyfof their illusirativevalue,from a rangeofstyles(traditionalstories, Sovietfiction,scienti6cwriting),and thevicwsexpressed asthecontentofthesetexts are not necessarily my own. Substantialportionsofthe text werewritten by two ofmy colleagues: J. R. Payne (University of Birmingham) wrote section 4.3.2 (lranian languages)and also preparedthe Tadzhik text; B. G. Hewitt (St John's College,Cambridge)wrote Chapter5 (Caucasia[languages) andcollaboratedwith mein the writing ofsection (Armenian). All other chapters and sectionswerewritten by me,and I alsotook 4.4 overallresponsibilityfor editingthe wholevolume.The glossingand translationof texts, and the translationof citations from foreign languages,were done by the author of the respectivesection/chapter. Examplesfrom languagesof the U.S.S.R.are presentedin accordancewith the transcriptionsystemdiscussed on pp. xvi-xvii. Whererelevant,hyphensareusedin examplesto indicatemorphemeboundaries,thoughnot all morphcmeboundaries aresoindicated(e.g.wheretheyarenot relevantto thepoint at issue).A morphemeby-morphemeglossis providedinto English(with glossesof bound morphemes,in this is block capitals,abbreviatedaccordingto the list on p. xv); wherenecessary, accompaniedby a freertranslation. The transliterationinto Latin scriptofnamesofpeople,places,and languagesin the U.S.S.R.presentsimmenseproblems,and no one systemdevisedhasmet with universalacceptance. In thepresentwork thefollowingpracticeshavebeenadopted. Russianfamilynameshavebeentransliteratedaccordingto theInternationalsystem (seep. 286),family namesof other peoplesof the U.S.S.R.accordingto the transliterationofthe Russianform oftheir name;wherethis differsfrom the form actually given on the title page of a book or article, the actual form, or a transliterationthereof,is appendedin squarebrackets.Wherethe only reference by anauthorusestheLatinscript.thenthisspelling isretained. Russian bookandarticle titlesand commonnounsarealsocitedin the International system.
Preface
xlll
Place-names in the U.S.S.R.havebeengivenin theform usedby the Timesatlasof the world, though with the altemativesMoskva/MoscowI havc prcferred thc latter. For names of administrative units, however, where this atlas simply transliteratesthe Russianname,I have preferredto translate,e.g. South'Ossetc Autonomous Oblast rather than Yugo-OsetinskayaAvtonomnaya Oblast; Appendixz includestheapprop atenamein theform foundin the Timesatlasofthe wor,ldwherethis d€partsrcdically from the form usedhere. For language(andethnic)names,acceptedEnglishtermshavebeenusedforthose ofthe U.S.S.R.whosenamesarein frequelt curency amongEnglishfewlanguages speaking linguists, such as Georgian (Russian: gruzrlns*r), Lapp (Russian: saamskij).Fot a:llothers,I haveusedthe standardSovietRussianname,shornof suffixes,in theusualnontechnicaltransliteration(i.e.asusedin the Russian-specific iimes atlasofthe wodd). ln additionto removingRussiansumxes,I havetried not suffixes,to make the stem of the languagename quite to add English-specific transparent,i.e.Vot (ratherthanVotic); whereverpossible,eventhepluralsumxhas beenomitted. This policy has beendictatedby the orientation of the book as a volume on the languagesof the U.S.S.R.rather tha[ as an introduction to the No-onewill behappywith all the forms philologiesofindividual language-families. we have chosen,which often do not correspondto those uscd by non-Sovicr specialists(most noticeably for Uralic languages),or fail to make phonetic distinctionsthat specialistsprefer to maintain in languagenames(as with many Caucasianlanguages).As small consolationto anyone offendedby any of the spellingsadopted,I havehad to sacrificemy own favouritespellingofChukch€efor Chukchi.The languageindexgivesthe Russianform (transliterated)for €achofthe aftertheEnglishform adopt€din thiswork. languages ofthe U.S.S.R.in parentheses concernedsolelywith transliteration In citationsfrom other authors,differences original havebeenremovedin favouroftheprinciplesabove.In thelistofrefereDces, spellingsare, of course,retained. In preparingthis volume,the latestdetailedstatisticalmaterialsavailableto me werefrom thecensusof I970.Thesestatisticsarealreadysomewhatdated,in that a furthercensuswascarriedout in I979,but asthedetailedbreakdownofthe returnsof this censusare unlikely to be availablefor someyears,I havecontinucdto usethe presenttenseto refer to the situationas mirror€d in the I97o retutns. My interestin writing this book aroselargelyfrom a project on the linguistic ofthe U.S.S.R., supportedduring I975-8by typologyofthe non-Slavoniclanguages the SocialScienceResearchCouncil, London: B. G. Hewitt aod J. R. Paynealso participatedin this project.Although the presentvolumeis not directlypa of that project,the materialwe workedon during that periodhasbeenof immensehelpin in staffofvarious institutes andscientific preparing thisvolume.Theadministrative
Preface the U.S.S.R.havehelpedus in gatheringand alalysingmaterialonthe lanquascs of the U.S.S.R.,andwe wouldliketo cxpress our thanksro members ot theiolkiw;ng institutes:Academyof Sciencasof the U.S.S.R.(LinguisticsInstitutc, Leningrad Sectionofthe Institutc ofLinguistics,LeningradSectionofthc Oriental Institute). Tbilisi State University, Sukhumi University and Research Insrrtute. Academyof Scienccsof the GeorgiaDS.S.R.(LinguisticsInstitute),Acadcmy of Sciencesof the Tadzhik S.S.R. (Language and Literature lnstitute). Our participationin exchangeprogramm€swith theseinstituteshasbeen facilitatedby the cooperationofthe Bdtish Academy,the British Council,and the University of Birmingham(Centrefor Russianand EastEuropeanStudies).I am also sratefulto R. Austerlilzand R. Hetzronfor commentson themanuscriDt. The editingofthe final manuscdptwascarriedout whileI wasaVisiringFeltow in the DepartmentofLinguistics,FacultyofArts, theAustralianNational Universtry. Bemard Comrie Septemberr979
ABBREVIATIONS
ABEssAbessive('wilhout X') ^BL Ablative ('from X') aBs Absolute,Absolutive Acc Accusative
FREeFrequentative FUT Future cEN Cenitive cER Gerund (Verbaladverb) H^Blr Habitual ADJ Adj€ctive !ruM Human ^Dv Adverb(ial) rLL lllative ('into X') Arr Aflective MPERImperative AFFIRM AffTmative MPERFlmperfect aLlENAlienablepossession INAN Inanimate ^LL Allative ('tdwards) X') rNcH Inchoative aoR Aorist tNcL Inclusive AUO Augmentatrve rNDErIndefinite cAUs Causative rNEcsInessive('in X') col- Column INFERInferential coMlT Comitative('(torNFrNInfinitive gether)with X') INsrR lnstrumental coMP,{RComparative ITERlterative coND Conditional L(rc Locative coNT Continuous MAsc Masculine coP Copula N Noun DAT Dative NARRNarTative DEFDefinite |IEc Negative DrM Diminutive NEur Neuter Do Direct Object NoM Nominative Du Dual oB.r Object DYN Dynamic(Nonstative) oBL oblique ELATElative('out of X') oPT Optative EMPSEmphatic PARr Participle ERGErgative PARTITPaTlitive EssEssive('as X') PAssPassive ExcL Exclusiv€ PERFPeTfect F€MFemale,Feminine PL Plural FrN Finile PLUPPlup€rlect Foc Fmus PossPossessive
Por Potential PRESPresent PRESUP Presuppositional PREVPreverb PR@ Progressive Prohibitive PRoHTD PRoLProlative('along X') PRorRProtracted PTCLParticle PURPPurposive e Question ItEc Recent REcrPReciprocal REFLReflexive RELRelative REMRCMOTE RESULT Resultative sc Singular srMULSimultaneous su Subject suBl Subjunctive SUPERL superlative THEMThematicsumx TRANSFORM Transformative ('madeof X') TR NSr Translative ('becomingX') vERsVersion vN Verbal noun r First person 2 S€condperson 3 Third p€rson x-Y Subjecr (agent) X acting on obj€ct (patient) Y
Notes on transcription
NOTES ON TRANSCRIPTION
from languages (i.e.Estonian, Examples ofthe U.S.S.R.thatusetheLatin alphabet Latvian,Lithuanian)arepresented in thecurrentorthography,for whichseebelow. Russianexamplesare presentedin accordancewith the Internationalsystemof transliteration (see p. 286). Unassimilated loans from Russial into other languagesof the U.S.S.R.are alsoprcsentedin accordancewith the lnternational system, and are set in block capitals to distinguish them from the general transcriptionsystemdiscussedbelow. Althoughspecialists in Turkic, Finno-Ugric,Iranian,etc.,languages usetheir own transc ption systems,we have opted here for a uniform systemof broad throughoutth€book.Thissystemis basedon that ofthe Association transcription (l.P.A.),but with somedeviationsfor the following Phon6tiqueInternationale reasons:the LP.A. systemis not well adaptedto transcribingaffricates,someof which are extremelyfrequentin the languagesof the U.S.S.R.;in someinstances, absenceofdetailedphoneticinformation hasled us to usea somewhatlessspecific transcdption(e.9.in not distinguishingpalatal from palatalisedalveolar);we have usedsomesymbolsto bring the transliterationmore into line with orthographiesof the U.S.S.R.and specialisttranscriptionsof the language-families discussed. The following departuresfrom I.P,A. shouldbe noted. More frontvaluesofvowels(i.e.front, or central relativeto back)areindicatedby (i.e. rj: LP.A. [y], and likewisew for [q]). The I.P.A.centralvowel a diaeresis symbols [i], [a] are used also for back-of-centralunroundedvowelswhere the back/centralopposition is nondistinctive.The symbol d representsa low back unroundedvowel,and d a vowelbetween[o] and [u]. Vowel lengthis indicatedby doublingthevowel-sign, stress byanacuteaccenton thestressed vowel.Findicatesa reducedvowel. Pharyngalisationis indicatedby a subscript,e.g. e. Vowelswith retractedtongueroot takea subscriptpoint, e.g. u. Closingdiphthongshavetheir secondcomponentrepr€sented asj or rv ratherthan i or r. Forconsonants, weuseCfor l.P.A.[J] andZ for LP.A.[3]. Coronalaffricates are indicated s follows:c for [ts], J for [dz], C for [tJ]. J for [d3]. Palatalisation is
xvn
indicatedby an acuteaccentoveror to the right ofthe consonantsymbol(e.g.i, ,11; thesamenotationis usedto indicatepalatalor alveolo-palatalarticulationwherethe differenceamongtheseis nondistinctive(e.g.i fo! I.P.A. bl, i for t.P.A. [o], i for I.P.A. [tc]). Labialisationis indicatedby a superscriptcircle to the right of the by a subscript, asin,1.Retroffex consonantsymbol(e.g.r"), andpharyngalisation consonantsarg shownby a subscriptpoint und€rthe correspondingalveolar(e.g./ for I.P.A. [U). A macroDovera consonantindicatesan intensive(seep. zoo),e.g.5. In Armenianand the Kurdish dial€ctspokenin Armenia,I indicatesa moreintense rhotic (usuallytrilled) than r (usuallycortinuant). Other specificconventionsare discussedin the text wherethey occur. differ from the above The Latin orthographiesof the languagesof the l-J.S.S.R. systemin thefollowingways.ln Lithuanian,i is mid [e] while e is open[ii]; yand u are the long equivalentsof i and u; Y. etymologicallyindicatingnasalisation,now simply indicatesa long vowel (thus f and / representthe samesound);closing diphthongshavei, u astheir secondcomponent,r'eand uo areopeningdiphthongs; for the r€presentationof tone, see p. I48-5I; the africates [5] and [j] are as dz, di respectively; consonantsareautomaticallypalatalisedbefore represented front vowels,while beforeback vowelsa nonpalatalisedconsonantis indicatedas CY, a palatalisedconsonantCr'Y. Latvian has a distinction between[e] and [ii], long and short, though the qualitativelywith theonesymbole; o is anopening orthographyunderdiff€rentiates diphthong[uo], exceptin someloans;longvowelsaremarkedby a macron(e.g.a); closingdiphthongshave i, u as their secondcomponent;for the rcpresentationof palatal tone,seep, r5t, dz and dZ representthe affricates[3] and [5] respectively; (the are indicated by acedilla, i.e. g, last not in thecurrent Soviet consonants f, 4, J,I orthography). In Estonian, d representsI.P.A. [v]; closing diphthongs have their second componentsymbolised,, u; palatalisationis (rather marginally) phonemicfor thoughnot represented in theorthographyithe orthographyalso dentals/alveolars, underdifferentiates betweenlong and overlongsegments(seepp. I I 5-I6).
.D. tr'J
rt'-'^'y.-.-?'-.?".V\Al i._
ii
7
/ l..r
z Chukchi NO
{.c J
j
&b
/.! ',
.l'
.
1
77
77 77
35
78 \'e
arelian
72 rB 80 68
sNO
l t t
38
1
42
o,
1
1
1
4
68
41
40 -.41
o, o;ut 5t
onor#-"("' --ro , ,, )
|
1 l
68
aa
71
72 t l(a 7
72
4,1
1
'
',
,o
68 zr 68
68 68
n ,-r_ Khantv-Mansi
7 t )r
".r.
n
\"" 71)6A
68
t71 68
68
68 .l 7tt
t 7 1
1
71
u"':,.-.r\ 8 't'...'|";;:' t 58'. t ,.^ \:.:
2 56
^\ ;\"
56
aoY ft
an
1t z' s.
\'.., ^^ i1r::;7k"
)"r-;f
tt
'
.,
Kazakh ssR
\J
1
, ss
A B C D E F G
r
tu
s\,
DagestanASSR Kabard-Balkar North-OsseteASSR Karachay-Cherkes AO Abkhaz ASSR Adyge AO South-Ossete AO
\t'tt;
uu, ' ,u \u6i i'''' \
cR^
z 156
50 ':
68.. 71 7)- 7 1 7 1
8
'2
,,J^F 6
t71 71
71
54
N^"""'''..
,.
I 1
\-.t'
71
F*.1T5"'
Buryat ASSR 6e
11 64
'::'i cb-'
{ \. 'l MONGOLIA
1
') t'
zt Evenki
71
71
A FGHAN ISTAN
- . \
71
r73
AN
L .
71
71
71 1
68
trti,
;'..1.-\'4:i;; ii ,;.je...""^?) uoo,, i
'u;,. ;\o' ui"/_ ."" ' " i'.1.u.''...u
71
Evenki NO
68
o
lOpOkm
7Q
7)
7?
68 68
68
,trQ
(78
68
71 71
,'/ ',0,50 '.\*o *.N:"#yr'r'1s3;1
l1
72t 68
71
o2o\\
51
r
r
72
od
*.dr.'p u:o .n RBg'J'-l - rs-- ."t9 -
I
72 71 68
A8
',;"iss4iffiffi,,-'L 42
,
";
38 t r^-ilaqcn 1 3a, \ J1 44 Komi-permya\O t,o26
\'
'\\" '(.,\'I'u
oa\zz 72
38
Koryak NO l-J.r ta
;'",lb"fi,'r.
Map of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. (Not shown on this map are peoples occupying a very small geographical area, e.g. users of North-East Caucasian languages restricted to a single village or group of villages, or peoples with extensive geographical distribution as a minority, e.g. Gypsies.)
INDEX TO MAP
Adapted from E. Glyn Lewis, Multilingualism in the Soviet Union: aspects of language policy and its implementation,TheHague, t972, map opposite page r. Indo-European SLAVONIC I Russian
z 3 4 5
Ukrainian Belorussian Polish Bulgarian
BALTIC
6 Lithuanian 7 Latvian GERMANIC
8 German
3o Dargva 3t Tabasaran 3z Lezgi 33 Agul Uralic BALTO-FINNIC
34 Estonian 35 Karelian 36 Veps LAPP
ROMANCE
37 Lapp
9 Moldavian lo Romanian
PERMIC
HELLENIC
I r Greek
38 Komi(-Zyryan) 39 Komi-Permyak 4o Udmurt
55 Balkar 56 Kazakh 57 Kirg;z 58 Karakalpak 59 Uzbek 6o Uygur 6I Turkmen 6z Azerbaydzhan 63 Gagauz 64 Altay 65 Khakas 66 Tuva 67 Shor 68 Yakut MONGOLIAN
69 Buryat 7o Kalmyk
IRANIAN
VOLGAIC
TUNGUSIC
rz Tadzhik I4 Beludzh I5 Kurdish 16 Tat t 7 Ossete
4t Mari 4z Mordva
7r Evenki 7z Even 73 Nanay Z4 Ulch 75 Oroch 76 Udege
ARMENIAN
t8 Armenian Caucasian zo Georgian zr Abkhaz zz Abaza 4*4 Kabard-Cherkes: z3 Kabard z4 Cherkes z5 Adyge z6 Chechen z7 Ingush z8 Avar z9 Lak
UGRIC
43 Khanty 44 Mansi 45 Hungarian SAMOYEDIC
46 Nenets 47 Nganasan 48 Selkup Altaic TURKIC
49 Chuvash 5o Tatar 5r Bashkir 5z Nogay 53 Kumyk 54*5 Karachay-Balkar: 54 Karachay
Paleosiberian (including Eskimo-Aleut) 77 Chukchi 78 Koryak 79 Itelmen 8o Yukagir 8t Nivkh 8z Eskimo(Siberian Yupik) 83 Aleut 84 Ket Koretn 85 Korean
Introduction
To many educated people outside the Soviet Union, the concept U.S.S.R. is virtually synonymous with Russia, and the adjective Soviet with Russian. They might well be surprised to seea book entitled The languages of the Soviet Union,since they would imagine Russian to be the only language of this state other than, perhaps, a few peripheral languages spoken in border areas. But in fact, the U.S.S.R. is a multinational state,containing some I3o different ethnic groups, speaking some I3o different languages. According to the Soviet censuscarried out in r97o, Russians make up only fi.7% of the total population of the U.S.S.R. Even though this is a majority, it is a very small majority, although the numerical preponderance of Russian is enhanced by the fact that the remaining463% is made up of a variety of other ethnic groups, of whom even the largest, the Ukrainians, comprise only {.g"t" of the total, and the next largest, the Uzbek, only 3.8%. When one looks at the statistics for the number ofspeakers ofindividual languagesofthe U.S.S.R., Russian has a slightly larger majority, being spoken as a native languageby some 58.6%of the total population. However, this still leaves 4r.4oAof the population of the U.S.S.R. with some other language as native language. And of the 463% of the population who are not ethnically Russian, slightly more than half (y.q%) claimed not to be able to speak Russian fluently either as a first or second language. Clearly, the view of the U.S.S.R. as being the same as Russia, or of Soviet citizens as being the same as Russians, is very misleading. By almost any criterion, the U.S.S.R. contains a number of often very different ethnic groups, speaking a number of languagesthat are oftenverydifferent from one another. Thepurpose ofthischapteris to summarise the details of this diversity, and to examine the relations between the various languages of the U.S.S.R. and Russian, the most widespread language. Later chapters will examine individual languages and language-groups in greater detail, primarily in terms of the structure of the languagesconcerned, though also in terms of their social function within the U.S.S.R.
I. Introduction
Languageandethnicgroup:censusstatistics At the beginningofthis chapter,we citedcertainstatisticsconcerning the number of peoplebelongingto va ous ethnic groups and speakingvarious languages. The statisticswere from themostrecentcensus ofthe U.S.S.R.carriedout in r97o; exceptwhere otherwisestated,statisticscited in this book are from the publishedreturnsofthis census(II'PN IV r973).In the U.S.S.R.censuses arecaried out at ten-yearlyinteruals,although this int€rval has beenregularisedin practice onlyvery recently,sinc€major upheavals(th€Revolutionof r9 r 7,theSecondWorld War) have impeded the realisation of this plan. The most complete preRevolutionarycensuswas for t897, and during the Sovietpedod we havecensus statisticsfor r92o,r 926,1939,andr959,in addition to r970.Sovietcensusstatistics are among the most detailed in the world giving information on the ethnic compositionof the population and on the languagesspoken.Although errors inevitably creep into any census breakdown through inefficiency,or even malevolence, whetheron the part ofthe citizengivingtheinformationor thecensus official recording it, the linguist interestedin the linguistic composition of the U.S.S.R., and the correlations betweenethnic and linguistic allegiance,is in possession ofan unusuallyrich sourceof information. Although the main interest in this book is the linguistic compositionof the U.S.S.R.,the publishedcensusstatisticsare arrangedprimarily in termsof ethnic groups.Ethnicgroup and languageneednot coincide:for instanc€,somer3 million Sovietcitizensdeclaredthemselves in I97oto beof non-Russianethnicorigin but to haveRussianastheir nativelanguag€.At timesthediscrepancy canbeevcngreater: group living fo. the most part in only I2.8% of the Karaim, a Turkic-speaking Lithuania,declaredKaraim astheir nativ€language.In Russian,the rclevantterm for 'ethnicgroup' is z acional 'nost',lilers,lly'nationality', and this Englishterm, in this sense,is found in many publicationson the peoplesand languagesof the U.S.S.R.,especiallythose publishedin the U.S.S.R.Unfodunately, this term is likely to leadto misundemtanding by an English-speaking audience,for whom the term 'nationality' may be taken to indicate citizenship. Nearly all people encompassed by Sovietcensuses arecitizensofthe U.S.S.R.,especiallyinviewofthe fact that the U.S.S.R.is not a major r€cipientof immigrationpopulation,sothat the citizenshipof the speakersof languagesdiscussedin this book is unlikely to be at issue.What is at issueis their ethnicstatus,in the senseofth€ €thnicgroup to which theyconsiderthemselves to belong. In theU.S.S.R.everyonehasto havean ethnicstatus,andth€ momentwhenthisis decidedis whenthecitizenin questionreachesthe ageofsixteenand hasto beissued with a'passport',i.e.an identitydocumentfor internalSovietpurposes.In principle, whenacitizenappliesfor thisidentitydocument,heis freeto choosetheethnicgroup I I
t. t Language and ethnic group to whichhewaltsto belong.Nodoubt, iftheregiste ng omcialfe€lsthat a Derson,s choiceis facetiousor obviouslyuntrue, he would try to p€rsuadethe applicanrto changehis mind, but in principlethis freedomof choicedoesexist.However,it may beplesumedthat virtually all applicantschoosethe ethnicgroup oftheir parents(if theyareboth ofthe sameethnicgroup),or ofone oftheirparentsin thecaseofmixed parenthood.Oncethechoicehasbeenmadeandregistered in theidentitydocumenr, itcannot thcreafterbechanged,In givinginformationfor a census,a Sovietcitizenis not requircd to provide this documentationof his ethnic group, and so could in principlegiveadifferentethnicgroup,althoughinpracticewemayagainassume that theethnicgroupgivenin the identitydocumentwillbedeclared.For childrenunder theageofsixteen,bensusregulationsallow theparcntsto choos€thedeclaredethnic statusofthe child; ifthey cannotagree,the mother'sethnicstatusis automatically recorded. For mostofthe ethnicgroupsin the U.S.S.R.,it is reasonablyclear whetheror not someoriebelongsto the given ethnic group and wherethe delimiting line of that ethnicgroup is, but thereare someexceptions.In particular,partly as a result of officialpolicy, membersofcertain relativelysmallpopulationgroupshavebeenor are being persuadedto declarethemselvesto be m€mbersof a larger group. For instance,the Mingrelians,who live in the GeorgianS.S.R.and speaka language geneticallyrelatedto Georgian,are not listedas a sepamteethnicgroup in Soviet censusstatistics,and are said omcially to have consolidatedthemselveswith the Georgianethnic group as a whole. Many of the smallerpopulation groupsin the Pamir mountain range in Tadzhikistan are b€ing persuadedto consolidate themselveswith the Tadzhik, and current censusstatisticsdo not list th€m separately.There are also a few instancesof the reve$eprocess:thus in r97o, the Negidal are listed as a separateethnic group, whereasin 1959they weretrot. In addition to suchconsolidationofwhole populationgroups,thereis also a certain amountoftransferbetweenethnicgroups,wherebymembersofa givenethnicgroup graduallytransferthcir allegiance to someotherethnicgroup.Onemarkedinstance ofthis in th€ U.S.S.R.is with the Jewishethnicgroup,which showeda decrease of some 57o betweenry59 and ry1o, although there is no reasonto attribute this primarily to demographic,asopposedto cultural,factors.Someofthe otherethnic groups registeringa declineto be accountedfor in this way are the Karelians, Mordva, and Ingrians,thre€Finro-Ugric-speakingpeopleswith a long history of interactionwith Russians,by whom theyaregraduallybeingassimilated. However, in general,theconstraintonnotchangingone'sethnicstatusaftertheageofsxreen, togetherwith the tendencyto declarethe ethnic group of one of one's parents, militatesagainstmarkedshiftsin the ethnicdistribution ofthe Sovietpopulation. The censusquestionnairedistributed in r97o askstwo main questionsabout
I. Introduction language:eachrespondentis askedto namehis nativelanguage,and is alsoasked fluently.(A precise delinitionofthe whichotherlanguage ofthe U.S.S.R.hespeaks questions given below.)The areobviouslyopento ofthe U.S.S.R.'is term'language a certaindegreeofmisinterpretation,or at leastfrcedomofinterpretation,especially aroundthetimeofthe censustestifyto thesecond,and lettersto variousnewspapers the degreeof confusionthat surroundedthesequestionsfor many people.With respectto thequestionon nativelanguagc,thecensusinstructionbooklet( VPNVD that therespondentisfreetodeclarewhicheverlanguageheconsiders r969)speci6es his nativelanguage,and that ifhe hasdilficulty in doing so thecensusofficialshould write down thelanguagewhich therespondentspeaksbestor usesin hisown family. Problemswith this questionare obviouslyparticularlyacutein areaswheteseveral individualsarein theprocessofshifting languages arein regularuse,especiallywhere from one languageto another. The booklet also makesexplicit that the native languageneednot corespondto theperson'sethnicstatus,this beingoneofthe main sourcesofconfusion. thereisacorrespondinglanguage. in theU.S.S.R., foreachethnicgroup In general and vice versa;thus thereare Russiansand a Russianlanguage,there are Uzb€k peopleand an Uzbek language,therear9 Ingdansand an Ingrian language(even by thoughonly 26.6%oflngrians speakIngrian),etc.Thiscorrelationisemphasised the practiceofusing the sameterm for both ethnicgroup and language,evenwhere other languageswould preferdifferentterms,for instancecyganskij,the adlective for'Gypsy' or'Romany', and,mostconfusinglyto outsiders,ev.ejski, theadjective languagewhich is anethnicappellation) and'Yiddish'(theGermanic for'Jewish'(as the traditional languageof AshkenazicJews). However,aswe havealreadyseen,this is not an absoluteone-to-onecorrelation, speakthe corresponding sincemembersof a givenethnicgroup do not necessarily languageastheir lative language,or evenspeakit at all: the senseofbelongingto a givenethnicgroupis dependenton a numberofsocialandculturalfeaturesofwhich languageis only one.Thus I3 million SovietcitizensspeakRussianas their native to be Russian.Conversely,of thosewho languagebut do not considerthemselves ethnicallyto be Yukagir, a small peoplein the north-eastof considerthemsclves Siberia,only 46,8% speakYukagir as a nativelanguage.[n certain instances,the discrepancybetweenIanguageandethnicgroupappli€sto a wholepopulationgroup distinct ratherthanto individualmembersthereof.For instance,therearesometimes dialects ofthe groups the same language, or at least which nonetheless speak ethnic Kabard and the Cherkes as samelanguage.Thus the Sovietcensusstatisticslist the separateethnic groups, although their languageis consideredone, KabardCherkes;similarlythe Karachayand Balkarspeakonelanguage,Karachay-Balkar. In yet other instances,eventhougha populationspeaksa languagequite distinct
t.t
Language and ethnic group
from that ofa c€rtainethnicgroup, for purposesofethnic allegiancetheyconsider themselves to bemembersofthat ethnicgroup.A clearcaseofthis is providedby the villageofKhinalug, in northernAzerbaydzhan.The inhabitantsofthe villagehave Khinalug,a North-EastCaucasianlanguage, astheirnativelanguage,althoughthey are also bilingual in Azerbaydzhan,a Turkic language,geneticallycompletely unrelatedto Khinalug.Despit€this,the inhabitantsofKhinalug declarethemselves to be of Azerbaydzhanethnic status.Speakersof the various Pamir languagesin Tadzhikistanarelistedin censusstatisticsasethnicallyTadzhik,eventhoughmany of themdo not speakTadzhik as their first language;both Tadzhik and the pamir languagesar€ geneticallyrclated,within the Iranian subgroupof Indo-European languages, whichdistinguishes thiscasefrom that ofKhinalug, whereKhinalugand Azerbaydzhanare completelyunrelated.To a certain extent, the discrepancy betweenlanguageand ethnic group in many instancesin the U.S.S.R.could be comparedto similar situationsin other countries:in Wal€s,many peoplefeelquite passionatelythat they are Welsh,not English,eventhough they may speaknot a word of Welsh:and EnglishmenandAmericansdifferon manyculturalparameters eventhough they speakvariantsof the samelanguage. In addition to the traditionallyrecognised ethnicgroups(peoples)who makeup the U.S.S.R.,recentSovietomcialstatementsreferincreasinglyto the Sovietpeople (Russian: sovetsk4 narod\ as a new kind of ethnic unit, resulting from the consolidation and interactionof the variouspeoplesof the U.S.S.R.within the Sovietstate.Sincethe conceptof the Sovietpeopleis ratherdifferentfrom that of ethnicgroup, it will not be further discussed here,exceptto note that, presumably, th€ only languagethat can be consideredcharacteristicof the Sovietoeopleas a whole is Russian(seesectionr.4). Sovietstatisticsare arrangedprimarily in termsofethnic groups,ratherthan in termsof oativelanguage,as follows:for eachethnicgroup, we are given the total number of people claiming that ethnic allegiance,then the number of people claimingthat ethnicallegiancewho havethecorrespondinglanguageastheir native language.This meansthat for certainlanguagesthat haveno correspondingethnic group (suchas Khinalug or the Pamirlanguages), no officiallanguagcstatisticsare available.(Thesearefor the mostpart languages with a smallnumberofspeakers,a few thousandora few hundred,andso might in any eventhavebeenincludedunder the rubric 'Others' reservedfor small population groups not listed separately.) Moreover,for the most part the languagestatisticsdo not givethe total numberof peoplespeakingthe given languageas their nrst language,but rather how many membersof the givenethnicgroup havethe givenlanguageas their first language. The only exceptionis for the languagesof the Union Republics(for this term, see sectionr.3.3),wherethe publishedstaristicslist the total numberof speakers
I. Introduction
6
throughout the U.S.S.R.Apart from Russian,though, the discrepancybetween 'total numberof nativesDeakers in the U.S.S.R' and 'total numberof native ethnicgroup' is in the U.S.S.R.amongmembersof the corresponding speakers unlikely to be significant,sinc€Russianis the only languagewherethe numberof nativespeakerswho belongto differentethnicgroupsis statisticallysignificant;for ofUnion Republics,therelevantfigurescanbederivedfrom Appendix thelanguages r. For thoselanguageswhicharenot listedseparatelyin Sovietcensuspublications, one can sometimesderiveaccurateor estimatednumbersof nativespeakersfrom other publications,e.g.accountsoflinguistic or ethnographicfieldwork' but these figuresare, ofcourse, for the most part approximateand unauthoritative. Although nativespeakersofEnglish, and ofmany Europeanlanguages,tendto takefor grantedthat onecanidentifyclearlywhatconstitutesa language,yetin many parts of the world this is not the case,for various linguistic and extralinguistic for soit is necessary fallintothislattercategory, reasons; manypartsofthe U.S.S.R. problem usbrieflyto considerthisquestion.In termsof languagestructure,themain isdifferentiatingbetweenasituationwheretwo speechvarietiesarediferent,though geneticallyrelated,languages.aIId one where they are two dialectsof the same language.Linguistshavetried to establishcriteria for distinguishingbetweenthese two cases,the mostwidespreadsuchcriterion b€ingmutual intelligibility,but there are problemswith this criterion. First, mutual intelligibilityis alwaysa questionof degree,i.e.all this criterion doesis rangespeechforms on a scalefrom completely mutually intelligibleto completelymutually unintelligible.Secondly,intelligibility of a dilferent languagevarietycan be enhancedby familiarity with this language variety:thus most Englishpeoplenow havelitde difficulty in following American English, although in the early days of talking films, marking the beginningof widesp.eadcontactbetweenEnglishand Americanlanguagevarieties,this wasnot so.Thirdly, the relation'bemutuallyintelligiblewith' is not necessarilya necessarily transitiverclation: very often one finds dialectchainswhereadjacentdialectsare mutuallyintelligible,but nonadjacentdialects,esp€ciallytheendpoirttsofthechain, thecriterionofmutual intelligibilitywould suggestthatin arenot. In suchinstances, a dialectchainA-B C, Aand B aredialectsofthe samelanguage,B andC aredialects of the samelanguage,but A and C are different languages,which is of course inconsistent.The problem is further complicatedby the inclusionof social and politicalconsiderations: thus,manydialectsof Germanarestructurallymoresimilar to Dutch dialectsthan they are to many other dialectsofGerman, yet Germanand Dutch are still considereddistinct languages,with the languageborder roughly following the political frontier, becauseof the fact that Dutch and Germanserve differentpoliticalentitieswith dilferentcultural traditions.Conversely,the various 'dialects'of Chineseare considereddialects,rather than languaggs,becauseof the
t.t Languageand ethnicgroup
j
political-cultural unity they serve,d€spitethe fact that they are not mutually intelligible.In the U.S.S.R.therear€ severalsimilar situations,so that to a c€rtain extentsomeofthe languageversusdialectboundariesarearbitrary,or motivatedby cultural or political considerationsmther than similarities and differencesrn linguisticstructure. A classicexamplehereis that ofthe Turkic languages. Apart from two divergent languages, Chuvashand Yakut (the latterincludingDolgan),the Turkic languages form a singledialectchain,or perhapsdialectclusterwould be a more appropriate visualmetaphor.Ir is extremelydimcult to dra\,rdividing linesbetweenindividual Turkic languages, and,aswillbe discussed in moredetailin Chapter2, it is oftenthe casethat a dialectis assignedto one languagerather than anotheron the basisof culturalties ratherthanstructuIalsimilarity. However, ifonetakesextremely distant pointsin thiscontinuum, thenthelevelofmutualintelligibility ismuchlower,sothat it would readilybe acceptedthat one is dealingwith two di{ferentlanguagesrather than two differentdialectsof the samelanguage.Moreover,the Turkic-speaking areaofthe U.S.S.R.asa wholehasno singlenaturalculturalcentre,i.e.no onecity whoselanguagecould be usedas a standardlanguagefor speakersof all Turkic languages/dialects. The resultofthis hasbeentherccognitionofa numberofdistinct Turkic languages,most of them extremelysimilar to one anotherin all aspectsof grammaticalstructureand vocabulary. At the other extreme,we find languagesrecognisedas a singlelanguage,on the basisof a cultural unity of speakers,even though the individual dialectsare so divergent fromoneanotherthatmutualint€lligibility islowor nonexistent. Onesuch exampleis theUraliclanguage Khanty,wheredialectdiversityis sogreattharup ro 6ve distinct written languageshave been used to cater to differcnt branchesof Kha[ty (with r4,562nativespeakers).In addition,thereare someinstanceswhere Sovietofficial policy hasnot yet decidedwhetherto considertwo speechva eties differentlanguagesor dialectsof the samelanguage.The Uralic languageMari currentlyexistsin two writtenforms,Meadow-Eastern Mariand Hill Mari, although it remainsunclearwhetherthey are to be considereddistinct languagesor simply difl'erentwrittendialectsofoneandthesamelanguage. A somewhatsimilarsituation is presentedby the unwritt€nlanguageor dialectofthe Dolgan:ethnically,they are distinct from the Yakut, but their speechhas often beenregardedas a divergent dialectofYakut. The seriesJaNSSR(r966 8) doesnotincludeDolganasaseparate language,althoughthe degreeofdivergencebetweenDolgan and other dialectsof Yakut is sumcientto preventmutualcomprehension. The Sovietauthoritieshavesometimesbeencriticisedin theWestfor establishing ethnicand linguisticboundaries in sucha way as to furthermalevolentpolitical Intent.in particularto dividepotentiallytroublesome populationgroupsinto a
L2 Classification of languages
r, Introduction numberofdifferent ethnicgroups,eachwith its own written language.While it is in most instancesimpossibleto verify the motiveslying behindethnicand linguistic policiesofthe Sovietauthorities,giventhewidelydiflerentinterpretationsadvanced by theseauthoritiesand their critics, it should alwaysbe borne in mind that the 'differentlanguage'is rarelyan solution to the problemof 'samelanguage'versus easyone,andthat in manypartsoftheworld, includingmuchofwesternEurope,the decisionsthat have beenmade have beentaken as much on social and political groundsason linguisticones. 'language In discussingthesecondlanguagequestionin the I9?ocensus,the term only askswhich sincethe censusquestionnaire of the U.S.S.R.'wasintroduced, Basically, a language of languages ofthe U.S.S.R.arespokenassecondlanguages. to th€ to be autochthonous whichcan be considered the U.S.S.R.is a language i.e.in particularto bespokenby a populationgroupall or territoryofthe U.S.S.R., most ofwhosememberrw€reborn in the U.S.S.R.(or territory whichis now part of the U.S.S.R.) this would thus excludethe languagesoftransient groups,suchas and also of recentimmigrants;secondly,the foreign studentsand businessmen, languagein questionmustnot betheomciallanguageofa foreignstate thisexcludes such languagesas German(with over a million native speakersin the U.S.S.R.), Polish, Bulgarian, Korean, Hungarian, Greek (each with over loo,ooo native speakersin the U.S.S.R.),aswell asa numberofother smallerpopulationgroups, membersof ethnic groups whose main centre is outside thc U.S.S.R.ln many areincludedwithin thebordersof instances, thefactthat thesenon-Sovietlanguages much of the U.S.S.R.is a resultofthe fluctuatinsfrontiersthat havecharacterised Russianhistory. However,the term 'languageof the U.S.S.R.'doesincludesomelanguagesand predominantlyoutsidetheU.S.S.R.but arenot ethnicgroupswhicharerepresented officiallanguagesofthe correspondingethnicgroup anywhereoutsidethe U.S.S.R. is in large e.g.Yiddish,Romany,Kurdish,Aramaic(Assyrian).Thecharacterisatiorl - eventhoughit doesexcludesomelargepopulations(e.g.the measurereasonable SovietGermans)from considerationaspeoplesofthe U.S.S.R,speakinga language of the U.S.S.R.- in that it delimitsthoselanguagesthat can clearlybe regardedas integral parts of the linguisticcompositionof the U.S.S.R.from those that are spokenby peoplewho just happento live in the U.S.S.R.In a few instances,the speechform spokenby a sizablepopulationgroup within the U.S.S.R.is very close to the omciallanguageof someforeignstate,but despitethis the Sovietauthorities havepreferredtoconsiderthelanguageasspokenin theU.S.S.R,asa languageofthe U.S.S.R.;in practicalterms,thishasbeenachievedby declaringthelanguagevaricty spokenwithin the U.S.S.R.to be a differentlanguagefrom that spokenoutside,as distinctfrom Romanian,or of with thedeclaration of Moldavianto be a language
Tadzhik to be distinct from Pemian.In suchinstances,the politicalseparationcan, however,beexpectedto leadwith time to increasedlinguisticdiferentiation,sothat Tadzhik and Persianare alreadyratherdifferentfrom one anotherin abstractalld technicalvocabulary,with Tadzhik borrowing heavilyfrom Russian,and Persian from Arabic. As indicatedabove,respondentsto the censuswerealsoaskedto declarewhich otherlanguage ofthe U.S.S.R.theyspeakflu€ntly;asa resultofthis question,we havedetaileddatanot only on the first languages spokenin the U.S.S.R.but alsoon the leveland kind ofbilingualism.The censusinstructionsdo, incidentally,specify that only onelanguagecanbedeclaredasthe reply to thisquestion.Severalareas of the U.S.S.R.havewidespreadtrilingualism,e.g.Abkhaz,Mingrelian,and Russian in somepartsof the Abkhaz A.S.S.R.(with Ceorgiansometimesaddedasa fourth component); the census statistics give rlo information on such multilingual situations,sinceonly thenonnativelanguage(ifany) that therespondentsp€aksbest is included.The only glosson 'fluently'given in the censusinstructionsis that the respondeltmust beableto conversein thesecondlanguage,soconsiderable leeway isleftforindividualinterpretation. Thelanguage oftheU.S.S.R. mostwidespread as a secondlanguageis, ofcourse,Russian,which is claimedas a secondlanguageby almosthalfofthosedeclaringsomeotherlanguageastheirfirstlanguage.Forcertain individualethnicgroups,however,bilingualismin somesecond languageotherthan Russianis more dominant or almostas dominant as bilingualismin Russian,but suchkinds of bilingualismare restdctedto certain specifrcregionswherethereis eithera mixedpopulation(aswith Uzbek and Tadzhik in much ofUzb€kistanand Tadzhikistan)o. a traditional lingua frarlcathat predatesRussianinfluencein the arca (as with Avar in much of Dagestan,Tadzhik in the Pamir, or Georgianin South Ossetia).Bilingualismis often, though not invariably, one stage in the replacement ofone languageby another,asis happeningwith Yiddish and Mordva. Thereare,however,alsoinstances ofstablebilingualismextendingoverlongperiods of time. for instancethat betweenTadzhik and Uzbek. L2
Classificrtionof the languages of the U.S,S,R. There are severalcriteria accordingto which one could classifythe languages ofthe U.S.S.R.andby almostanyofthesecriteriathe U.S.S.R.emerges as a veryheterogeneous countryindeed.For the linguist,an obviouswayofclassifying languagesis in terms of genetic language-families, though more recently the possibility of comparing languagesin terms of shared structural similarities (typologicalclassification) hasagainbecomepopular,irrespective ofwheth€ror not th€sestructuralsimilaritiesaredueto geneticrelatedness. Someonemoreinterested in thesociolingLristic composition oftheU.S.S.R.mightpreferothercriteria, suchas
IO
the numberof speakers. the socialfunciionof the language in the U.S.S.R.,the traditionaltechnological levelofthesocietyspeaking thelanguage, or othcraspects of their traditionalculturesuchas religion.In the followingsections, we shall examinethesevariousclassificatorycriteria. |.2,r
Geneticclassification Ascanbeseenfuomthebodyofthisbook.thelanguages oftheU.S.S.R. fall into five main groups from the viewpoinr ol genetic classification(with reservations to beelaboratedbelow),in additionto a few Ianguages that areisolated genetically withintheU.S.S.R.but havegenetically relatedlanguages outside, such asthe SemiticlanguageAramaicor the Sino-TibetanlanguageDungan.Thesefive main groupsare: Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Caucasian, and paleosiberian (Paleoasiatic). The geneticunity of the Indo-Europeanfamily and of the Uralic family can scarcelybe in doubt; indeedIndo-Europeanis.theparadigmcaseof a geneticfamily.Thesamecannotbesaidofthe otherthreegroups.paleosiberian is the leastcohesiveofthesethree,sinceit hasprobablyneverbeenintendedto refe. to a single geneticfamily: rather, Paleosiberianrefers to those languagesspokenin Siberiathatdo not belongto anyofthe majorlanguage-families spokenin thcarca, such as Altaic (or any of its branches),Uralic, lndo-Europeal, Sino-Tibetan. Paleosiberian includesonesmalllanguage-family, Chukotko-Kamchatkan,aswell as three languagesthat are, to the best of current knowledge,isolates,with no demonstrablegeneticrelationto any otherestablished family: Yukagir, Nivkh, and Ket. Chukotko-Kamchatkan,Yukagir, Nivkh and Ket are, incidentally, very different one from another. Another small language-family,Eskimo-Aleut, is sometimesincludedwithin Paleosiberran. The view that the Turkic, Mongolian,and Tungusiclanguagestogetherform a singlegeneticfamily,Altaic, is widespread both amongspecialists in theselanguages and ascommonlore amonglinguists,and considerable popularity hasbeengained recentlyby the idea that Korean and Japanese can also be includedin this family. However,for reasonssomeofwhich arediscussed in Chapterz, the geneticunity of groupings even the three Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusicshould not be taken for granted,and therc are c€rtainlyreasonsfor questioningthe argumentsthat have beenadvancedto date for their geneticunity. It is, incidentally,clear that eachof thesethreegroupingsis internallya geneticunit. The inclusionofa singlechapteron Altaic is thus to someextenta concessionto tradition, rather than accaptance of Altaic as a singlelanguage-family.The sameis true to an evcn greaterextent of Caucasian,which consistsof at leastthree,and possiblyfour, groupings,whose genetic relations to one another are lar from reliably established.The rhree groupingsareSouthCaucasian(or Kartvelian),North-WcstCaucasian.andNorth-
r.2 Classificationof languages
rr
EastCaucasian;the unity ofthe lastofthesehasevenbeenquestioned,whichwould meanreplacingNorth-EastCaucasianby Nakh and Dagestanian, asis discussed in Chapter 5. Although the view that North-West and North-East Caucasianare relatedgeneticallyas North Caucasianis quite widespreadamong Caucasianists, and evenif this North especially in the U-S.S.R.,thereare also many sceptics, Caucasiangrouping were to be accepted,its geneticrelationship with South Caucasianwould remainvery questionableindeed. The accountofgeneticclassificationoutlinedabove,and followedin the body of this book, is extremelycautiousin proposinggeneticaffiliations,and read€rsshould note that this is the author'sbiason this point. At the oppositeextreme,some ofthe world asbeinggenetically linguistswould advocateconsideringall languages related,or, a slightlylessextremeposition,all thelanguages ofEurope andnorthern ofthe U.S.S.R.). One Eurasia(whichwouldthusincludeall or mostofthelanguages version of this last-mentionedapproach is associatedwith V. M. IlliI-Svitid, who used H. Pedersen'sterm Nostratic for a language-familythat would includeIndo-European, Semitic,South Caucasian,Uralic, Altaic, Dravidian, andChukotko-Kamchatkan. Thereareindeedsomeindications in favourofsucha family,for instancein theperconalpronouns,wherea firstpersonsingularwithm or b and a secondpersonsingularwith s or I are widespreadacrosstheselanguages (e.g.Latin accusativeme, Georgianme, Komi me, Azerbaydzhanmir, Chukchi yrD 'I'; Latin accusativele, Komi le, Chukcheeyrt'you (singular)').Intermediate positionswouldbetherecognitionofa geneticrelationbetweenUralic andAltaic, as Uralo-Altaic,or betweenYukagir and Uralic. In thisbook, relativelylittle attention will be paid to controversies thesefor themost ofgeneticamliation,largelybecause part requiredetailedconsiderationof aspectsof the individual languagesthat go discussed beyondthepresentationpossiblehere.Moreover,evenifall thelanguages in this book shouldturn out to be relatedgenetically,it will still be thecasethat any individual Turkic languageis more closelyrelatedgeneticallyto any other Turkic languagethan to anyTungusicor lndo-Europeanlanguage,so that thehierarchical relationsestablishedby the classificationwould remainessentiallythe same. r.2.2 Typologicalclassification When one starts asking about the typological classificationof the languages ofthe U.S.S.R., thencertaingroupings emerge thattranscend theabovementionedgeneticboundaries,thoughtherestill rcmainsomelanguagesthat stand out both genetically againstthebackground oftheir neighbours and typologically (e.9.Ket).anditmustbeemphasised thattypological similarities areno evidence for gcncticallilidtion.As has bcen seenagain and again,closeproximity of two l nguagcs canlcadto sogreata degree of m utualinffuence that thelanguages come
I. Introduction
r.2 Classification of languages
t2
with time to resemble one anothermore than they did originally:the classical exampleofthis is the Balkansprachbund,wherea numberoffeatureshavedifused amongBulgarian,ModernGreek,Albanian,and Romanian,to mak€themmore similarinsomerespects to oneanotherthanto otherlanguages thataremoreclosely relatedto themgenetically(seefurthersection4.6).In this section,we shalllist some typological features thatarewidespread across thelanguages ofthe U.S.S.R.; more detaileddiscussion ofthesefeaturescanbefoundin theindividualchapters to follow. Onefeaturethat is commonto manyof thelanguage-families of the U.S.S.R.is verb-final word order, often as part of a generalword-order pattern whereby adjunctsalwaysprecedetheir head(adjectives,genitives.and relativeclausesprecede their headnouns;nounsprecedetheirpostpositions): this phenomenon is found mostconsistently in the Altaic languages (whetheror not one conside$Altaic a singlelanguage-family); to a lesserextentit is also found in Uralic languages, especiallythe more easterlylanguages(thosespokenfurther westhaveword order patternsmuchmoresimilarto thoseof Germanicor Slavoniclanguages). ln certain languagesand language-families, theword ordervariesbetweenverb-finalandverbmedial,and theremay be other deviationsfrom the strict order adjunct,head,asin many Caucasianlanguagesand the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages.The questionofwhether Proto-lndo-Europeanwasverb-final,with adjunct-headasits basicword order,remainscontroversial(Lehmann r974; Friedrich r975;Watkins I976),and the verb-finalorderthat is found frequentlyin someof themodernIndoEuropeanlanguages of the U.S.S.R.(e.g.Armenian,Iranianlanguages) can be attributedto influencefrom neighbouringTurkiclanguages. At anyrate,onecansay thatthelanguages oftheU.S.S.R. overallshowa tendency towardsverb-finalorder, more so than that shownby the restof Eurasia,though perhapsnot more than is shownby the languagesof the world as a whole. One phenomenonthat seemsto co-occurwith verb-linalword order in a large number of languagesis the use of nonfinite verbal forms participles, nominalisations,verbaladverbs(gerunds)- rather than finite subordinateclauses, thelatterbeingthe norminmostEuropean languages, includingRussian. In Tatar,a Turkic language,for instance,theusualway ofsaying'themanwho went'is bar-ga, ,teie, literally '(the) having-goneman', where bargan is the past participleof the verb bar'go';'when he left, I stayed'isulkit-kiiC,min kaldem,wherek/t-keCis the past verbaladverbof the verb kr? 'leave',and the only finite verb is ka.ldrm,firsr personsingular(-rr) ofthe pasttense(-dr) of kal'stay'.Widespread useofsuch nonfiniteformscorrelateshighlywith verb-finalword order,beingthebasicmeansof expressing subordinationin the Altaic languages,also in severalUralic languages (with many remnantseven in the more westerlylanguages) and Caucasian languages. Indeed.theoccurrence of conjunctions markingsubordinate clauses is
l3
Table t.L Morphological typology of Lithuanian and Tatar
NOM GEN DAT LOC
Lithuanian 'friend' PL SG draug-ai draig-as dratg-o draug-g draig-ui draug-rims draug-uosi draug-d
Tatar 'apple' SG alma alma-ne! alma-ga alma-da
PL almalar almalar-ner] almalar-ga alma-lar-da
oftheU.S.S.R., though,aswill beshown ofa rarityamongthelanguages something and also theearlier influenceofcertain under the influence olRussian, in sectionr.4, Oermanand Scandinavian other languages(e.g.Arabic on manyTurkic languages, languageson some Balto-Finnic languageswithin the Uralic family), many languages ofthe U.S.S.R.haverecentlydevelop€dor arein theprocessofdeveloping subordinating conjunctions,either borrowing them directly from Russian or calquingthem on the structureof Russianconjunctions. On€morphologicalfeaturethat is widespreadacrosslanguagesofthe U.S.S.R.is ofmorphemeseach i.e.theinflection ofwordsbymeansofasequence agglutination, of which car es a singlepiece of meaning.This contrastsboth with isolating wherethereis no inflectionat all, and with fusional languages(suchasVietnamese) (flectional)languages,where severalgrammaticalcatego es are normally fused togetherinto a singlemorpheme.This canbe seenby comparingpartial paradigms for noun declensionin Tatar, an agglutinativelanguageofthe Turkic family,and in Lithuanian,a fusiolal Ianguageof the Baltic branchof lndo-European(Table L t ). consistently by the InTatar,thegrammatical category ofpluralnumberis indicated morpheme-/ar; likewise,eachof the caseshasits own marker(genetive-ner,dative -ga,locative-da).In Lithuanian,on theotherhand,theindications ofnumberand caseareso inextricablyboundtogetherthat it is impossibleto segmenttheonefrom the othen all onecan sayis that -as is nominativesingular,-ui dativesingular,-ai plural,and -amsdativeplural, withoutthepossibility ofidentifyingany nominative constantformal markerofplural numberor ofnominativeor dativecase.The Indoincludingthosespokenin theU.S.S.R., aretypicallyfusional, buropeanlanguages, includingArmenianandIranian,have althoughmanybranches oflndo-European, developeda significantdegr€eof agglutinationover their recenthistory,this being perhapsan arealfeature,resultingfrom their contactwith Turkic languages. All of the Altaic languagesare agglutinative.In the Uralic family, many languagesare agglutinative,and all show signs of having been until quite recently largely agglutinative,but severalUralic languages, especiallythe Balto-Finniclanguages, Lapp, and the Samoyediclanguages,have undergonecomplex sound changes leading to such widespread analogical formations, that they have moved
L lntoduction
1.2 Classilication of languages
t4
considerablyin the direction of fusion. Of the Caucasianlanguages,the North Caucasian languages are basically agglutinative, while the South Caucasian languagesare much more mixed, with a high degreeof fusion especiallyin the structureof the verb. On many other parameters,the languagesof the U.S.S.R.,especiallythose of different genetic families, differ from one another as much as any two languages anywherein the wortd do. Thus we find languageswith gender/class systems(many Indo-Europeanand North Caucasianlanguages,alsothe language-isolate Ket) and languageswithout suchsystems(other Indo-Europeanlanguages,Altaic and Uralic languages); languages with ergative morphology (many Iranian languages, Georgian), languageswith both morphological ergativity and some syntactic ergativity (some North Caucasian languages, some Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages).and languageswhich have no more ergativity than does English (most Indo-Europeanlanguagesoutsidethe Iranian branch, and also Tadzhik within the Iranian branch.Uralic and Altaic languages). In termsofphonologicaltypology,the languagesofthe U.S.S.R.are alsovery differentfrom one another.Although vowel harmony is found in nearlyall Altaic languages,the phoneticfeaturethat conditions the vowel harmony is different in Tungusic languagesfrom that in Turkic and Mongolian languages; otherwisevowelharmony is found in some,but not all, Uralic languages,and in some,but not all, of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages.The U.S.S.R. contains languageswhich approach the world record for the number of distinct consonantphonemes:the CaucasianlanguageAdyge has 68 in its Bzhedug dialect: and while it does not have languagesas poor in consonantsas rnany Polynesianlanguages,Chukchi is relatively poor with only fourteen consonant phonemes. Until recently,one might have ventured to say that the U.S.S.R. is basically lacking in Ianguageswith phonemictone, the only exceptionsbeing Dungan (which is structurallya dialect of Mandarin Chinese)and the Baltic languagesLithuanian and Latvian. However, recent detailed phonetic work has uncovered tonal oppositionsin the language-isolate Ket (Dul'zon r969;Feer r976)and alsoin several North-East Caucasianlanguages( Kibrik et al. r 978);moreoverpitch seemsto play a more jmportant role than was thought hitherto in the seriesof length distinctions madein suchBalto-FinniclanguagesasEstonianand Liv, so that the investigationof prosodic featuresin t1'tanylanguagesofthe U.S.S.R.is only in its infancy, and it is dilllcult to [oreseewhat typologicalgeneralisations will finally emerge.The various points mentioned in this paragraph are discussedin more detail in appropriate sectionsof the lollowing chapters.
r5
1.zl
Sociologicalclassification Perhapsthemostobvioussociologicalclassilicatoryfeature,from even a cursoryexamination of Sovietlanguage statistics, is the greatdiscrepancy in the nurnberofspeakers. As alreadymentioned, Russianis spokenby over58% olthe population;indeed,the threegeneticaily closelyrelatedEastSlavoniclanguages (Russian,Ukrainianand Belorussian in termsof numberof speakers the first, second, and fourthlargestlanguages of theU.S.S.R.respectively) accountfor over thereis a longlist oflanguages 76'2,ofthe total population.At theotherextreme, with only a fewthousandor a fewhundredspeaken,andevensomewith fewerthana hundredspeakers, of whichAleut (96 speakers in I970)is listedseparately in the census I n fact,thelanguage statistics. with thesmallest numberof speakers in r g7o (Samoyedic wasKamas,a Uraliclanguage branch),whichhadjust onespeaker; it hadbeenthoughtthatthislanguage waslongsinceextinct,untilthisonespeaker was discovered, who hadkeptherlanguage alivein herprayers, andwho wasbroughtto attendthe Third lnternationalCongress in Tallinn (Estonia)in of Finno-Ugrists goneunnoticed r97o.Previously. Kamashadpresumably amongthe'Others'figure in the censusstatistics. ln determining the viabilityof a language, however,the numberof speakers is not the only factorto consider, althoughit is an important consideration; therearelanguages with veryfew speakers, for instance in isolated partsofthe Caucasus, whichseemquiteviable,with no tendency to replacement by otherIanguages. On theotherhand,languages with a largenumberofspeakers scattered acrossa widearea,especially iftheyarea minorityin mostor allofthatarea,showlowfigures for languageretentionin the U.S.S.R.A clearexampleis Yiddish,with 38r,o78 speakefs,but everywherea minority languagegreatly outnumberedby the local language. A goodpairoflanguages to comparehereareEstonianandMordva,both Uralic languages. Mordva actuallyhas slightlymore speakersthan Estonian, althoughthe difference is veryslight,both havingjust undera million.However, Estonianisspokenby a compactpopulationgroupwhichisa decisive majorityon its own territory(almosl70'X,of the populationof Estoniais Estonian), whereas the Mordvaarescattered across a vastareato thesouthofKazan'.andevenin thealeaof theirgreatest concentration, theMordvaA.S.S.R., theyconstitute only35.4%ofthe population(58.9'X, is madeup of Russians). In the light of this, the significant diflerence in the ratesof language retentionare not surpising:in r97o,95.5%of Estonians declared Estonianastheirnativelanguage, a slightincrease on the95.270 figureIbr I959,whereas only 77.8'2, ofthe Mordvadeclared Mordvaastheirnative langu?rge. a slightdecrease on the r959figureof 78.I'lo. In rddition to shiltsin relativenumbersof speakers due to differentlevelsof lirngurgeIoyallyanrongthclanguages ofthe U.S.S.R., therehavealsobeenmarked
I. Introduction
r6
in the rateofnatural increaseofpopulation amongdiffgrent shiftsdueto differences ethnicgroups.The highestbirth-ratesareamongthetmditionally Islamicpeoplesof with, for instance,increases betweenI959and I97o CentralAsia and the Caucasus, of52.9ol,for theTadzhikand46.5%for the Avar, comparedwith an avemgefor the and U.S.S.R.of r5.7%.Very low birth-mteswerenotedfor the Balticrepublics, of large more generallyfor Europeanurban areas,despiteofficial encouragement families.Betweenr959 and r97o,the numberof ethnicUzbek outstrippedthat of Belorussians,the Moldavians outstripped the Lithuanians and the Jews, the Turkmen and Kirgiz outstrippedthe Latvians,while the Tadzhik outstrippedthe Germans.Chuvash.and Latvians. to a discussionof Probablythe most significantsociologicalpammeternecessary thepre-Sovietstatusofthe variousethnicgroups,andstillrelevantto a certainextent in theSovietperiod,is theextentto whichdifferentethnicgroupshadbeenintegrated into the mainstrcam developmentof European technologyand its associated philosophical and cultural ideas. As stated, this is a very ethnocentric characterisation,implying that nonwesterncultures should be integrated into westernculture,the only questionbeingthe extentto which theyhaveachievedthis. However,in relationto the U.S.S.R.,it is dimcult not to adopt this positionasone's €xpositorystand,irrespectiveofwhether or not oneacceptsit ideologically,sinceit liesat theheartofmuch ofSovietthinkingon the questionof€thnic relations.At the time ofthe Revolution,the RussianEmpirewasoneofthe mostbackwardcountries in Europe,but wasalso characterised by an extr€meinternal dive$ity of cultural level.Oneofthe main aimsofthe newrevolutionarygovernmentwasto correctthis backlog,by bringing Russiaup to the levelofwestem Europein industrialisation, education,etc.,and by bringing the whole of the new Sovietstateup to this same at least,had in large level.At the time ofthe Revolution,the Russianupperclasses, measureassimilatedto westernEuropeantechnologyandculture-indeed,Russran contributionto literatureand musicin the nineteenthcenturymadea considerable the developmeltofEuropeanculture.A fewpartsofthe RussianEmpirewereeven more advancedthan Russiaploper in this respect,in particularPolandand Finland in the west,which gainedtheir permanentindependence from Russiaat the time of the Revolution,but also the Baltic provinc€s,especiallyEstonia. Onemeasureofthe stageofdevelopm€ntis the figurefor literacyin va.iousparts ofthe Empire accordingto the r897census:lor the RussianEmpireas a wholethe percentage ofpeopleag€dbetween9 and49andableto read(thoughnotnecessarily to write) was28.4%,with a markeddiscrepancybetweentown (57%) and country (23.8%).The literacyfigurc for the populationin what is now the R.S.F.S.R.was only slightly higher (29.6%),reaching6r.r% in urban areasof what is now the R.S.F.S.R.TheonlyUnionRepublics on whoseterritoryin r 89?themajorityof the
r.2 Classification of languages
I'7
populationbetweentheseageswasableto readwereEstonia(anastoundingg6.2%), Latvia(79.j%), and,Lithuania(54.2%),i.e.the threeBalticrepublics.(In thecaseof Estonia,and to a lesserextent Latvia, one important factor may have beenthe Protestantreligion,with its greateremphasison the ability to readthe Bible.)In the is 99.7%.In r897,however,in theteritories U.S.S.R,today,theliteracypercentage percentagewas well under Io% (Armenia, Republics the literacy of many Union Kazakhstan, Moldavia, and all the Central Asia republics, the lowest being Tadzhikistanwith 2.3%). For many of the peoplesof the RussianEmpire, the questionof literacysimplydid not arise,sincetheir own languagehad no w tten form, and theywereoftennot familiar with Russian.While literacygivesone useful statisticalmeasure,severalother, lessreadily quantifiable,m€asures,would give essentiallythe sameresult:industrialisationwasmost developedin the westof the Empire,whilemuchofSiberiawassoisolatedthatits inhabitantshadonlyjustbegun to engagein contactswith Russiansand other Europeans. One useful way of classifyingthe peoplesof the U.S.S.R.sociologicallyis to inquireabout their traditionalculturc,and to dividethe territory into zoneson this basis.The ftontiers of individual zonesare necessarily rather fluid, sincein many areas there was mixed Russian and non-Russianpopulation, or other mixed pictureof populationsituations,but overallthefollowingdivisiongivesa reasonable traditionalculturalarcas.First, wemay considerthe Balticarea,i.e.what is now the republicsof Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, chamcterisedby a more Westem outlook, reflectedin the predominanceofwesternEuropeanreligions(Catholicism in LithuaniaandmostofLatvia, LutheranisminEstoniaandpart ofLatyia), andthe stronginfluenceofPoland, Germany,and Scandinavia. Thesewere,and to a large extentremain,the most advancedpartsofthe RussianEmpire/U.S.S.R.Secondly, wemay look at whatisperhapstheleastwell-definedarea,namelyEuropeanRussia (in thepre-RevolutionarysenseofRussia,i.e.includingtheUkraineandBelorussia); this area shadesof fairly indefinitelyinto the eastand south, wheremany nonRussianpeopleshad beenlargelyassimilatedin culture,thoughnot in language,to the Russians,e.g.the Komi and the Chuvash. A third areais the Caucasus(includingTranscaucasia), which, though smallin area,is an important cultural areain view ofits bridgingposition betweenEurope and Asia. Within the Caucasus,a major division must be made betweenthe predominantlyChristianpeoples(Armenians,Georgians),and the predominantly Muslim peoples(mostof the other Caucasusinhabitants),althougha few groups, e.g.theOssete,fall outsidethisclassification. Althoughlanguages ofseveraldifferent geneticfamiliesarereprcsented in the Caucasus(Turkic and lranian, in additionto Caucasian),the Islamicpeoplesof the areain particularform a cultural unity that cutsacrosslinguisticboundaries.The main centreoflslam howeveris CentralAsia,
I. Intrcduction
r8
whichasa culturalareacanbetakento includeKazakhstan, exceptfor itsnorthern perimeter, whichisessentially anextension ofthe Ural industrialbelt.Indeed,apart from Russian, Islamcanprobablybeconsidered themainsingleforcethat shaped the traditionalcultureof largepartsof the present-day U.S.S.R.,in so far as it covered thewholeofCentralAsia andalsoextended furtherafield. for instance to the Volgakhanateof Kazan',whichat onetimecontrolledmuchofSiberia.Culturally, this areadid not difler significantlylrom other feudalIslamicstates.Alrhough most oftheTurkicpeoples oftheU.S.S.R. livewithinthisCentralAsianextended cultural zone, as one moves further east one comesto a relativelysmall cultural area, inhabitedmainly by speakersof Turkic and Mongolianlanguages, wherethe predominant religious inffuence wasBuddhism, emanating from(Outer)Mongolia, andearlierstill fromTibet.Most oftheremaining rerritoryoftheU.S.S.R. formsthe sixthandlastculturalarea,Siberiaandth€Far North,extending from theLappsin the west right acrossnorthern Eurasia to include most of Siberia. to meet the traditionallyill-defined linewhereRussianinterests metthoseofChina,Japan,and the United States.The religiousbeliefsof this area were predominantlyanimist, more particularlyoften shamanist,and the economywasessentiallya subsistence economybasedon hunting and fishing. As wasmentionedabove,verylew languages ofthe RussianEmpirehadtherrown written forms,and we may profitably concludeour discussionof the sociological classification ofthe languages ofthe U.S.S.R.by considering brieflyrhosethatdid. We havealreadydiscussedthe languagesof the Baltic states,which developedas written languages relativelylate by Europeanstandards, but with considerable success, ascan be seenfrom the r897censusstatisticson literacy.Russianitself,of course,had a well-established literarytradition,eventhoughthe literacyratewas rather low. Two languagesof the Caucasus,Armenianand Georgian,had written formsgoingbackto themiddleofthefirstmillennium. althoughtheliteracyratesfor speakersoftheselanguages, especially Armenian,wereverylow. Arabicwasusedas a written languageby someIslamicpeoples,or rather by very small numbersof individuals, while for other languagesof Islamic peoplesthere existedwriting systemsbased on the Arabic alphabet: these writing systems,were, howcvcr, controlledby onlya minutefractionofthepopulation, sothatonecannotspeakofa popularliterary languagein thesecases.A somewhatsimilarpositionwasoccupied by Classical Mongolianfor someofthe Buddhistp€oples. Overmostofthe Russian Empire,however,the peoplesinhabitingthe Empirehad no writingsystem,and there are very few areasinde€dof the RussianEmpire wherewe can speakof a democratic writtenlanguage, in thesense ofa writtenlanguage available to or being madeavailableto the populationat large.
r.2 Classification of languages
r9
r.2.4 Histo cal backEround The heterogeneityof the RussianEmpire at the beginningof the twentiethcentury,which hascontinuedin somemeasureto the presentday,can be understoodby viewing it againstthe historical developmentof the present-day boundariesofthe RussianEmpire/U.S.S.R. thefrontiersofthe Empirein r9 r 7 are actuallyvery closeto thoseof the U.S.S.R.today.Around the beginningof our millennium,the EastSlavs,not yetdifferentiatedinto (Great)Russians,Ukrainians, and Belorussians, had establisheda numberofpolitical entitiesin easternEurope, themostimportant beingKiyevin thesouthandNovgorodin thenorth.Evenat this early period, there was some assimilationof non-EastSlav peoples.Toponymic evidencesuggeststhat much of what is now northern Russianwas originally inhabitedby Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes,who wereassimilatedin the pr€historic or earlyhistoricalperiodrtheearlyRussian chronicles mentionseveral Finno-Ugric tribes which no longer suryive as separateethnic entities,and the present-day assimilation ofthe Karelians, Ingrians,andMordvaby theRussians canbeviewed as a natural continuationof this process.One problemthat plaguedthe East Slav states ofthatperiod,andhascontinued to plaguetherulersofRussiaeversince, isthe absenceofany well delinednaturalboundadesto their territory: basically,frontiers aredeterminedby theabilityto hold them.TheseearlyEastSlavstatesprovedunable to hold their frontiers,largelyasa resultofinternal squabbling,with the resultthat largepa s oftheir westernterritory weretakenoverby Polandand Lithuania,whil€ more easterlyteffitoriesweretaken overby the then powerfulIslamicstat€sto th€ east,in particulartheTatar,with theircentrein Kazan':traditionally, theperiodof Tatarsuzerainty overRussiais datedfrom I24oto I48o. This position changed radically from the fifteenth century on, with the consolidation of their hold over Russiaproperby the grandduk€sof Muscovy (Moscow), who played a leadingrole in the strugglefor national independence againsttheTatar.A k€yeventin theinternalconsolidation ofpowerwasthecapture wasthecaptureofthe Tatar ofNovgorodin r478.Evenmoreimportant,however, strongholdof Kazan'in r 552by Ivan theTerrible,to be followedfour yearslaterby thecaptureoftheir otherstronghold, Astrakhan'.On theonehand,thisbrokethe back ofthe Tatar threat.Even more importantly,it effectivelyopgnedthe door to Russiancolonisationof Siberia:muchofwesternSiberiahad alsobeenundgrTatar suzerainty,so that the Russianexpansioninto northern Asia now met no r€al obstaclesuntil it camefaceto facewith the thenefete ChineseEmpire,and perhaps more significantly,at leastin the short term, with Japanand the United States.The frontierwith the United StAteswas settledin 1868,when the RussianEmpire formallycededAlaskato the U.S.A.,thus establishing the BeringStraitas the frontier.Relalionswith Japanhavebeenmorecomplex,with a seriesof military
I. Introductioa
engagements, themostdecisive beingtheRussian defeatin theRusso_Japanese War of t9o5,whenRussiacededsouthernSakhalinto Japan,andthe Russianrecaprure of this area,plus the Kuriles,after the SecondWorld War. In addition to the eastwardexpansion,Russiawas also able to undertake expansion in otherdirections. In thc Caucasus, a series of militarycampaigns and treatiesled to the incorporationof the Caucasusrange and the presenr-oay Transcaucasian republics, althoughthe borderwith Turkeyand lran wasdecided militarilyshortlyafter the Revolution.[n the westand north-west. partsof the Ukrainewereregainedfrom Polandin the seventeenth century.and aroundrToo PetertheGreat'scampaignsagainstSwedenestablishedRussiaasa majorpoweron the Baltic.The westwardexpansion reachedits greatest extentat the time of the partitionsof Poland(1772. t793. r.r'95),when large tractsof polish terrirory, includingWarsaw,wereincorporated into the Empire.Finally,expansiontook placeto thesouth-east, intoCentralAsia,althoughtheprecise relationbetween local rulersandtheTsarinSaintPetersburg remained unclear. At best,thisexpansion led to thedrawingofa linedividingRussianand British(lndian)spheres ofinfluence. Thesebrief remarksshould serveto indicate how the presentfrontie$ of the U.S.S.R.andtheassembly ofethnicgroupswhichlivewithinthesefrontiers, arein largemeasure theresultofaccidental impediments toexpansion, with theresultthat the U.S.S.R.still doesnot havea clearsetof naturalfrontiers.Evenduring the history of tbe U.S.S.R.,thesefrontiershave changedconsiderably: after rhe Revolution,the Baltic statesgainedtheir independence, and poland acquired much of the territofy which is now westernUkraine and Belorussia. The Transcaucasian states(Armenia,Azerbaydzhan,and Georgia)had brielperiodsof independence, andtheestablishment ofSovietpowerin manyofthe moreperipheral areas,suchasCentralAsia and the Far East,wasdelayedlor severalyearsafter the Revolution.The success of the U.S.S.R.in the SecondWorld War led to a considerableterritorial gain, in particular the Baltic states and Bessarabia (Moldavia) (nominally occupiedin r94o, but not effectivelyintegrateduntil rhe cessationof hostilities),and large areas with mixed polish Ukrainran or Polish-Belorussian populations, in additionto a smallpart of the formerGerman provinceofEast Prussia. The presentboundaries ofthe U.S.S.R.run verycloseto thoseof the RussianEmpirein 1905,so that in a realsenseone can speakof a continuityof the ethnicand linguisticproblemsfacedby administrations having responsibilityfor this territory,evenwherethesolutionsadoptedin thelight ofthese problemshavedifferedconsiderably.
1.3 Languagepolicy L3
2r
Languag€policy
Pre-Revolutionarypolicy In the periodbeforethe Revolution,Russianwasthe officiallanguage for almostthe wholeofthe RussianEmpire.The only areaswherea limitedamount of local autonomypermittedthe useof other languageswerethe Russianparts of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic provinces.In Finland, which had beencededto minorityoccupied a dominantpoliticaland Russiaby Sweden in r 8o9,theSwedish economicposition,and Swedishwasusedasthe officiallanguagein the nineteenth century-In the Balticprovinces,a similarpositionwasheldby German,thelanguage of the land-owners.But for most of the RussianEmpire, languagesother than Russianhad no rights whatsoever.In some instances,languageswere actively discouragedor evenforbidden,ashappenedwith UkrainianbetweenI876and I905 as part of the government'spolicy to discourageUkrainian separatism.And even the wherethe useof languages otherthan Russianwasnot activelydiscouraged, languageswere treatedwith omcial neglect:they were not admissiblefor omcial purposes,and any encouragementgiven to their use was the work of private individuals. Severalprivate individuals were interestedin theselanguages,and devisedwdtten forms lor someof them (e.g.Chuvash,Abkhaz), but thesewere privateeffortswith, usually,very limitedeffect;often,theywerelinkedto essentially missionaryactivity, suchas that of the TranslationCommissionof the Orthodox Missionary Society in Kazan', which translatedparts of the Bible into several languagesof non-Orthodox peoples.For some of the languageswith a literary tradition, suchas Armenian,Georgian,the Turkic languagesofCentral Asia, and continuedin use,but by only a Tadzhik(Persian),the traditionalwritten languages minute fraction of the population,usuallyin connectionwith religiouseducation. The trcatmentof the non-Russianpeoplesofthe RussianEmpire wassimilar to that of their Ianguag€s, or in a few casesevenworse,as with the Jews.Ukralnrans wereencouragedto think of themselves as a subdivisionof the Russians,whence their name'Little Russians'during the Tsaristperiod,as opposedto the'Great (Russians proper).Ifany memberofoneofthenon-Russian ethnicgroups Russians' wanted to advancehimself, then efectively the only way to do this was by of this having assimilating to the Russianpopulation.Thoughthereareexamples beenaccomplishedsuccessfully for instance,many Muslim noblesconvertedto Orthodoxy after the fall of Kazan' and took on important positionsin the Tsarist administration therewas no explicit plan envisagedor executedto enablenonRussiansto learnRussianand assimilate.and ofcourseno possibilitywasprovided To theextent lor themto developwithintheirown culture,in theirown language. population was assimilating to the Russian that therewasilny choice,it between r3.r
L lnuoduction and this could only be done by one's own efforts,since there was no widespread educational programme of instruction in Russian lor non-Russians,etc. or remaining within one's own ethnic community and stagnating for lack of opportunity. r3.2
Soviet policy
The policy of the Bolshevik party and of the Soviet governme)rtwas radicallydifferentfrom this,both in conceptionand in execution.Part ofthe general new social policy was a commitment to the equality of all peoples and of all languages,and the drafting ofguidelinesto implementthis principle was one ofthe tasks occupying much ol the time of Lenin and his associatesbefore and .rfter the October Revolution. In terms ofethnic relations.the new programme declaredthe equalityotallthe peoplesofthe new state,and one ofthe most obviousaspectsofthis declarationwasits linguisticside.First,the new statewasto haveno omcial language. and this stillremainstrue dejure for the U.S.S.R.and its constituentparts:Russlanrs not tte or one of the official languages,nor are any of the languagesof Union Republicsor lower levelsofautonomy. Secondly,everyonewas to have the right to use his own language,both in private and for public matters, such as addressrng meetings, correspondencewith officials. giving testimony in courts. Thirdly, everyonewas to have the right to educationand availabilityofcultural materialsin hisownlanguage.Asoftenwithan idealisticpolicy statementofthis kind. therewere immensepracticaldifhcultiesin implementingthis goal, Ieadingin certaininstances to paftial abandonmentofthe goal,and it is with the successes and partial failuresof this policy that the following discussionwill be concerned. One ofthe main practicalproblemsfacingth(-new regimewasthe needto unify the country, so that all of its peoples would feel part ol the new development. contributing to it and drawing benefitfrom it. Obviously,one requirementdrctated by this, especiallyin view of the extremecentralisationof the Soviet state.is the existenceof a common languageto facilitatecommunication among men1bersof differentethnic groups,and the obvious choice for this languagewas Russian,for reasonswe shall discussin more detail in section r.4. Sincelew of the Ianguagesof the new Soviet state had written forms, or at least written forms controlledby any but a tiny minority ofthose speakingthe languagc, one ofthe first prioritieswas the creationofa writing systemand the developmentof literacy programmes. [n some instances,even further preparatory work was required,becausesomeofthe languages,in particular languagesofthe Far North, had not evenbeenanalysedlinguisticallyto an extentsumcientto make possiblethe creation of a serviceableorthography. For those languageswhich already had wntlngsystems,attemptsweremade,and in most insta cescarriedthrough.to make
r.3 Languagepolicy
23
to the massof the the writing systemeasierto learn, and thus more accessible population.Even Russianorthographywas simplifiedslightlyin I9I8, by the distinctions thathadnophon€lic removalfromthealphab€t ofcertainorthographic counterpart(Comrie and Stone r978: 2oo-2o).A few of the orthographiesof the country,suchasArmenianand Georgian,and alsosomeofthosecreatedduring the werephonemicor closeto phonemic, and thus nineteenth century(e.g.Chuvash), problems those thatcaused most were requiredno modification.Ihe writing systems of the U.S.S.R.,whichusedtheArabicalphabet,in general of the tslamicpeoples poofly adaptedto indicatethe rangeofphonemicdifferences that are found in such (with a largenumberofvowel qualitydistinctions),or languages asTurkic languages (with maDyconsorIantandvoweldistinctionsthat North-EastCaucasianlanguages arenot found in Arabic).lThenrstattemptherewasto devisea simplifiedform ofthe Arabic script. However, this idea was soon abandoned,and it was decidedto introduce writing systemsbasedon the Latin alphabetfor all languagesof the (i.e., writingsystems U.S.S.R.otherthanthosewith othertraditionalalphabetical the East Slavoniclanguages, Armenian,Georgian,and a very few effectively, otners). given might,at lirstsight,seemrathersurprising. ThechoiceoftheLatinalphabet aswellaslargeminoritiessuchas that themajorityofthe population,theRussians, usetheCyrillicalphabet. Oneofthe mainreasons theUkrainiansandBelorussians, givenfor th€ choiceof the Latin alphabetat this periodwas the needto avoid the of impression,especiallyamongtraditionallyIslamicpeoples,that the replacement was part of a policy of their traditionalscript,with its religiousconnotations, The Latin alphabetwas thus a linguistic,cultural.and religiousRussilication. compromiseneutralbetweenthe conflictsofthe Arabic and Cyrillic scripts.At this time,therewasalsosometalk ofconvertingRussianto theLatin alphabet,sothiscan theLatinalphabetfor alllanguages ofthe alsobeseenaspartofa planto generalise in U.S.S.R., althoughno planto replaceCyrillicby Latin for Russianhasever fact madeany headway. years,writingsystems weredevised, eithgr Duringtheearlypost-Revolutionary anewor by modificationand Latinisationof existingscripts,for overhalf of the languages of the U.S.S.R.,includingall of thosewith substantialnumbersof speakers.Written forms were also createdfor severallanguageswith very small Karelian,Vepsand Lapp. numbersofspeakers, suchastheFinno-Ugriclanguages However,as will be indicatedbelow,many of the writing systemsdevisedfor very smallpopulationgroupshadonlya veryshortlife,andin at leastonecase,Itelmen, neverput intopracticaluse.Manylanguages withsmallnumbers of wereapparently however,received writingsystems duringthe I92osand earlyI93osand speakers. in modifiedfonn,to thepresent day,for instance haveret|inedtheirwritinSsystems,
r. Introduction
24
Nanay.Nivkh, Koryak,and Chukchiin the Far East,and Khanty and Mansiin western Siberia. Thedevelopment andimplementation ofthesewritingsystems, cven whereflawscanbedetected in thedetails ofindividualwritingsystems, mustbeseen asoneofthe most impressiveachievements ofSovietlanguagepolicy,giventhat this policywasnotdictatedby short-term economic or politicalgain.Onlyin veryrecent yearshaveothercountries with similarmultilingualproblemsstartedattempting to implementsimilarpolicies. Oneofthe problemsfacingthedevelopment ofwriting systems in manypartsof theU.S.S.R. wasthefactthatmanyofthelanguages aresovarieddialectally; indeed, as was notedin sectionr.r, it is oftendimcultto dmw the dividingline between diflerent dialectsof the samelanguageand different languages.In general,this dividinglineis drawnin the U.S.S.R., oftenby criteriaofmutualinteuigibility, but alsotakinginto accountsocialandpoliticalfactors.Oncethedivisioninto distinct languages iseffected,theproblemremainsofdecidingon theparticulardialectthat is to serveas the basisfor the standardlanguage,in the first instancefor the wdtten language.In a very few cases,this may alreadybe decidedin that one dialect has alreadyachievedrecognitionasthedialectparexcellence lor communicationamong speakersofdifferentdialects(e.g.the KhunzakhdialectofAvar) but for most ofthe languages oftheU.S.S.R.thatrequirednewwritingsystems thiswasnot thecasc,so that this particularsociologicalcriterion could not be used.ln the absenceof this criterion,thedecisionis to someextentarbitrary.andthekindsofcriterionusedwere of the following types. First,it is preferableto choosea dialectspokenby a largenumberofpeoplerather than onespokenby only a few:thustheOssetewritten languagcis basedon the Iron dialectratherthanon theDigordialect,whichlatteris spokenby onlya mino ty of Ossete.Secondly,the dialectshould be one that is maximally comprehensible to speakers ofotherdialects,whichusuallymeansselectingadialectfrom thecentreofa languagearea ratherthan from theperiphery.This may.however,meanthat thenew written languageis unsuitablefor useby speakersofsome peripheraldialects,ifthe levelof mutualintelligibilityis low: this wasfound,for instance, with the Dolgan dialectofYakut (assumingthat Dolganis a dialect,ratherthana separatelanguage), which is so differ€ntfrom the main body ofYakut dialectsthat standardyakut is understood only with difficultyby the Dolgan.In someinstances the problemof dialect base for the standard languagecould not be solved becauseof dialect disparity, and severalwritten languageswere developedfor differentdialects:an extremecaseof this is Khanty, whereup to five ditrerentdialectshavebeenusedin publication;probablytheonly reasonforconsideringKhanty a singlelanguageis the sense ofethnicunityamongits speakers. Finally,in certaininstances thestandard waschosen on thebasisthatonedialect,to bethestandard, ismoreeasily acquired by
IJ Languagepolicy
25
speakersof anotberthan viceversa.This last criterion is why standardAbkhaz is basedon the Abzhuy dialect,which has a somewhatpoorer consonantalsystem than the Bzypdialect,whichwasusedto a limitedextentbeforethe Revolution:it is easier for Bzyp speakersto learn not to make certain phonemic consonantal contraststhan for Abzhuy speakersto acquirethem. Whena languagehas beengivenawritten standard andisusedinpublication, that varietyof the language is called,in the U.S.S.R.,the literarylanguage, and the languageas a whole is said to haveattainedthe statusof a literary language.The former useis closeto the more usualwestemterm 'standardlanguage',the latter to 'written language'.The term'literary language'(Russian:literaturnyjjazyk) does not imply any restrictionto artisticliterature(belleslettres),norimply anycomment on the literary valueof works composedin the literary language. Thesecriteria for establishingthe dialect baseof the literary languageare not watertight,and in certaininstancescanconflict:partly asa resultofthis therehave beeninstanceswherethedialectbaseofa languagehasbeenshiltedduring its brief historyasa writtenlanguage ofthe U.S.S.R. Perhaps theclearest caseofthisisin the developmentolwritten Uzbek.The first post-Revolutionarystandardwasbasedon (thetownisactually thedialectofTurkestan, in thenorthoftheUzbekspeakingarea administratively in Kazakhstan); unlikemanyotherdialects ofUzbek,in particular that of the capitalTashkent,this dialecthas undergone relativelylittle Iranian influence.Subsequently,however,it was decidedto shift the baseof the written language to that ofTashkent,asthemainpopulationcentreofUzbekistan,i.e.by applyingthe cfiterionof numberof sp€akers of eachdialect.Curreotstandard Uzbek is thus basedlargely(thoughwith somemodifications) on the dialectof Tashkent,and dillers considerablyfrom the earlierstandard.Of the many other languages whichhaveundergone similarshifts, wemaymentionBelorussian, which lunderwenta numberofchangesin the reform of t957. While the reasonsfor these changesare often to servebettera greaternumberof speakersof the languagein question,theyinevitablyhinderthe developmentofwritten languages and caneven lead, especiallyin conjunction with changesin alphabet (see section r.4), to generationgaps,whereolderand youngerpeopleare unableto write to oneanother in theirown Ianguage. For somelanguages spokenby smallpopulationgroups,written languages were not created.so that speakersof theselanguageshave beendependent,for their educationand other reading,on someother language.ln most instances, this phenomenon simplycontinues a traditionalsituationwherespeakers of oneof the smallerlanguagesuseda Ianguagewith morespeakers astheir secondlanguage,for all communication outsidetheir own narrowcircle.For example,many of the pcoplcs smallerCaucasian useoneofthe largerlanguagesin manyinstances, Avar
L lntroduction
26
- astheirIinguafrancaandastheirfiIstmediumofliteracy.In thepamirregion of Tadzhikistan, Tadzhikplaysa similarrole.ln thesecases,it is Drobabte that the failureto createa writtenlanguage actuallyresponded to thedesireofthespeakers of thelanguage in question: theywereaccustomed to usinga differentIanguage for all but their most privateand local transactions. and felt it naturalthat this orner language shouldplaythemajorrolein theirnewawareness of theworldofliteracy. Especiallyfrom the rg3osonward,however,therewas a certainamount of relrenchment in the development and maintenance of literacyprogrammesin variouslanguages, with the discontinuation of publicationin certainlanguages havinga smallnumberof speakers, or restrictionof the rangeof socialfunctions exercised by certainlanguages. Fourexamples of thisarethediscontin uationof the Finno-Ugriclanguages Ingrian,Karelian,Veps,and Lapp as writtenIanguages within the U.S.S.R.(Lapp is usedasa writtenlanguage in Finland,Norway.and Sweden,thoughtheextentofdialectdilferences is sumcientto makeSovietmaterials unusablein thesecountriesand vice versa)_Written Veps existedfrom r93z ro I936/7.At thistimetherewerearound34-35,ooo Veps.Theirnumbersincethenhas declined dramatically, mainlyasa resultof assimilation to thesurrounding Russiau population: in r 959theynumberedr 6,374,in r 970only 8,28r, ol$hom only34.3,2, spokeVepsastheirnativelanguage.Schoolingin Vepswasintroducedin r932.along withtheprintingofrhefirstVepsbook,butwasdisconrinued at thebeginningof r 93g (Mullonenr967).Lappsio the U.S.S.R.numberr,884,with a language retention ratein I970of 56.2,ri,. ThefirstSovietLappprimerwaspublished in 1933; schooling in Lapp wasdiscontinued in r937(Kert 1967).Ingrianalsoexistedas a written languagelrom r933to r 937,duringwhichtimesometwenty-fivedifferenttitleswere published in Ingrian(Selickaja r969);in r970.only 2o8ofthe 781erhnicIngrians dgclaredIngrianas theirnativel?rnguage. In all theseinstances, and in similarinstances in otherpartsof the U.S.S.R.rhe reasonsgivenfor the cessationof written languagesare that the written languages werenot viablebecause ofthe smallnumberofspeakersand becausethe peoplein questionwerefor the most part bilingualin one of the largerlanguages of the U.S.S.R.andpreferred to usethisastheirwrittenlanguage. As alwayswith oflicial Sovietstatements aboutthedesires ofpopulationgroups,it is impossible to testthe reliability of theseclaims,but in many instancesthey seemnot unreasonable. Whateverthe actual desiresof smallerethnic groups and speakersof smaller languages, it isclearthatoflicialSoviet policyisto encourage theirconsolidation with largergroups,sothat in thenearfulurethe U.S.S.R.will containfewer,but larger, ethnicgroups andoperate withfewerlanguages. especially writtenlanguages. Thisis statedexplicitly,for instance, by lsaev( r977:2oo-r), an authorwho mirrorsvery closelyomcialthinkingon language policy:'Themothertongues ofthe smallethnic
1.3 Language policy groups and communitiescontinue to function as a meansof communicationin everydaylife. ln casesof this typebilingualism shouldbe vrewedasa transitional stageto monolingualism whichwill bereached by thesmallethnicgroupswhentheir assimilation into thecorresponding nationsis complete.' In addition to phasingout languageswith a smallnumberofspeakers,therewas one period in Soviet history when certain written languageswere forcibly discouraged:as discussedon p. 30, at the beginningof the SecondWorld War, certaingthnicgroupswgreaccused ofcollaboration withtheenemy,andin addition to being deported they had their written languagesbanned.Subsequently,the written languageswere reinstated,with the apparentlycontinued exceptionof CrimeanTatar. Wemaynowturn to thesocialfunctions ofvariouslanguages withinthcU.S.S.R., in particularcontrasting their presentstatuswith that outlinedabovefor Tsarist times.At one end of the scale,we have languagesthat are spokenby very small populationgroups,that haveno written form, and are normallyspokenby peopre who are bilingualin one of the largerlanguages, suchas Aleut and Khinalug. Secondly,therearelanguages that havea writtenform and areusedto a verylimited extentin publication, butarcnot usedasmediaofeducation. In manyinstances, rnls mustbeviewedasa transitionalstagein thephasingout ofa written language, since clearlya w ttenlanguage willsooncease to haveanaudience ifits speakers arenot taughthow to readit. OnesuchIanguage is Yiddishin theU.S.S.R.Otherexamples areKoryak (Koryakwasusedin education into the r95os,but thendiscontinued), andKurdish.In someinstances, evenwherea language isdiscontinued asa medium ofeducation,it is still taughtasa schoolsubjectto its speakers:this is the casewith Kurdishin Armenia. The third classin thisfunctionalclassification is wherea language is usedquite extensively in publication(for instance, children's books,basicpoliticalliterature, oftenalsonewspapers, shortstories,evennovels),and is alsousedasthemediumof instructionin the 6rst fewgradesofschool,after whichinstructionshiftsto another language(though the nativelanguagemay still be taught as a schoolsubject):an exampleis Chukchi.Fourthly,therearelanguages whichareusedin a widerangeof publications,includingsometechnicalsubjects,and are usedasmediaofeducation throughout the schoolsystem(though often not in further education):inro this groupfallmostoftheIanguages of A.S.S.R.s, suchasAbkhaz.Tatar,Komi.Fifthly, therearelanguages which.in additionto havingtheabovefunctions, arealsousedas educational mediain universities (oftenalongside Russian), andareeffectivery usc<.r as co-governmenl languages with Russianin the internaladministration of the corresponding administrative area:theseare the languages of the fourteenUnion Republics otherthnnthe R.S.F.S.R. Finally.only Russianin the U.S.S.R.hasrne
L lnlrcducdon
z8
additional function ofbeing the lingua franca between speakersofa sizeablenumber ofdifferent languages, and of being used in relations with countries other than the U,S.S.R.
1.3 Language policy
29
programmes, writtenlanguages and educational whereas in theU.S.S.R.practrcal considerations, coupiedperhapswith relatively weakdesirefor a writtenlanguage on the part of nativespeakers, havemilitatedagainstthisdevelopment.
The basic feature ofthe Soviet educational system in relation to language policy is thatparents have the choice, whercver educational systemsin different languagesare provided, of sending their children either to a school where the basic Ianguage of instruction is the native language,or to one where this languageis Russian.In addition to the languagesofthe U.S.S.R.(exceptthosewith very small numbersof speakers), this same choice is also offered for ce ain other languages which are spoken by large population groups in the U.S.S.R., e.g. German (especiallyin Kazakhstan) and Polish (in Lithuania). As will be shown in section r.4, in schools whereRussianis not themedium ofinstruction itis in effectacompulsorysubject.In Russian-mediumschoolsoutsidethe R.S.F.S.R.and in autonomousadministrative areaswithin the R.S.F.S.R., the local language is often available as a school subject for speakers of that language, and in some Union Republics at least the local language is available as a school subject for speakersofother languages, including Russian.It must be noted,however,that bilingualismamong ethnic Russiansis very low in the U.S.S.R.:on average,2L5% ofthe population ofthe U.S.S.R.is bilingual; for non-Russiansthe figure is 4:.6%, for Russiansonly 3.I7o. To sum up the discussionof this section,one can observethat the U.S.S.R.has expended considerable time and emort on the development ofthe languagesspoken within its frontiers, on the provision and development ofliteracy in theselanguages, ard on the provision of educational and other cultural facilities in a wide range of theselanguages. Oneoutwardsign ofthis is the rapid risein the literacyrate:whereas only 28.4%,ofthe populationofthe RussianEmpire betweenthe agesof9 and 49 was able to read in r897, this figure advanced as follows in succeedingcensusesr44.I % ( r92o),56.6%( r926),8j.4% (t%9),98.5% ( r959),99.7%(r97o);this figureincludes numerouspeoplewho are literalein their own languageandnotin Russian.Practical concerns have seena certain amount of retrenchment in this policy with respect to languageswith small numbersof speakers,and the generalline ofcurrent policy is probably to be seenas consolidation ofthe most viable written languages,certainly with no resuscitationolwritten languagesthat have beenabandonedor creationof new written lalguages. In comparison with almost any other country, until very recent times, the language policy ol the U.S.S.R. has been one of the most enlightened- Only in very recent years have other multilingual countries, such as Grcat Britain, the United States,or Australia, made any signifrcantstepstowards even halfheartedprogrammesof bilingual education comparableto those of the U.S.S.R. However, the development of some of these programmes outside the U.S.S.R.does sometimesmean that even very small communitiesare being gi'ven
r3 3 Autonomousadninistrativeunits As the linal part ofthe discussion olethnic relationsamongthenonRussianpeoples of theU.S.S.R., beforeturningto theinfluence ofRussianon their languages, brief consideration may be givento the way in which the ethnicand linguisticcompositionof the U.S.S.R.is mirroredin its interlal administrative divisions. Althoughthedetailsofthecomposition oftheU.S.S.R.in a politicalsense have varied considerably,the basic principle has remainedthe same sinc€ the creationofthe U.S.S.R.in r922.Thepresent systemis laiddownin theconstitution of r 977,thoughin therelevantresp€cts thisdiflersbut littlefrom theconstitution of I936,whichhasgoverned the U.S.S.R.for mostof its history. The U-S.S.R.is in principlea federalstate, consisting at presentoffifteenUnion (Soviet Republics Socialist Republics, abbreviated TheU.S.S.R.wasin fact S.S.R.). formedas a federalstatein rgzz, by the f€derationof the RussianFederation (RussianSoviet FederatedSocialistRepublic,abbreviatedR.S.F.S.R.),the (Armenia,Azerbaydzhan, Ukraine,Belorussia. andtheTranscaucasian Federation arldGeorgia).With theestablishment of Sovietpowerin CentralAsia,Turkmenra andUzbekistan wereaddedto thelistofUnion Republics. DuringthelateI92osand earlyI93oscertainterritories wereadvanced in statusto UnionRepublics to givethe republicsof Armenia, Azerbaydzhan,Georgia, Kazakhstan,Kirgizia, and Tadzhikistan.Finally,territorialexpansionin r94o introducedEstonia,Latvia, Lithuania,and Moldavia.As indicatedabove.the R.S.F.S.R.is itselfin namea federalrepublic,althoughin practiceits administration is not,federalinstructure. Thenextlowestlevelofautonomyisprovidedby theAutonomousSovietSocialist Republics(A.S.S.R.s), of which there are sixteenin the R.S.F.S.R.,one rn Azerbaydzhan, two in Ceorgia,andonein Uzbekistan. NextcometheAutonomous Regions(A.O.s. R:ussian'. avtonomnyeob,/asli)(five in the R.S.F.S.R.,oneeachin Azerbaydzhan, Georgia,andTadzhikistan), andfinallytheNationalAreas(N.O.s, Russian: nacronal'nye okruga) (ten,allin theR.S.F.S. R.).In general, eachsuchunit is namedafter the ethnicgroup for which it wascreated,sometimeswith additional nomenclature wherethereis morethanoneunits€rvingthesameethnicgroup.The followingexceptions to this principleshouldbe notedrthe DagestanA.S.S.R.is namedafterits geographical area(Dagestan), in viewofthe multiplicityofpeoples wholivethere,themostnumerous beingtheAvar,Lezgi,Dargva,Kumyk,andLak; the NakhichevanA.S.S.R.is apparentlynot an ethnic unit at all, sincethe overwhelming majorityof its populationis Azerbaydzhan, but it is geographically
I. Introduction
t.4 The influence of Russian
3o
separatedftom the mass of Azerbaydzhanl although the Adzhar are a distinct
autonomy would be consideredvery small indeed by studentsof federalsystems
subgroupethnicallywithin the Georgianpeopleoverall,they are not now considered
elsewherein the world, and sinceeach of theseunits has a Soviet governmenrit is
a scparateethnic group. but still have their own Adzhar A.S.S.R.;the MountainKarabakh A.O. in Azelbaydzhan has a majority of Armenian population, and is
unlikely that this governmentwould want to advocatesecedingfrom the overall
thus probably to be regardedas an Armenian ethnic group unit; the main native
the right to secede). However.thissystemdoesprovidean administrativeframework
groups within the Mountain-Badakhshan A.O. of Tadzhikistan are the various
for the realisationolcultural and linguistic .rutonomy,in that the languageofan
Pamirpeoples.but olicially they are not consideredseparatein ethnicstatusftom the
autonomous unit has greater de lacto use in that autonomous unit. ln the caseof
Tadzhiks.
severallanguagesofthe U.S-S.R.,this hasmeantan immenseincreasein the rangeof
protectionofthe Sovietsystem(althoughthe Union Republicsdo, in principle,have
The basiccritefia lbr the establishmentofan autonomousadministrativeunit are
their functions, for instancethe use of Union Republic languagesthroughout the
that the peoplein questionshould be a substantialproportion of the population of
educationalsystemand at all leveisof governmentand administration within the
the area. and that they should be sumciently compact to make creation of a
Union Republic.Thus the administrativedivision of the U.S.S.R. is an important
geographically delined autonomous unit feasible: the criteria are applied with
reflectionof the cultural and linguisticdistinctiveness of its peoples.
greaterstringencythe higherthe levelofautonomy. ln eachofthe Union Republics, the ethnic group after which the republic is named forms a majority, except in
I.4
The influenceof Russian
Kirgizia, where the Kirgiz are. however, the largest singl€ ethnic group, and
In this section.two aspectsofthe interactionofRussian and the other
Kazakhstan.wherethe Kazakhs are actuallyoutnumberedby the Russians:this is
languag€softhe U.S.S.R.will be considered:first, the influenceofRussian on those
lilrgelybecausenorthern Kazakhstanis an extensionofthe Ural industrialbelt,with
languagesasindividual languages;secondly,the extentto which Russianis replacing
overwhelming Russian population. At lower levels of autonomy the percentages may be much smaller.Ethnic groupswhich havelargepopulationsin the U.S.S.R.in
theselanguagesin someoftheir functions.It shouldalsobe noted that thereis hardly
absolute terms but do not have their own Union Republic are those which are scattered across large areas, interspersed with other ethnic groups. Thus the Tatar, who rank fifth in number of population, have only an A.S.S.R.
any influence of other languagesof the U.S.S.R. on Russian, except ln the pronunciationofRussianby membersofother ethnicgroups.One hasto searchvery hard to find even lexical items borrowed into Russian from other languagesof the U.S.S.R. in recent times: the example usually cited is the loan from Georgian,
In certain instances,the degreeof autonomy may seemarbitrary, as with the
tamada, rcfetring to the toast-master at a banquet. Most other loans are concerned
JewishA.O.. which is Dot a traditionalareaofJewishsettlementand whereJewsform
with realia specific to the area where they were borrowed, e.g. samoslUnJj 'independent, separatist' from Ukrainian is used particularly with referenceto the
only a small rninority of the population, or the Karelo-Finnish S.S.R.,where the population was overwhelmingly Russian, and which was absorbed into the
Ukraine, and aryk'irtigation
R.S.F.S.R.in r956.Over the history ofthe U.S.S.R.therehavealsobeensubstantial changesin the degreeofautonon]y ofcertain units. Perhapsthe most noticeablesuch
Turkic languages of Central Asia, .efers to something specifically Central Asian (Comrie and Stone r978: r57 8).
change,and also one of the blackestspots in the history of ethnic relationsin the U.S.S.R.,was the abolition of severalautonomous units at the beginningof the
the new Sovietstate,especiallyin view ofthe degreeofcentralisationimplied by the
ditch', a nineteenth-century loqn from one of the
As we noted above, in order to carry out the practical programme ofmodernising
colLaboration with the Nazis: the units afiected were the Crimea, the Volga-German
policies of the new government, it was necessaryto have a working language that would be common to all the peoplesof the U.S.S.R.,even if this was not to be
A.S.S.R., the Chechen-IngushA.S.S.R., the Kabard-Balkar A.S.S.R., and the
declared the deJr'ureofficial language.This choice inevitably fellon Russian: Russian
Kalmyk A.S.S.R.The populationsofthese areaswere transportedinto Siberiaand
was the native language of the majority of Soviet citizens (indeed of a greater percentagethen than now, given the subsequentinclusion oftefiitories populated by
Second World War, when their inhabitants were accusedof actual or potential
Kazakhstan,with considerablelossoflife. Only in I957 weremost ofthem allowedto written languagesrevived. The Crimean Tatars and Volga Germans, though
non-Russians,and the low birth-rate of the Russian population relative to the Central Asian and Caucasianpeoples);Russianhad already assimilatedmuch of
olficially rehabilitated,have not beenallowed to return.
westerntechnologyand culture, and so did not have the problem, facedby many
return to their homes. the corresponding autonomous units re€stablished,and the
The degreeof political independencethat is affordedby thesevarious degreesof
other languagesof the U.S.S.R.,of first coming to terms with thesephenomena;
r. Introduction
finally, Russianhad already,partly by forceand partly by choice,becomethe lingua francaof most parts of the RussianEmpire,and no other languagccamenear to thiscriterion. satisfying Thus one of the main educationalaimsof the Sovietgovernment,alongsidethe wasthe developmentofa soundcommandofRussian: fosteringoflocal languages, eventhoughtherewasno explicitattemptto replacelocal languagesby Russian,it shouldbecomebilingualin their local wasenvisagedat the leastthat non-Russians of language,for localaffairs,andin Russianforcommunicationwith representatives other ethnic groups.With very few exceptions,th€re was and is no widespread ofthe U.S.S.R.otherthan betweena locallanguage bilingualismbetweenlanguages and Russian.The implementationof this policy was the effectiveintroduction of Russianas a compulsorysubjectin all schools.Official policy views this as the to masterRussianasthe implementation ofthe wishesofthe populationconcerned key to a full life asa Sovietcitizen,althoughit is impossibleto checkthe validity of this claimin generalor in individualcases.Despitethe lengthof timc that this policy populatlon hasbeenin effect, it is stillth€casethatin I97ooverhalfth€non-Russian itselfnot to be fluentin Russian,and oftenfluencyin of the U.S.S.R.considered Russiancomesnot from the educationalsystem,but rather from contact with Russiansin areaswhere there is a large Russianpopulation. The problem of spreadingknowledgeof Russianis still a major priority of the Sovieteducational system. When one turns to the influenceof Russianon individual languagesof the suchinfluenceis the lact that nearlyall U.S.S.R..no doubt the most superficial the essentially in its Russianform, languages ofthe U.S.S.R.use Cyrillicalphabet, though sometimeswith diacriticsor speciallettersto indicatesoundsthat do not not to use the Cy llic alphabetare the occur in Russian.The only languages languagesof th; Baltic republics (Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian) with their traditional Latin-basedorthographies,Armenian and Georgian with their own alphabets,and Yiddish,whichcontinuesto be written in the Hebrewalphabet.The a major shift in Sovietlanguagepolicy which useofthe Cyrillic alphabetreprcsents wasconceivedand for themostpart carriedout during the I93os.Previously,nearly alllanguagesofthe U.S.S.R.hadusedtheLatin alphab€t.However,certainpractical problemshad arisenwith literacy projects,especiallywherestudents including andRussian: acquiring adults werebeingtaughtliteracyin boththelocallanguage literacy was a big problem in itself, made only worseby the needto acquiretwo giventhat manylettersofthe two alphabetsaresimilar differentalphabets,especially in form but havedifferentphoneticvalues(e.g.the Cyrillic lettercis pronounced[s], p is prorrounced[r], o is pronounced[v]). In addition to this educationalreason, therewasprobablyalsoa more politicalreason:at this time, the U.S.S.R.was
r.4 The inlluenceof Russian
t3
becomingincreasingly inwardlooking,with the realisation that world revotunon wasnot imminentand thatthe U.S.S.Rwouldfor a longtimebevirtuallythesole Soviet-style state,surrounded by hostilepoliticalsystems. Thisledto a consolidation ol-internal unity,anddemarcation fromoutsideforces, bothofwhichfunctions were servedby the Cyrillicalphabet.At the time,somelinguisticarguments werealso advocated. in particularthat theCyrillicalphabethasmorelettersthan the Latin lphabetandislherefore bettersuited to representing languages withalargenumber ol'phonemes. However, thespecialCyrillic lettersusedto represent eithera sequence ofj plusvowelor a vowelaftera palatalised consonant arerarelyneeded(though oftenused)in otherlanguages of the U.S.S.R..and somedistinctions that can be madewith the Latinalphabetarenot possible with theCyrillicalphabetexceptby usingdiacritics(e.g.klq, xlh. vltv). Manyofthe adaptations of theCyrillicalphabetto otherlanguages of theSoviet Union are essentially arbitrary.so that one often finds the samesound being representedin dillerenl ways in differentlanguages, e.g. lront roundedvowelsby meiLnsof a diaeresis,by means of postposedo, or by modification of the typographical symbolsfor back roundedvowels;conversely, the samesymbolis oftenusedfordillerent purposesin dillerentlanguages, aswhen rr represents [k] in Abaza but [tl ] in Avar. Someof the idiosyncrasies of Russianorthographyare usuallyIakenoverinto the orthographyof the locallanguage, e.g.the useof the speciallettersr Ija], e [je], d Ijo], ro [ju] to represent sequences ofj and a vowel; sinceRussiandoesnot havethesequence Iji], thereis no specialRussianletterfor this,andthelettersequence fiumustbeused.Thedisadvantage ofthiscanbeseenin Chukchiorthography,especially sinceChukchihasalternationbetweeni and e: the stemoftheword'language'is,7il-, cf.nominative pluralJ;7-rt; byvowelharmony, this can becomeyel-, asin the allativesingular-/e1-ete; in Cy llic thesetwo formscome out looking quite different:iu,rur and eneru.The problemsofadapting Cyrillic to other languageshavebeenfelt by usersof thesespellingsystems,and someof the languages ofthe U.S.S.R.haveundergone intermittent spellingreformsdesigned to iron out someof the worstproblems.Unfortunately, the eflectof suchfrequent relbrmsis often to confusepeople,asnonspecialists rarelykeeptrack ofchangesin the spelling rules of their language.An extremeexampleof orthographic and alphabetchanges is providedby Abkhaz,whichhada Cyrillic-based orthography belbfethe Revolution,thenswitchedto the Latin alphabet,thento the Georgian alphabet(theAbkhazA.S.S.R.is part ofGeorgia),thenbackagainto a modified Cyrillic(with severallettersthat are nor found in any other Cyrillicor modified Cyrillicalphabel). Thesecond mostobviousinstance ofRussianinfluence isin vocabulary, especially technicul vocabultry.At thetimc ofthe Revolution, fewlanguages ofthe U.S.S.R.
L lntroductiotr
34
werein the positionofhavingassimilated westerntechnology andcultureand tbe part of the vocabulary to the same extent as Russian, ther€fore corresponding problemofdeveloping theseotherlanguages wasto providethemwith therequisite vocabulary. Thereweretwo possible solutionsto thisproblem:one,to createnew lexicalitemsfrom the language'sown stockofmorphemes,the other to borrow the wordsfromsomeotherlanguage, i.e.from Russian.In theearlypostcorresponding years,manylanguages Revolutionary indulgedextensively in creationofnewwords from their own resources.To this period belong such Chukchi neologismsas kaletkoran 'school'(literally 'houseof writing') and i4ene4 'aeroplane'(literally 'flying-thing'). As part of the internalconsolidation of the U.S.S.R.,however,this placed policy wassoon discouraged,and emphasis on borrowing from Russianas themainsourceofnew terms.Thepolicyisbasically thatsuchwords shouldbetaken into the local languagein their Russianorthographicform (even,in general,where this conflictswith the orthographicnormsof the Iocallanguage), and shouldbe pronouncedin the Russianway,orat leastasclosetherctoasis possiblefor speakers ofthelanguage in question. In thisway,manyphoneticfeatures ofRussianfindtheir way into otherlanguages, suchaspalatalisedconsonants, alld freestrcss,thoughfor the most part they remainrestrictedto theseloanwords.Especiallyfor languages whichhadpreviously hadminimalcontactwith western technology andculture,the massofsuchloanswasverygreatindeed, sothatoftenin lookingata pageofmodern givento the it dealswithtraditionallife,theimpression Chukchi,forinstalce,unless readeris ofbasicallyRussianvocabularywith a few strangewordsand a numberof strangeinflectionalamxes. of the U.S.S.R.is translatedfrom Sincemuch of the literaturein languages Russian,therehasalsobeenRussianinfluence on the syntaxof many languages, Herewe especiaLly thosewhosebasicsyntactic structure differsmostfrom Russian. particular in languages where the basic means expressing may mention those of isnotby meansofsuboldinatingconjunctions, but ratherbymeansof subordination (gerunds), (participles) verbaladjectives specialverbal forms,usuallyverbaladverbs (nominalisations). As willbeseenin laterchapters, this orcase-forms ofverbalnouns languages, is particularly characteristic of Altaic languages, North Caucasian and the more easterlyUralic languages. Under Russianirfluence,subordinating In constructions havecometo playa muchmoreimportantrolein suchlanguages. mostinstances it isnot a caseofactuallyborrowingaconjunction from Russian in its Russian fonn,butratherofcalquinga conjunction in thelanguage in question on the basisof the morphemestructureol the Russianconjunction,as with Adyge seda pb,.re'because'.Sometimes even the Russianform is borrowed,as with the conjunctiona 'and,but'. in Tuva: coordinating
1.4 The infruenceof Russian (I)
35
-zi odaar oon logum ad -i sendi,a lola he-GENreal name3SGSendibut nickname3SGOdaar 'his realnameis Sendi,and hisnicknameOdaar'
(Thisexampleis citedby Mongusand Sat(r969:2oo).) Finally,wemay turn to theextentto whichvariouslanguages ofthe U.S.S.R. are recedingin the faceof Russian.At theoneextreme,wehavealreadynotedthat there are certainareasof the U.S.S.R.wherethe assimilation of non-Russians to the Russianethnicgroup has beengoingon for a considerable period,the present situationbeingjustthelastphaseofthatprocess: thisis truewithmanyofthesmaller Finno-Ugricpeoples, suchas the Ingrians,Veps,and Vot, thoughalsowith some largergroups,sucl astheMordva.Therearealsoinstances of smallergroupsbeing assimilatedby largergroupsother than Russian,e.g.the Liv by the Latvians,the Pamirpeoples by theTadzhik.At theotherextreme, therearelanguageswhich seem to be fully viable,whichare spokenby nearlyall membersof the corresponding ethnic group, and whose speakersmay even have relatively low proficiencyin Russian:this is the case,lor instance,with the languages ofthe Baltic republics,the major languages of CentralAsia,and alsomany of the Caucasian languages. In between,variousdifferentstagesofassimiiationarefound.Many ofthe languages of Siberiaarein a process ofrapidassimilation to Russian. Theselanguages alwayshad smallnumbers ofspeakers, sincetheclimate togetherwith theirtraditionaleconomy wasincapableofsupportinglargernumbers.However,technologicaldevelopments enabledoutsiders,in particularRussians,to colonisethe areain largenumbcrs,so that thesepeoplesoon found themselves a small minority in whal had previously beentheirexclusive territory.As soonasthissituationarises, in thecontextof the U.S.S.R.(for reasons to be discussed below)a fairlyrapidswitch-over to Russian seemsinevitable. First,onecanseelinguisticreasons for thischange-over. As wementioned above, mostofthe languages oftheU.S.S.R. hadno technological vocabulary of theirown ref€rringto eleDentsof westerntechnologyor culture, but borrowed suchwords from Russian.Sincethis accountsfor a largepart ofthe vocabularyusedby anyone in an urbanenvironment, and,giventhe increasing extentof urbanisation in the U.S.S.R.,evenif the speakerof sucha languagewantsto maintainhis native languagehe will flnd it increasinglypermeatedby Russianvocabularyitems,and perhaps evenRussian syntactic constructions, sothattherecomesatimewhenlt lsas easyto switchover completelyto Russianas to maintain a hybrid language Themainreasons forthechange to Russian, however, aresocial. Whereverpeople ofdif[erertethnicbackgrounds meettogether in theU.S.S.R., in particularifthis is in order to work together(includingmilitary service,compulsoryfor all male
r. Introduction
36
citizens),then it is almostcertainthat the only languagethey will havein common will be Russian.This is true evenif none of the membersof the group is a native speakerofRussian.So,in anymixedgroupofthis kind, Russianinevitablybecomes the lingua franca.Children growing up in this group will hear Russianat leastas muchastheyhearthe languageoftheir parents.Indeedif, asis increasinglythecase, will probablyb€theonly thenRussian theirparentshavediferentnativelanguages, languagethat the child hears,and certainlythe only languagethat he will grow up speaking.Even for children lrom a more homogeneousbackground,there are practicalpressureson parentsto sendtheir children to Russian-mediumschools. Unlesssomeonewantsto be restrictedto working in his local area,knowledgeof Russianis essential,especiallyif that person'scareeris to be at all technically oriented:in very fewareasofthe U.S.S.R.,for instancethe Baltic republics,wouldit be feasibleto engagein a tech[ical careerwithout a good commandof Russtan. Given the advantagesthat accrueto someonewith a good knowledgeof Russtan, parentsanxious about their children's future are often persuadedto overcome feelingsoflocalloyalty and givetheirchildrenan educationwithemphasison sound i.e.in a Russian-medium school. of Russian, acquisition patterns inroads into €xisting of bilingualisminvolving Russianis also making Interestingdata are providedhereby the I970censusstatisticsfor other languages. Georgian. Georgia has a large Armenian minority, settled in the confinesof Georgia long before the incorporation into the RussianEmpirc. Most of these ArmenianshaveArm€nianas their nativelanguage,but of the othe$ mther morc haveRussian(36,4ro)thanGeorgian(3u,246).ThenumberofArmeniansin Georgia declaringRussianas their secondlanguageis more than threetimesthat declaring Ceorgian(r60,435to 5r,477).The statisticaldifferenc€sare evenmore markedfor the Abkhaz minority in Georgia:ofthose who are not nativespeakersofAbkhaz, (I,492 to ?49);only as are Georgian-speakers twice asmany arc Russian-speakers tohaveGeorgianasasecoodlanguage, comparedto 47,o9o r,584declare themselves for Russian.Evenallowingfor somemisreporting,and theexclusionofstatisticson trilingualism,it is clear that within an area like Georgia bilingualisminvolving Russianis taking over from bilingualisminvolvingGeorgian. The official view of the role of Russianwithin the U.S.S.R.is reflectedin the followingquotationfrom Isaev(I977:3oo-I): within which the Soviet Because ofthe specifichistoricalcircumstances Union is developingmany other nations and ethnic groups of the U.S.S.R. hav€ also long since acquired a knowledgeof Russian. it is the languageofthe Union'smostdevelopednation,which Because guidedthe country through its revolutionarytransformationsand has
L Furlher
reilding
3'l
wonitselftheloveandrespect ofallotherpeoples, theRussian language isnaturallybeingtransformed intothelanguage ofcommunication and cooperationof all the peoplesof the socialiststate.This has bcen producedby growingeconomic andproductiontiesamongnations,by a rapid processof internationalisation of the population.and a replacement of previouspsychological barriersby bondsol brotherly friendship, mutualtrust,and mutualhelp. The U.S.S.R.hasno officialpolicyof replacement of thenon-Russian languages by Russian. To thecxtentthatthereis anylong-term ethnicpolicy,thisis phrased in termsof the acceptedMarxistprinciplethat at sometime in the futureall ethnic groupswillfuseintoone,butthisisa verylong-term goal.andcertainlynottheaimof anycurrentpolicies. Linguistically, thefactthatRussian influences otherlanguages oftheU.S.S.R..but is notinfluenced by them,wouldseemto preclude thepossibility of an amalgamlanguagcdistinct from Russianfinally developing.For the foreseeable future,currentpoliciesandtrendswill no doubtcontinue.The basisof thispolicyis fostering oflocallanguages to theextentrhatthisisconsonant with the wishesofspeakers (however ofthoselanguages thesewishesareassessed), together with fosteringof bilingualism in Russian_ Currenttrendssuggest that all but the largest, mostconsolidated speech-communities will probablyeventually go overto Russian(or one of the otherlargespeech-communities): with somesmallspeechcommunities thisprocess is almostcomplete, but in manyotherinstances it seems thatwearein themiddleofa verylongprocess ofgraduallinguistic assimilation. It is unlikelythatthistrendwill bereversed by discouraging thetransference oflinguistic allegiance frourlocalIanguages to Russianwherethisis alreadytakingplaceas a naturalprocess. F UR T I IER R E A D I N C Theonlygencr.ll work in Englishon rhelanguagcs oftheU.S.S.R., incorporaling informalion on lhe structure.geneticamliation.and historicalgeographical backgroundof these l a n g u a g ei s M . tthews(r95r):unfortunately.thestatisticsinthisbookareveryoutofdate (fromcensuses in the r92osand r93os), in additionto a numberofinaccuracics clscwncrc. A goodintroduclionin lrrenchis Creissels ( r 97?).whichincludes grammatical sketches ofsome reprcsentalivclanguagcsfrom a typological perspcctive.Among works dealing more exclusively wilh thesociolinguistic perspective, onemayciteLewis( r972),whichis concerned primarilywith educational aspects of bilingualism, and Isacv( r977),whichessenlially echoes the ofllcialussessmcnt of languagc,planning policiesin rhe U.S.S.R.A criticalbibliography cove.rngmoslIanguages ofthe U.S.S.R.is providedby CTt r (r968). Mostliteralurcon languagcs oflhe U-S.S.R.. cithcrasa wholcor on individuallanguages. rs availablconl) in Russian.Thc most comprehcnsivcwork is JTNSSSR(r96G68). which includes .r grantnratical skclchof eachof lhc langua8cs ot the U.S.S.R.; somcpartsof these skelches {re. nccessnrily. rillherbrief.espcci.llly in lheir treatmenlof syntax.This detailed
I. Introduction
38
information on th€ structure of the languages oI the U.S.S.R. can be supplemented by lwo populaFscientific books dealing more wilh sociolinguistic aspects:lsaev ( I97o: I9?8): some of the material from these books is incorporatcd inlo Isaev ( I977). M o r e d e t a i l e da c c o u n t so f t h e s o c i o l i n g u i s t i ci n l e r a c l i o n o f l a n g u a g e si n t h € U . S - S . R .a r e providcd by the series ZRLJa (t969 ?6). which deals wilh linguislic changes in the various la nguagest reated during the Soviet period. including those that resuh from Russian influence; and yyJaNSSSR ( r 969). a collection ofshoft a(icles on individualtopics lvithin this general G c n c r a l a c c o u n t so f l a n g u a g e sa n d l a n g u a g ef a m i l i e so f t h e U . S . S . R .c a n a l s o b e o b t a i n e d f r o m s o m ec n c y c l o p e d i a ss, u c h a s E B M ( I 9 7 4 )andBSE.especiallythesecond(I95o 58) a n d t h i r d ( r g 7 o - ) e d i t i o n s o f t h e l a t t e r : t h c t h i r d e d i t i o n o f B S E i s a l s o a p p e a r i n gi n a n E n g l i s h l a n g u a g ee d i t i o n . T w o r e c e n t c o l l e c t i o nosf a r t i c l c s o n t h e l a n g u a g e so f t h e U . S . S . R .i n E n g l i s ha r e I T N R P S U ( r 9 7 7 ) a n d S I U S S R ( r 9 8 o ) . S e ea l s o P C N S a U S S R ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
2
Altaic languages
Theterm'Altaic'isusedin a numberofdifferentsenses, difleringintheprecise range oflanguages genetic thata.eclaimedto beincludedin this lamily.At its narrowest (Micro-Altaic),Altaic includesthreebranches: Turkic,Mongolian,and Tungusic (Manchu-Tungusic); eachof thesethreebranches geneticunity, is a well-defined although.aswill beshownbelow,thegeneticrelations amongthethreegroupsare not soclearasis oftenmadeout. Many linguists wouldarguefor theinclusionofat leastKoreanasgenetically relatedto Altaicin thenarrowersense, thusgivingriseto a widersense of Altaic,whichonemightcall Macro-Altaic. Sinceclaimshavealso beenmade about the geneticrelation of Japaneseto Korean, one gould include Japanese(togetherwith the geneticallyclearly closelyrelatedRyukyuan) as yet anotherbranchof Macro-Altaic, thusgivingfivebranches in all. ln addition,it has beensuggested that the Uralic languages aregeneticallyrelatedto Micro-Altaic (the Uralo-Altaichypothesis), whichwouldincludeyet anotherbranchwithin MacroAItaic.SinceJapanese and Koreanare not languages of the U.S.S.R.- although thereare 357,5o7Koreansin the U.S.S.R.,mainlyin CentralAsia,wheremostof them arrived as refugeesfrom the Japaneseoccupationof Korea we neednot considerthemfurther.especially aswe shallcastsomedoubtevenon thevalidityof Micro-Altaicasan eslablished genetrc unit. It is clearthat thereare many similaritiesamongthe threegroupswithin MicroAltaic. Many of these,however,are typological,for instancethe agglutinative morphologicalstructure using exclusivelysuffixation,the st ct verb-final word order,withadjunctsalwaysprecedingtheir head,theuseolnumerous nonfiniteverb constructions, and suchsimilarities couldbe foundin manyotherlanguages ofthe world,e.g.Quechuain SouthAmerica,theDravidianlanguages in southernIndia. Many othercommon featuresare the resultofrecentcontact,often limited to only certainlanguageswithin eachof the groups:for instance,a long period of recent contacthetweentheTurkic languageYakut and the TungusiclanguageEvenkihas resulted in considerdble arealdiffusionbetween thesetwo languages. The question thatarisesis thelbllowing:onceoneexcludes thoscfcittures thatcanreasonably be
2. Altaic languages
2. Altaic languaqes
40
attributedto generaltypologicalprinciplesor to arcaldiflusion,is therea suficient body of remaining reliable correspondenceto justify the recognition of (Micro-)Altaic as a singlegeneticfamily? One of the problemsthat has alwaysbeen faced by proponentsof the Altaic hypothesisis that thereare relativelyfew featuresthat are common to all threeof Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic,and only to thesethree languagegroups For instance,in termsofvocabulary,and alsoto a certainextentmorphology,therear€ many closeparallelsbetweenTurkic and Mongolian languages,and also between Mongolianand Tungusiclanguages,but hardly any betweenTurkic and Tungusic languages.If the three groups of languageswere geneticallyrelated,one would expectto find residualsimilaritieswhicheverpair oflanguagegroupsonetook, but the fact remainsthat thereis no direct evidencefor sucha link betweenTurkic and Tungusic.For instance,severalcolour terms are almost identicalin Turkic and Mongolian, as can be seenfrom the following, using Turkish and (Khalkha) Mongolian as representativelanguages:Turkish ftata, Mongolian xar'black'; 'blue';Turkish boz, Mongolian bor'grey'; however, Turkish gok, Mongolian xox Thesameappliesto in Tungusiclanguages. thesetermshaveno closecorrespondents -da and allative in -a. This such Turkic-Mongolian parallelsas the locativein situation is actually more consistentwith the diffusion hypothesisthan with the geneticunity hypothesisiit is known that ther€havebeenclosehistoricaltiesbetween Turkicand Mongolianpeoples,and betweenMongolianandTungusicpeoples,but not betweenTurkic and Tungusicpeoples(exceptfor very recentcontact,suchas that betweenthe Yakut and the Evenki).This would accountfor the existenceof Turkic-Mongolian and Mongolian Tungusic parallels and the absenceof Turkic Tungusicparallels,while the geneticrelationhypothesiscannotexplaiIIthe Turkic MongolianparallelsandMongolian-Tungusicparallelswithout at thesame time positinga geneticrelationbetweenTurkic and Tungusic. Thereare,however,somesimilaritiesbetweenall threegroupsthatwouldmakeup Micro-Altaic. For instance,the forms of the singularpersonalpronounsare very similar,ascan be seenfrom Table2.L However,ifone takesthesesimilaritiesto be theydo not constituteevidencespecificallyfor Altaic evidenceofgeneticrelatedness, asa geneticunit, since,ascanbeseenfrom thevariousnon-Altaicformsgivenin the sametable, similar forms are found in a variety of other languagesin northern Eurasia.Giv€nthat the first personsingularpronounappearswith either b or m in differentTurkic languages,and that the reconstructedProto-Mongolianform for ofthe the secondpersonsingularpronoun hasinitial *t, the basiccharacterisation putativeProto-Altaic forms would haveto be that the first personpronoun hasa characteristicbilabial consonant, while the second person pronoun has a Precisely thissamedistributionis foundin consonant. dental-alveolar characteristic
4r
Table z.t. Singularpersonalpronounsin Altaic, IJtalic, Indo-Europeanand Chukotko-Kanchatkan
'I' 'you
Turkish Azerbaydzhan Mongolian Manchu ben man bi bi scn san 6i ((ti) si
Lalin
Komi
Chukchi Yet
Indo-European, cf. the Latin forms given in Table z.r, in Uralic, and in the Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguages;in the Chukchi forms, ye can be abstractedto givethe characteristicconsonantsm and t, which reappearin the plural pronouns nluri'we'andturt'you'-Thusifthe similarities amongall threegroupsoflanguages within'Altaic'areevidence ofanything,theyareevidence ofa geneticfamilymuch largerthan Micro-Altaic (or, for that matter,Macro-Altaic),and sodo not arguefor anyparticularlyclose relationbetween Turkic,Mongolian,andTungusic languages, otherthanwhat hascomeaboutby contact. The fact that there are any morphologicalsimilaritiesat all among Altaic languages, andmorespecificallybetweenTurkic andMongolianlanguages, might at first seemstrong evidencefor their geneticrelatedness, given that morphologyis usually much less amenable to borrowing than vocabulary. However, the agglutinative natureof morphologyin all threegroupsof languages in question meansthat the morphologyis readilysegmentable, andmorphologicalafixeswhich are readily segmentableare much more easily borrowed than more complex morphologicalpatterns:thustheTurkish plural suffix-/arwasreadilyborrowedinto Albanian,a geneticdlly completely unrelated language oftheIndo-European family. The recentdiscussion of Turkic morphologyby Sderbak(1977:9-r4) throws interesting lighton thepossible historicalbackground to morphological similarities betweenTurkic and Mongolianby comparingthesesimilarities to thosethat are foundin areasofintensecontactbetween UzbekandTadzhik.UzbekandTadzhik are geneticallyunrelated,beingTurkic and lranian (Indo-European)respectively, and are quite diflerent from one another in basic structure, vocabulary,and morphologicalamxes.Nonetheless, severalUzbeksuffixeshavebeenborrowedinto NorthernTadzhikdialects, givingriseto a situationreminiscent ofthe similanues notedbetween TurkicandMongolian,butwithoutanypossible genetic amliationto explainthe similarity.Significantly, one of the sumxescitedoftenas evidence of Turkic-Mongolian geneticrelatedness, the agentivesuffix -Cl,e.g. tJzbek etik-Ci 'shoemaker'(cf. etrk boot ), Kalmyk xoo-Ce'shepherd'(cf. xo-rr.sheep,),hasbeen borrowedlrom Uzbekinto Tadzhik,whereit hasspreadinto all dialects. Sincethe main emphasis of this presentation is on the synchronicstateof the languages in qucstion.it will not be necessary to go into furtherdetailsof the
2. A lt,iic languJE:es
'Altaic', concerningrelationsamong the variousgroupswithin controveNies In sections 2.2 2-4 belowdealingwith whetherin its broaderor narrowersense. thearrangement features ofTurkic,Mongolian,andTungusiclanguages, structural together.This are taken three language-groups is by topic, and for eachtopic all genetic relation, but follows shouldnot be takenasimplyinga beliefin theirclose amongthe threelanguagegroups, ratherfrom the closetypologicalsimilarities in this way to treattheirstructuralpropetties whichmakeit feasible ?.I
The individuallanguages
Turkic languages The majority of the Turkic languagesare languagesof the U.S.S R ' indeedmost TtLrkicianguageshaveall or most oftheir speakerswithin the U S.S R , where Turkic-speakingethnic groups compose five ofthe fifteen Union Republics, as 2.r.r
well as severalA.S.S.R.s and A.O.s The major exception is of course Turkish, spokenby ovel z4million people,mainly in Turkey, though alsoin Cyprus,Bulgaria, 'Turkish' (Russian lu.eckt) refersto this specific and adjacentcountries.(N ote that 'Turkic' language, sometimes called more explicitly Osmanli Turkish. while (Russian iu./<.s*i) refers to the whole family.) Other languages which are spoken outside the U.S.S.R. are Balkan Gagauz (Balkan Turkic) (Balkan countries, excludingTurkey), Khaladzh (Iran), Khoton (Mongolia), Yellow Uygur (China, some 4,ooospeakers),and Salat (China, some 30,ooospeakers);although Uygur is spoken in the U.S.S.R. most of its speakersare in China lncidentally, the term Yellow Uygur (Sari Uygur) can be misleading,sinceit is the ethnonym ofa peoplein China who are divided linguistically into four subgroups: those (mentioned above) who speaka Turkic language,thosewho speaka Mongolian language(also called Yellow Uygur), those who speak Chinese,and those who speak Tibetan Moreover, severalof the Turkic languagesof the U.S.S.R. also have a sizable number of speakersin adjacentcountries,especiallyIran and Afghanistan. ofTurkic, and the decisionasto whereto draw language The internalclassification boundariesas distinct from dialect boundaries,is extremelycomplex, for reasons discussedin greater detail below- The various Turkic languagesare in general very close to each other, forming a dialect complex where speech forms are very often mutually intelligibleat considerabledistances,with intelligibility decreasingthe greater the distance. Only two Turkic languages fall outside this general dialect complex: Chuvash,clearly the most divergentolthe Turkic languages,and Yakut (including Dolgan, which is sometimesconsidereda separatelanguage),which has been sepdratedfor some lime from the main body of Turkic and has undergone considerableTungusic influencc.A further complicatiorl is that thc populatron
z.r The individual languages within the areacoveredby speakersofTurkic languageshasalwaysbeenextremely mobile,esp€cially asmanyofthe mainpathsofinvadingarmiesin Eurasia(Huns, Mongols,Tatars)havepassedthrough this territory: evenwhercthesearmieswere nominallyl€dby non-Turkicpeoples, aswith the Mongols,theircomposition was largelyTurkic. Onebriefexampleofa recentmovewillsuffceto givesomeindication of the complicationsthis mobility can introduce into geneticclassilicationof languages. Trukhmen is historicallya dialectofTurkmen, and is indeedoften still consideredso. However,the Trukhmen migratedfrom Turkmeniato the northern Caucasus(aroond Stavropol'),wheretheycameinto contactwith Nogay, another Turkic languagefrom a differentsubgroupof Turkic. As a result of this contact, Trukhmenhaslostmanyof thecharacteristics ofTurkmen(e.g.systematicretention pronunciation ofphonemicvowellength, of*s and *z as [0] and [6]) andgained some of the featuresof Nogay (e.g. the formation of the presenttenseas tn baradur/baradir,where Turkmenhasba.ar).Suchdialectmixtureis responsible for many of the problemsto be noted below with detailedclassificationsof Turkic languages. AnotherresultofpopulationmobilityamongtheTurkicpeoples, andtheresulting break-upand regroupingof speech-communities, is that one often finds relatively newly formed speech-communities, in the senseol converginggroupsof dialects, wherethe individual dialectsbelongto differentgroupswithin Turkic accordingto the usualclassificatorycriteria. Thus Uzbek belongsbasicallyto group IV ln the givenbelow,but someofits dialectsbelongmorecloselyto groupIII classilication (the so-calledKipchak dialectsof Uzbek). CrimeanTatar consistsof two main dialects,northernand southern:thenortherndialectsarecloserto group IIIa, while the southerndialectsarc closer to group II. Yellow Uygur and Salar combine features ofgroupsIV andV, asdoesKhoton.Althoughalldialects ofAltaybelongto group V, the dialectdiversity,especiallyof Northern Altay dialectsrelativeto the main body of Southerndialects,is so great that differentdialectsof Altay would belongto di{Ierentsubgroupsof V, as noted below. An addedproblemis presentedby thenomenciatureofTurkic peoples,sinceoften an ethnonymis transferredfrom onepeopletoanother,from speakersofone branch of Turkic to another. or survivesas an ethnonymamong Turkic peopleswhose languagesclearly belongto diferent groups.This phenomenonis, of coursc,noL unknownelsewhere, e.g.in Slavonic, wherewehavetheSouthSlavonicSIovenes, the WestSlavonicSlovaks andSlovincians. andin tribaltimestheEastSlavonictribeof theSlov€ne, all usingethnonyms derivedfrom thesamestemasSlavonic, whilethe South SlavonicSerbsand the West SlavonicSorbs shareanothercommon cthnonym.withoutthisimplyinganyparticularly closeethnicor lilguisticrelation withinSlavonic.The mostnotorioussuchterm withinTurkic is Tatar.whichwas
2. Altaic languages
44
onceusedasa veryg€n€raltermfor nearlyall Turkic peoplesotherthanthoseclearly recognizable asOttomanTurks- ln recenttimes,however,with the developmentof individual namesfor variousTurkic subgroups,the term Tatar hasbeengradually restrictedin usage,so that now Tatar, without any accompanyingadjective,is restrictedto what was formerly calledVolga Tatar, i.e. the ethnic group with its traditionalcentreat Kazan'.In addition,someother ethnicgroups,not havingb€en given distinct ethnonymsof their own, retain the term Tatar togetherwith some distinctiveattribute,e.g.CrimeanTatar,Chulym (Melet)Tatar.The (Volga)Tatar, Cdmean Tatar, and Chulym Tatar, despitethe common name Tatar, arc not particularlycloselyrelatedto oneanotherethnicallyor linguisticallywithin Turkic. In certaininstances, it is notclear whethera peopieusilg the nameTatar shouldbe considereda subgroupofTatar speakiriga dialectofTatar, or as a distinct people with a distinctlanguage;thus Baskakov(I969) considersBarabaTatar a dialectof Tatar, while IaNSSSR II (1966)treatsit as a separatelanguage. Another ethnonymwhich hasundergonesimilartransformationsis Uygur, since languagescalled Uygurhaveatdiferent periodsbelongedto groupsIV andV ofthe classificationgivenbelow eventhough in Baskakov'sclassificationthe division betweenthesetwo groupsis themain bifurcationwithin theTurkic lamily tree with modern Uygur beingin group IV, and Yellow Uygur and Salaron the borderline betweengroupsIV andV (probablygroupV with considerable morerecentinfluence from group IV); as already noted, the ethnonym Yellow Uygur is r€tainedby population groups who do not now even speak a Turkic language. The terminologicalconfusioncanbe seenfrom the fact that in Baskakov'sclassification therearetwo groupingswithir Turkic thatcontainthenameUygur,namelyKarlukUygur and Uygur-Oguz;the languageUygur belongsto neitherof these.Th€ terms Kazakh and Kirgiz have even undergonea confusingtransformationin official Sovietnomenclature.The peopleand languagewho are now calledKazakh were originallycalledKirgiz, whilethosenowcalledKirgiz werethencalledKara-Kirgiz. When we turn to the detailsof the classificatiotr,and to the va ous corflicting classifications that havebeenproposed,we seethat thereis alevelofclassificationat which there is considerableagreement,even though the plac€mentof individual placedifferentweighton maydifer (largelybecause languages diferent investigators difer€nt featuresin languageson the borderlinebetweengroups):this givesthe groupinginto fiv€major classes, asshowninTable z.z.The probl€mwasfelt to beso acut€by th€ compilersof Pl TF I (r959)that theyincludednot one,but two genetic classifications ofTurkic languagesin this standardreference work. Th€ gloupsthat r€quirefurthersubgroupinginTablez.z.areII andV. Baskakov(I969)subdividesII into three subgroups:Oguz-Seldzhuk(Turkish, Azerbaydzhan),Oguz-Bulgar (Gagauz,BalkanGagauz),and Oguz-Turkmen(Turkmen,Trukhmen).Group V is
2.r The individudl languages
45
dividedinto two, Kirgiz-Kipchak(Kirgiz and Altay. thoughnot the Northern dialectsof Altay which would be Uygur-Oguz)and Uygur-Oguz;the latter is then further divided into Uygur-Tukijy (Tuva, Tofa), Yakut (Yakut), and Khakas (Khakas, Shor and Chulym Tatar). Baskakovalso subdividesMnto two subgroups,Karluk-Uygur and Karluk-Khorezm,but all the living Karluk languages are in the Karluk-Khorezm subgroup. problem grouping One in thesefive major groupsinto larger groupingsis the positionof Chuvash,which,aswe havealreadynoted,is synchronically the most divergentofthe Turkic languages. The questionis whetherthis divergencereflectsa deep-rootedgeneticsplit within Turkic, betweenChuvashand CommonTurkic (as isusuallysupposed by non-Soviet scholars), or whetherthedivergence ofChuvashis theresultofits geographic andculturalisolationfrom themainbodyofTurkic:this latter factor is, for instance,clearly responsiblefor the (somewhatless)divergent natureof Yakut. The positionof Chuvashis alsointimatelyconnected with the controversyover the Altaic hypothesis:on the basisof someofthe isoglosses that scparateTurkic from Mongolian(whetheroneconsiders theseisoglosses to applyto inheritedvocabularyfrom Proto-Altaicor to borrowedvocabulary),Chuvashfalls on the Mongoliansideof the line, for instancein havingr whereotherTurkic languageshave z. e.g. Turkish buza4r lb\zall, Chuvash pdru, Buryat bu.uu (Classical Mongolianbirayu)'cclf. In the classification adoptedby Baskakov, Chuvashisnot givensoisolated a position,andgroupsl-lV areall takentogether as WesternHunnic,versusgroupV alone,whichis namedEasternHunnic.Thusthe main featuresof thesetwo classificationsare as follows: the first classification distinguishes ChuvashfromCommonTurkic, whichisthensubdivided intothefour groups II-V of Table z.2i the secondclassificationfirst separatesgroup V from groupsI IV, theselastfour beingcoordinate members of WesternHunnic. In additionto thelivingTurkic languages, whichareclassified in Table2.2,therc arealsoseveral attested extinctTurkishlanguages, whichmaybe brieflymentioned here.Old Turkic, attestedfrom the eighthcenturyA.D., comprisestwo main traditions:RunicTurkic(Yenisey-Orkhon inscriptions from around7ooA.D.) and Old Uygur, includingin particularManicheanand Buddhisttextswrittenin the Uygur script,a derivativeof Sogdian;this scriptsubsequently gav€riseto the ClassicalMongolian and Manchu scripts. Old Oguz (more specifically,OguzTurkmen) is attestedin the tenth-eleventh-century dictionary of Mahmud alKashgari, whileSeldzhuk andOttomanTurkishareolderformsofTurkish,within Oguz-Seldzhuk. TheoldesttextsfromgroupIII, morespecifically IIIa, arein Cuman (Polovets, the latterbeingthe usualRussiandesignation), the main textbeingthe Codex Cuntanicus.a Latin PersianCuman dictionary from the end of the thirteenthcentury.Croup IV is represented by Uygurtextsof theKarakhanidand
46
2. Altaic languages Table 2.2. Genetic classification ofmoden I II
III IIIa
Illb
Illc
IV
V
Turkic languages
Chuvash Turkic. Oguz) (SouthernTurkic, South-western Turkish (Osmanli) Azerbaydzhan(Azeri Turkic) Khaladzh Gagauz BalkanGagauz(BalkanTurkic) Trukhmen) Turkmen(including (Kipchak) (Ponto-Caspian.Kipchak-Cuman) Karaim Kumyk Karachay-Balkar CrimeanTatar (alsoassignedto II) (Uralian,Kipchak-Bulgar) Tatar Bashkir (CentralTurkic.Kipchak-Nogay) Nogay Karakalpak Kazakh (Easlern Turkic,Karluk) Uzbek Uygur ofv) Khoton(hasalsosomefealures (Norlhern Turkic, EasternHunnic) Tuva(Uryankhay) Tofa (Tofalar, Karagas) Yellow Uygur (Sari Uygur) (alsoassignedto IV) Salar(alsoassignedto Iv) Yakut (Sakha)(includingDolgan) Khakas (Abakan Tatar, YeniseyTatar) (includingKamas) Shor Chulym(Melel)Tatar Kirgiz Altay (Oyrot) (Norlhern dialectsarc very divergent)
century Baskakov(I969)asslgns petiods,i.e.from theeleventh post-Karakhanid this languageto a special,Karluk-Uygur, subgroupof IV - and by Chagatay(Old Uzbek), the literary languageof Uzbekistan and surrounding areas into the twentiethcentury.The languagesofmany other older Turkic peoples,suchas the Bulgars. and the Pechenegs,are known only from isolated words or hrief so that virtuallynothingis knownof theirlanguages. inscriptions, it is importantto bearin mindsomeof In lookingat individualTurkiclanguages'
2.r The individual languages
41
the cultural influencesthat haveshapedtheselanguages, of which the main one is undoubtedly thespreadof Islam:lslamis thetraditionalreligionofthe majorityof speakers of Turkic languages, excludingsomein the far west(the Gagauzand Chuvashare for the mostpart at leastnominallyChristian),and thoseeastof the traditionaldividinglinebetween Islamandnon-lslamin Siberia, th€RiverIrtysh.IrI geographical from theTurksin thewestto terms,thismeansthatall Turkicpeoples theKazakhandKirgizin theeastareMuslim,with onlya verylewexceptions, such astheKaraim,whoareby religion(thoughnotethnically) Jews,a uniquesurvival of the .rdoptionof Judaismas the omcialreligionof the Khazarempire.Eastof this dividingline,someoftbe Turkic peoplesacceptedBuddhismftom theMongols,who in turn acceptedthis religion from Tibet: this appliesto the Altay, Khakas and, especially,Tuva. Other Turkic peoplesof Siberiawere unaffect€dby the main religiousinnovationsof Eurasia,usuallyrctainingtheir shamanisticbeliefs. Thesediflerent religiousdivisionsof Turkic are reflectedby different foreign linguisticinfluencesin the pre-Sovietpedod.The Islamicpeoplesunderwentstrong Arabic and Persianinfluenceon their languages, especiallyin termsofvocabulary, but alsoon phonology(assimilationofsoundsand soundsequences not previously found in Turkic languages) and syntax:examplesofthis influencewill be discussed below. More widespreadPersianinfluenceis found in thoseTurkic languagesand dialectsthat coexistwith Iranian languagesand dialects,for instanc€in Uzbek (widespread bilingualismwith Tadzhikespecially aroundTashkentandthe Fergana Thelanguages Basin)andin Iraniandialects ofAzerbaydzhan. ofBuddhistpeoples lexical from Mongolian, including Tibetan, have undergone some influence Sanskrit,and in at leastone instanceGreek, transmittedthrough Mongolian:the Tuvaword nom 'book'derives ultimately fromGreeknomos'law'.As notedabove, Chuvashhasremainedisolatedfrom the trendsaffectingthe main body ofTurkic languages, in particular and thecloseinteractionofChuvashwith Uralic languages, Mari, has led to considerableUralic influenceon Chuvash,and viceversa. The mostsignificant from theviewpointofTurkic asa whol€ oftheseinfluences hasbeenthe influx of Arabic and Persianfeaturesthrough Islam. In Kazakh, for instance,we find suchloansnot only with religiousterms(e,g., amaz'prayer', kiine 'sin'), but also for many 'science',krix 'history'. other abstractterms(e.g. yrTr'm 'tine'), waqit words connectedwith learning(e.g. kitap 'book'), and even very ordinary words such as xabar 'news' (frorn Arabic) and 6agJa 'garden' (from Persian).In many instances,theseare now perfectlyordinary lexicalitems in the Turkic languageconcerned, no morestrangethanLatin or FrenchloansintoEnglish lrke certain ot very. In the sectionon phonology below, we shall seehow the assimilation of Arabicloansinto Turkic languages hasmodifiedtheirphonology quiteconsiderably in certainrespects, with thismodification againnot beinglelt as
2. Allaic ldnguages
48
abnormal by speakersof the languageconcerned,often irrespectiveof their educationallevel. In syntax, one of the most noticeablefeatureshas been the (e.g.Arabic wa 'and')and Persian borrowingofArabiccoordinating conjunctions (e.g.Persianke 'that'. borrowedinto many Turkic subordinating conjunctions languagesas ti), where Turkic languageswould otherwisenormally use either parataxisor nonfiniteverbal forms. respectively. In theperiodsincethe Revolution, therehasbeena tendency to reducetheamount influence ofArabicand Persian on theTurkic languages ofthe U.S.S.R., especially primarilyoftheolderwrittenlanguages suchinfluence aswascharacteristic andhad in thecorresponding no counterpart spokenlanguages. Thusin Uzbek,thePersian subordinatingconjunctionshavebeenIargelylost. New lexicalitemsare borrowed ratherthanfrom Arabic.It shouldbebornein mindthatsomeof the from Russian, written languagesof the Islamicperiod werc often more Arabic and Persianthan Turkic, and largelyincomprehensible to speakersofTurkic languageswho had not also studiedArabic and/or Persian.A similarpurgeof excessive Arabismsand Persianisms wasundertaken in Turkeyaftertherevolutionof I9 r9-r923,oneofthe outwardsignsofthechangebeing,asin theU.S.S.R., thereplacement ofthe Arabic scriptby the Latin script,in I929. We may now look brieflyat the individualTurkic languages of the U.S.S.R., noting salientstructuralfeaturesof eachand alsocommentingon its sociological statuswithin the U.S.S.R.Someofthe specific structuralfeatures will be takenup againin thesections dealingwith phonology, morphology, andsyntax. Theorderof presentation will follow that ofTable 2.2. The Chuvashform the dominantpopulationof the ChuvashA.S.S.R.(7o%), althoughlargenumbersofChuvashalsoIivein areasadjoiningthisrepublic(49.5'zo ofthe totalnumberofChuvash).86.9'2, ofthe 1.694,35 r ChuvashhaveChuvashas In the ChuvashA.S.S.R.,Chuvashis usedthroughoutthe their nativelanguage. education system, andisalsowidelyusedin publishing. As indicated above.Chuvash is themostdivergentofthe Turkic languages, havingbeenisolatedfrom otherTurkic geographically languages and culturallylor manycenturies,and hasalsohadcloser contacts with Uralic languagesand, more recently.Russian- the influenc€of Russiancanbeseenin thewidespread adoptionofthe Orthodoxreligion,andrelated to this the early developmentof a written language,starting in the eighteenth century,thoughnotreallydeveloping untilthelatenineteenth century(theworkofl. Ja.Jakovlevfrom the 1870s)andespecially aftertheRevolution.Onenoticeableitem of Uralic influenceis the formation of the negativeimperativewith the preposed particlear (borrowedfrom a Permiclanguage,probably Udmurt), whe.eall other Turkic languages havea negative sumxin theimperative asin otherverbforms(in which Chuvashretainsthe Turkic sulix). Azerbaydzhan, in additionto beingthe llnguageof the Azerbaydzhan S.S.R..
2. r The individLtitl lxnguages
where86.2'14, ofthe 4,379,937 live,constituting SovietAzerbaydzhan 73.8%ofthe totai population,is also widely spokenin north-western Iran (over 3 million speakers), whereit is widelyusedasa linguafrancaevenamongspeakers oflranian lanSu.lSes otherthan Persian. In lran it hasno ollicialstatus,unlikethe U.S.S.R., wirereit is usedalongside Russianfor all functionswithintheAzerbaydzhan S.S.R. Thedialects ofAzerbaydzhan spokenin lranhavebeenlessthoroughlystudiedthan thoseofthe U.S.S.R.. andit is conceivable thatsomeof theputativeAzerbaydzhan dialects will haveto beconsidered separate languages, in viewofthedivergence from themainbody ofdialects, ashappcned with Khaladzh.Of thetotalAzerbaydzhan populationin the U.S.S.R., haveAzerbaydzhan astheirnativelanguage. 98.2'i1, partsof the ln theU.S.S.R., theGagauz(t 56,6o6) livein Moldaviaandadjacent Ukraine.with a remarkablyhigh language-retention rate of 93.6%.In addition, dround5,oooGagauzlive in Bulgariaand Romania.One of the main structural characteristics ofGagauz(incommonwithsomeKaraimdialects) isthetendency for vowel harmony to be replaced by consonant harmony (palatalised versus nonpalatalised consonants ratherthanlront versusbackvowels). Duringtheearly iwentiethcentury,when the main areasinhabitedby th€ Gagauzwerepart of Romania.therewas a certainamountof religiouspublication(the Gagauzare Christian), but the initiationofCagauzasa fully-fledged writtenlanguage did not comeaboutuntil the late r95os,and Cagauzis now usedfor a certainamountof publicationand primaryeducationin the MoldavianS.S.R. SovietTurkmenlivein theTurkmenS.S.R.wherethey 92.9\\,of the I,525,284 constitute 65.6'1, olthe totalpopulation. In additionto theTurkmenin theU.S.S.R., thereare some8oo,ooo 98.9'Lof whom haveTurkmenas their nativelanguage, Turkmenscattered aboutothercountriesof the Middle East:Iraq, Afghanistan, lran, Turkey,Syriaand Jordan. The Karaimarebeingrapidlya$similated, ethnically andespecially linguistically, lo thesurroundingRussianpopulation:in absolute termstheirnumberhasshrunk from 5,727in t 959to 4,571in r97o.ofwhomonly r 2.8%gaveKaraimastheirnative (in thesouthlanguage. Therearethreemaindialects of Karaim:Crimean,Southern westernUkraine),and Northern(in Lithuaoia,as the resultof recentmigration). Oneofthecharacteristics ofthe Northerndialectis thepartialreplacement ofvowel harmonyby consonant harmony.The traditionalreligionofthe Karaimis Judaism (although the Karaites the religious designation corresponding to the ethnolinguistic termKaraim areno(consideredJews by orthodoxJews),andthey developed a writtenlanguage usingtheHebrewalphabet; theirlanguage alsohasa largenumberof religious and nonreligious termsfrom Hebrew,e.g.adonaj'God', sc'mname',-gu/-'body'. At presentthiswrittenlanguage is usedonly for liturgical purposcs. K unrykis oneol lhe wfittenlirngudges of Dagestan. where89.5'2, of theKumyk
2. Altaic languages
5o
live,formingthe fourthlargestethnicgroupofthe A,S.S.R.98.4% ofthe r88,792 Kumyk haveKumyk astheirnativelanguage.Kumyk is usedthroughouttheschool system(thoughnot beyondsecondaryschool),as well as in publishing. Karachay-Balkaris the singlelanguageof two ethnicgroups,the Karachayand the Balkar. 98.r'% of the rrz,74r Karachayand 97.2%of the 59,5or Balkar have Karachay-Balkaras their nativelanguage.As the two ethnicgroupslive separated theylive predominantlyin differentautonomous f.om oneanothergeographically, units:the Karachaytogetherwith the lessnumerousCherkes(who speaka NorthWestCaucasianlanguage)in the Karachay-Cherkes A.O., the Balkartogetherwith the more numerousKabard (also North-West Caucasian)in the Kabard-Balkar is usedin schooling and publication. A.S.S.R.Karachay-Balkar Theoriginalhome wastheCrimea, oftheCdmeanTatars,astheirnamesuggests, but at the start ofthe SecondWorld War they wereaccusedof complicitywith the Nazi invadersand deporteden masseto Uzbekistan.Sincethen, they have not figuredin anydetailedSovietstatistics,andunlikeotherpeoplesdeportedforsimilar reasonshave not beenpermittedto return to their original homeland.A written languagewasin useuntil the deportation,but not since. Tatar (formerlyVolgaTatar) is thefifth largestlanguageolthe U.S.S.R.,in terms ofnumber ofnative speakers,but as the Tatar are spreadacrosshugeareasof the U.S.S.R., includingnot onlytheTatarA.S.S.R.but alsosurrounding areasandwell across Siberia, much of which was formerly under Tatar suzerainty, their autonomous statusis only that of an A.S-S.R-, within whichthe Tatarconstitute population (the group the largest r7, of ethnic within the republic),but where 49. only 25.9a/.of them livei a further r 5.9% live in the BashkirA.S.S.R.,wherethey slightlyoutnumberthe Bashkir.89.2%of the 5,93o,670 TatarhaveTataras their nativelanguage.In viewoIthe closegeneticandculturalrelationsbetweenTatarand Bashkir,wemaytreatthetwo languages togetherhere.Some72% ofthe Bashkirlive in theBashkirA.S.S.R., but form only 23.4"1, ofthe totalpopulation,beingslightly outnumberedby Tatar and heavilyoutnumberedby Russians.Languageretgntion amongthe Bashkir(total population:r,239,68r)is low: 66.2%.Both Tatar and Bashkirarewritten languages, but Tatar hasmuchwidercurrency,beingusedat all levelsof educationin the Tatar A.S.S.R.and also in schoolingin the Bashkir A.S.S.R., aswellasin publishing. Bashkiris usedin publication, but at presentit is usedeitherlittleor not at all in theeducational whichin theBashkirA.S.S.R. system, is in either Russianor Tatar, with Tatar schoolsbeingattendedby many Bashkir speakers.The two languagesare very closeto one another,and sharea unique commoninnovationin theraisingofProto-Turkicmid vowels(*e, *o, *o) to high vowels(i, u, u), andtheloweringofProto-Turkichighvowelsto close-mid vowels ( x i , * u , * r , ai , t o e , o , e , d ) .
z.r
The individual languages
Nogayis spokenby 89.8%ofthe 5I,784ethnicNogaywho livein thenorthern Caucasusarea, about half of them in the DagestanA.S.S.R. and half in the Stavropol' kray, where their languageis used as a written languagefor some publicationand in schooling. Karakalpak is the nativelanguageof 96.6voof the 46p09 ethnic Ka.akalpak, in Uzbekistan, whereKarakalpakis 92.2%ofwhomlivein th€KarakalpakA.S.S.R. usedasa writtenlanguage. Theyconstitute only3I % ofthetotalpopulationoftheir A.S.S.R.,but are the largestsingleethnic group ther€,slightly outnumberingthe Uzbeks. Although the Kazakh are the name-bearingethric group ofthe Kazakh S.S.R., theyarenow outnumbered by the Russians andconstitute only 32.6%ofthe total populationofthe republic;however,thisstatisticis slightlymisleading,sincethereis a markedtendencyfor the Russianpopulationto be concentratedin the northern part of the republic,which is economicallyan extensionof the industrial belt that extendsthe length of the southernUrals: in someof the southernregionsof the republic,the Kazakh are a substantialmajority. 79.9%of the Kazakh live in the KazakhS.S.R.and the language-retention ratefor the Kazakhis very high,at 98%, peoples givingtheir nameto Union Republics. i.e.ofthe sameorderasotherTurkic In additionto the5,298,8 r 8 Kazakhin theU.S.S.R., thereareover6oo,ooo in China and Mongolia.Kazakh is used,alongsideRussian,for all purposeswithin the KazakhS.S.R. Uzbekis the secondlargestTurkic language,afterTurkish, and the third largest languageof the U.S.S.R.,in addition to having over a million speakersin Afghanistan, and somer5,oooin China.In the U.S.S.R.98.6%of the 9,r95,093 UzbekhaveUzbekastheir nativelanguage.84% ofthem livein Uzbekistan,where they constitute 65.5% of the population. Uzbekistanhas a substantialRussian population,but this is mainly concentratedin the cities:the capital,Tashkent,for instance,hasa slightlylargerRussianthan Uzbekpopulation.Another largeareaof Uzbek settlementis Tadzhikistan.and indeedthe closehistoricaltiesbetweenthe UzbekandtheTadzhik,especiallyin termsofmixedmarriages,meansthat it is often somewhatarbitrary which ethnic statusa bilingual of mixed parentagechooses. Uzbek hasundergonestronginfluencefrom Tadzhik,especiallythe Uzbekdial€cts ofTashkentand the FerganaBasin,on whichthecurrentstandardlanguageis (with small deviations)based.One of the main areaswherethis influenceis felt is the tendencyfor the vowelsystemto shift from the typical8/9-vowelquality systemof most Turkic languages to a 6-vowelsystem,with lossofdistinct front roundedand back unroundedphonemes,to givea phonemesystemthat is almostidenticaldown to phoneticdetailto thatofTadzhik( i. e, a, o, i, u). However,althoughUzbekis oftendescribed as havingr 6-vowelsystem.this hidesa somewhatmorecomplex
2. Altaic Janguages system,at leastin the standardlanguage,which is at bestintermediatebetweenan 8/9-voweland a 6-vowelsystem,with partial retentionof roundingas a phonemic distinctivefeature.This will be discussedfurther in section2.2 in the treatmentof vowelharmony.Uzbekisused,alongside Russian, forallpurposes withintheUzbek
s.s.R. AlthoughUyguris technically a language oftheU.S.S.R., sinceit isnot theomcial language ofany othercountry,mostUygurlivein China,wheretheynumberover4 million.Of the 173,2'16 Uyrt]l in the U.S.S.R..88.5'%haveUygur as theirnative language. Theylivein variouspartsofCentralAsia,includingKazakhstan, andhave theirown writtenlanguage usedfor somepublication. As a resultofvarioussound changes,the neat geneml Turkic vowel harmony system has been disturbed considerably in Uygur,sothatUygur,likeUzbek,isconsidered typologically oneof those Turkic languagesto be in the processof losing vowel harmony. Another characteristicofUygur is the largevolumeofloans from Chinese,reffectingintense contactwith Chinesespeakers. Tuvaisthenativelanguage gT.r % ofwhomlive of98,/oofthe r 39,388 ethnicTuva, in the Tuva A.S.S.R.,wheretheyconstitute58.6%ofthe total population.Some r 8,oooTuvalivein Mongolia.In theinter-Waryears,Tuvawasanindependent state with a Soviet-stylegovernment.In 1944 this governmentnegotiatedwith the U.S.S.R.for admission into the U.S.S.R.,enteringfirstas an A.O., advancingin 196I to A.S.S.R.status.Prior to around r93o,Tuva was not usedas a written language,and the officialwritten languagein thecountry wasClassicalMongolian, reflectingthetraditionalculturalorientationofthe Tuva.At present,Tuva is usedin publication andschooling in theTuvaA.S.S.R.Tuvastandsout amongthegeneral run ofTurkic languagesby virtue ofthe largenumberof Mongolian lexicalloans, and alsobecauseofsome unusualphoneticfeatures:wheremost Turkic languages havean oppositionbetweenweakconsonantswhich are usuallyvoicedand strong consonantswhich are usuallysomewhataspirated,in Tuva aspirationis the main distinctivefeaturekeepingthetwoseriesapart,with voicingonlyintermittentfor the unaspiratedseries;in addition to an opposition betweenlong and short vowels, foundin severalTurkiclanguages, Tuva alsohasa distinctiveseriesofpharyngalized vowels,asin Al 'horse'versusaf 'name'. Tofa (alsocalledTofalar,actuallytheplural ofTofa, and Karagas)isverycloseto Tuva, but becauseof the ethnic distinctnessof the Tofa it is usuallyconsidereda separatelanguage,spokenby only 56.3%ofthe 620 ethnicTofa, a dramaticdrop ftom 89.I% in 1959,demonstrating how rapidly a smallethnicgroup can be assimilatedlinguistically,in this instanceto Russian.As might beexpectedfrom the smallnumberolspeakers, the language is not written. 963'/oof the 296,244YakuthaveYakut astheir nativelanguageand96.5,X,livein
2.1 The individual languages
53
theYakutA.S.S.R., wheretheyconstitute beingslightly 43%ofthetotalpopulation, outnumbered by theRussians. In addition,Dolganis usuallyconsidered anaberrant dialectofYakut,andisspokenby 89.8'lo ofthe4,877ethnicDolgan,livingprimarily in theTaymyr'(Dolgan-Nenets) N.O.:ethnically, theDolganaredistinctfrom the Yakut, and probably representa Tungusicpeoplewho have adoptedthe Yakut language with strongTungusicsubstratum influence. Yakut is verydivergentfrom - asa resultoflongseparation otherTurkiclanguagesthoughlesssothanChuvash from the body ofTurkic speakers, and influence from the neighbouring Tungusic (evenstrongerin Dolgan)andMongolianlanguages. languages Oneofthe marked phoneticcharacteristics ofYakut isthediphthongization oflongmid vowels, to give ia. uo, ie, r1o.Althoughsomebookscameout in Yakut during the nineteenth century,asthe resultofmissionaryactivity,it wasonly in the post-Revolutionary periodthatYakutwassubstantially developed asa literarylanguage, beingusedalso in the school system.Dolgan has neverbeenusedas a written language,and is sullicientlydifferentfrom themain body ofYakut dialectsto makestandardwritten Yakutunsuitable asa writtenandeducational mediumfor theDolgan.Yakut is not theYakutnamefor themselves, whichis saxa(areflexofthesame Proto-Turkicform as y:?ku(r));Yakut is thus one ol the few languages of the U.S.S.R.wherea traditionalRussiannamehasbeenretainedratherthanthenameusedby theethnic groupconcerned. Khakas,alsoknownasAbakanTurkicandYenisey Turkicafterthegeographical locationoftheKhakas,isspokenby 83.7'2, ofthe66,725KhAkas, over8ool,ofwhom live in the KhakasA.O., wheretheyare heavilyoutnumbered by Russians. The dialectdiversitywithin Khakas is rather marked,but currentlythe standard language is beingspreadthroughpublications andtheschoolsystem. Onedialectof Khakasis spokenby a smallethnicgroupdistinctfrom theKhakas:thisis Kamas, and the Kamas were originally speakersof a Samoyediclanguageassimilated linguistically by the Khakas;in r97o,therewas one speakerofthe Samoyedic language Kamas,andabout2ooKamasaltogether, mostof whomuseRussianas theirwrittenlanguage. Shoris an unwrittenTurkiclanguage spokenby 73.5%ofthe r 6,494ethnicShor (Shorts. alsoknownby variousothernamesin earlierliterature, suchasMrasTatar, KondomaTatar.KuznetzkTata.,Tom:KuznetskTatar,aftertheareawherethey live in the Allay mountains). [t is closeto Khakas,and the Shor useKhakasor Russianastheirwrittenlanguage. ChulymTatar,thelanguage of a numberofTurkic peoples in the Chulymriver basin(ChulymTatar.Ketsik(Kezik),Kiierik),isanotherunwrittenTurkiclanguage ofSiberia.Statistics on thenumberofspeakers havenot beenavailable, andRussian is usedas the nrainmediumof writing
2. Altaic languages
The lastof theTurkic languages of Union Republics to be considered is Kirgiz, spokenby 98.8%of the r,432,222Kitgizin theU.S.S.R., plussome8o,oooin China and 25,oooin Afghanistan.Most of the SovietKirgiz, 88.5%,live in the Kirgiz S.S.R., wheretheyconstitute ofthepopulation, thelargest group singleethnic 43.8'Zo in the republic; in addition to Russians,the republic also has a sizableUzbek population(r r.3%,),and the Southerndialectsof Kirgiz havebeeninfluenced by Uzbek. Like the languagesof other Union Republics,Kirgiz is used alongside Russianin publicationsand educationat all levelsin Kirgizia. Kirgizia showsan especiallymarked discrepancybetweenthe ethnic compositionof the rural and urbanpopulations: in thecities,Russians outnumberKirgizby threeto one,andin Frunze,therepublic's capital,by overnveto oneFinally,we may considerAltay, formerlyalsoknownasOyrat,aftertheOyrat tribethatoncelivedinthisarea,thoughtheOyratarein lactMongolian(theKatmyk areonebranchof theOyrat).87.2,% of the 55,8r 2 Altay haveAltay astheirnarive language.Over 90% of the Altay live in the Altay kray, most of them in the Mountain-AltayA.O. Altay did existbeforethe Revolutionin a limitedway as a written language,as a result of activity by Orthodox missionaries,though some secularworkswerealsopublished.At presentAltayis usedwidelyin publicationand educationup to secondarylevel.Thereis markeddivergencebetweenthe Northern dialects and the Southern dialects, which latter have most speakers,indeed geneticallythe Northern dialectsactually belongcloserto the Khakas group of languages; theformationofthe Altay asa singlepeopleis thusevidenceofthe wayin which Turkic languagesand dialects,as a result of the small degreeof divergence betweenthem overall,can be reconstitutedas the resultof reconstitutionofethnic groups.
2.r.2
Mongolianlanguages The internalclassificationof the Mongolian languagesis, ifanything, evenmorecomplicatedthan that ofthe Turkic languages. As with Turkic, diflerent membersof the Mongolian family arc very closeto oneanothergenetically,though not alwaysmutually intelligible this appliesin particularto thoselanguagesthat first broke off from tbe massof Mongolian speakers.Part of the problem is that, during the populationexpansionthat accompaniedthe military expeditionsof the Mongol Khans, variousbranchesof Mongolian split off from the centralmassof Mongolian,whichmeansthatMongolianproperis almostdefined negatively asthe languageof those that remainedbehind: moreover,the processof splitting oll . continuedalmostup to the presentday, so that thereare someinstanceswhereit is dimcult to saywhethera givenspeechvarietystill belongsto Mongolianproperor is
z.r The individual languages
55
alreadya distinct language.The problemofdialect versuslanguageis relevantnot that have only for Mongolianproper,but alsofor someofthe Mongolianlanguages split off from the main stem,so that lists of Mongolian languages(as opposedto dialects)often vary considerably. A further complication is presentedby the.nomenclature:wher€aswe have thereis differenttermsfor Turkish, the language,and Turkic, the language-family, no suitablepair oftermsfor Mongolian,whichthusrangesambiguouslybetweenthe nameof the whole family and the nameof the largestsinglelanguagewithin that family;sometimes thelanguageitselfiscalledKhalkha,afterits principaldialectand there the basisofthe standardlanguage,but this canbe equallyconfusing,because arealsodialectso f theMongolianlanguageotherthanKhalkha,anditis incorrectto with the useKhalkhato coverthem.Finally,manyof the Mongolianlanguages, exceptionofthose that split offearly from the main stem,havedev€lopedunderthe from ofClassical Mongolian,theonlyMongolianwrittenlabguage stronginfluence the thirteenth to the twentieth centuryrthus all literate speakersof Mo[golian readandwrotethe (andthis meant,primarily,membersofthe lamaseries) languages samelanguage,written in a verticalscript derivedftom the Uygur alphabet,even with the soundchangesthat had taken thoughtheywould pronouncein accordance placein their own languageor dialect.The vertical script is still usedfor writing Mongolianin China,andapparentlyis still quitewidelyusedforprivate purposesin Republic), althoughtheomcialscriptthereis Mongolia(i.e.theMongolianPeople's Cyrillic, with a few additionsto the Russianalphabetfor specificallyMongolian sounds,e.g.the front (actually,central)roundedvowelso, i. Theeasiest wayto approachtheproblemis firstofall todivideollthoseMongolian languages that havelong beenout ofcontactwith themassof Mongolianlanguages anddialects,includingClassicalMongolian.Theseare:Moghol (Mongul, Monguor - but not to be confusedwith the other Monguor below),spokenin no h-western Afghanistan;Monguor, Dagur, and Pao-an,spokenin China, with Santa,Tunghsiang,and Yellow Uygur (i.e. the languageof thoseYellow Uygur who speaka The remaining separatelanguages. Mongolianlanguage)sometimes alsoconsidered from orre anotherbut reasonably clearly differcntiated languages fallinto thr€esets. all having developeduntil recentlyunder the influenceof ClassicalMongolian: Buryat,Oyrat, and Mongolian (proper).Buryat is the easiestofthese to dealwith, ofthe U.S.S.R.: sinceit is relatively homogeneous, andis alsoa language 92.6%of native language; the have Buryat as their the 3r4,6jr ethnicBuryatin U.S.S.R. 56.8%of themlivein theBuryatA.S.S.R.,wheretheyconstitute2270of thetotal most of the remainderlive in the population(nearlythreequartersare Russian); BuryatN.O. and the AginskiyIrkutsk and Chita oblastsin the Ust'-Ordynskiy overhalfthepopulation.In BuryatN.O..in whichlattertheBuryatconstitutejust
2. Altaic languages
56
addition,some24,oooBuryatlive in China.In the U.S.S.R.,Buryatis usedas a writtenlanguage, with Cyrillicscript,for publicationand schooling. TheOyratarescattered widelyacrosstheChinese-Soviet borderarea, andalsoin Mongolia,andexactstatistics, aswellasdialectdescriptions, arenot available. One groupwithin the Oyrat,the Kalmyk,separated from the massof the Oyratin the seventeenthcentury and migrated westwards,entering the RussianEmpire and finallysettlingto thewestofthe lowerVolga,on landwhich.likethatsettledby the VolgaGermansfurthernorth. hadbecomeemptyfollowingthecollapseofpower of the GoldenHorde,with its centreat Astrakhan'.Sincethis areais technically in Europe,the Kalmyk becamethe only Mongolianand Buddhistpeoplewith their homein Europe.Untilther92os,theKalmykuseda modifiedversionoftheClassical Mongolianverticalscript.Sincethen,they haveswitchedfrom Cyrillic to Latin and backagain.At presentKalmyk is spokenby gr.1,,tof the 41,r94 ethnicKalmyk in the U.S.S.R.:they constitute4r.r"l, of rhe populationof the Kalmyk A.S.S.R. (slightlylessthantheRussians), and80.4%ofthe Kalmyklivejn theirown A.S.S.R. During the SecondWorld War, the Kalmyk wereaccusedofcollaborationwith the Nazis,anddeportedfromtheirhome,beingallowedto returnonlyin thelater95os; in theintervening period,therewas no publishingin Kalmyk,but thelanguage isnow usedagainin publicationandschooling. Compaisonofthe Kalmykpopulahonin r959(ro6.o66)with that ol r926(r29,ooo).takinginto accountexpected na!ural increase,givessomeidea of the harshnesswith which the deportationwascarried out. We may now briefly surveythe rest of Mongolian, although we are no longer dealingwith languages of the U.S.S.R.Essentially, what remainsis the language Mongolian,althoughsomedialectsof Mongolian proper are sometimesseparated oflas distinct languages,e.g.Ordos and Khorchin; however,speakersof all these dialects useMongolianastheirwrittenlanguage. As mentioned above,Mongolianis written in the Cyrillic script in the Mongolian People'sRepubtic, where the overwhelmingmajority of the nearly Too,ooospeakersof Mongolian speakthe Khalkhadialect.In China,especially InnerMongoliaandManchuria,Mongolianis still writtenin theverticalUygurscript,and is thenativelanguage ofovera million Mongolians. Precisestatisticsfor most Mongolian languagesand dialectsare dimcult to ascertain,and estimatesfor the total for all Ianguages and dialectsrn rne lamily rangefrom 2+to 5 million. SincemostMongolianlanguages arenot languages oftheU.S.S.R., in thedetailed discussion in sections2.2 2.4 we shallbe concentrating on Turkic and Tungusrc languages, mostof whichare languages of the U.S.S.R.,drawingon Mongouan data,especially from BuryatandKalmyk,forpurposes ofcomparison andcontrast.
2.1 The individual 2.r 3
languages
5'l
Tungusic languages TheTungusic languagesare spoken in the border areasofChina and the
U.S.S.R., in the Far East, and also rvell into the U.S.S.R. in eastern Siberia;in addition, there are some Evenki in Mongolia. The classification of Tungusic languages is reasonably straightforward, though not without co[troversy, and the main problem is ascertaining j ust how many Tungusic languages there are: for the U.S.S.R. there are descriptions ofthe languagesand many oftheir dialects, but the Tungusic languages of China are much less well studied, and several ethnonyms appear in earlier literature for which we have no subsequent mentions
most
probably they refer to dialectsofone of the larger languages.In the U.S.S.R.,it is usual to refer to this group oflanguages as Tungus-Manchu, and divide it into two main branches, Tungusic (proper) and Manchu. The latter consists of the almost extinct Manchu and Juchen. theextinct fo!erunner ofManchu. The main reasonsfor this groupilg seem to be the great typological differences between Manchu and Juchen on the one hand and the other languages,but this typological diference is not evidence ofgenetic difference, and with Manchu one must always bear in mind the strong influence exerted by Chinese (nearly all Manchu texts are translations from Chinese); although Manchu has also influenced the other South€rn Tungusic languages.The alternative grouping, adopted here, is into a Northern group versusa Southern group, which latterincludes Manchuas one ofits subbranches.The overall grouping is shown in Table 2.3, which includes all the Tungusic languages of th€ U.S.S.R., in accordance with the usual differentiation ther€of into separate languages, and those non-Soviet languag€s for which evidence is clear, i.e. Solon, Manchu and Juchen. Allofthe Tungusic languagesthat survive are spoken by small population groups, numbering at most in the tens of thousands. Fo! most of th€seethnic groups, this simply reflects the inability oftheir habitat to support large populations in the pretechnological period. An exception must be made for Manchu, since the Manchu were once a major political force in the area, having conquered China in the seventeenth century. However, like all foreign conquerors of China, they were ultimately absorbed by the greater power ofChinese civilisation, so thateven though the Manchu exist as a distinctethnic group, andcontrolled the Chinese Empire until I9r I, their language has been almost completely replaced by Chinese. The most reliable data on Manchu speakerstoday concerns the Sibe (Sibo) dialect, spoken by some 20,ooo people; whether morc central dialects ofManchu are still spoken at all remains debatable. Manchu is, incidentally, written in the vertical Uygur script, borrowed from Mongolian. Of the three Northern Tungusic languagesspoken in the U.S.S.R.,Evenki and Even have written forms, used for publication and in primary schooling, while
2. Altaic languages 'lable
58
24. Genetic classification of the Tungusiclanguages
Northern (North-western,Siberian,Evenki)Tungusic Evenki(alsocalledsimplyTungus;includesOrochon) Even(Lamut) Negidal Solon Southern(Amur) Tungusic Tungusic South-Western Manchu (includingthe Sibo dialect) Juchen Tungusic South-Eastern Nanay (Gold) ) Ulcha (Olcha) > Nanay subgroup Orok (UIta) ) Udese I ... uroch t
Negidalis unwritten.Thesethreelanguages,like all the Tungusiclanguagesofthe U.S.S,R.,have relativelylow languageretentionrates,with markedfalls betwcen r959 and r97o,a resultofthe fact that the Tungusicpeoplesare now usuallysmall in theirtraditionalhomes,Evenkiis spokenasa native minoritiesamongRussians language by 5r.3rl0of the 25,I49ethnicEvenki.Despitetheirsmallnumbers,the Evenki are spreadacrossa hugeareain central Siberia,so that the Evenki N.O., conlainsjust ove! I2.8%of its areaof 767,600 squarekilometres, notwithstanding the total [umber ofEvenki. In earlierliterature,the Evenkiareoftensimplyreferred to asTungus,sometimesalsoby namesofsubdivisionsofthe Evenki,e,g.Orochon, across Manegir.Evenisspokenby 56%(in I959:8I.4%)ofthe I2,o29Evenscattered north-eastern Siberia;nowhereis therea concentrationofEvenpopulationsumcient to havejustifiedsettingup an autonomousunit for them.Negidal,in many waysa is spokenby 53.3%of bridgebetweenEvenkiandtheSouthernTungusiclanguages, the 537Negidal,mostofwhom livein the lowerAmur. Of the South-EasternTungusiclanguages,spokenalong the lower Amur and Ussuriand their tributaries,and alsoon Sakhalinisland(in thecaseofOrok), only Nanay hasa written language,usedin primary schoolingand somepublications. (Udegehad a brief and very restrictedcurrencyas a written languagein the early Tungusicpeoplesisvery r93os.)The terminologyolthe namesforthe South-Eastern confusing,because thetermNanayhasbeenusedby variousofthem (Nanay,Ulcha, - andsomeofthe othernamesareno Oroch) it means'peopleofthe land/locality' term which replaced the earlierterm Nani, is Evenki for lessconfusing:the Oroch, 'reindeer-breeder'. althoushthe Oroch do not in fact breedreindeer.[n current
z.z Phonology
59
official terminology,the term Nanay is restrictedas indicatedin Table 2.3 to the ethnicgroup formerly referredto as Gold, while the other languages, which dilfer sumcientlyfrom Nanayto makewritten Nanayunsuitableastheir written medium, aregiventhe nameslistedin Table2.3.Nanayis spokenby 69.I% of I o,oo5ethnic Nanay;Ulchaby 6o.8%ofthe2,448Ulcha:Udegeby 55.r % ofthe r,469Udege;and Orochby 46.8%ofthe r,o89Oroch.The r97ocensusstatisticsdo not includefigures for theOrok, thoughpreviousestimates arearound4ooethnicOrok, 2.2 Phonology The main aspectof the phonologyof the Altaic languages that has attractedtheinterestof generallinguistsis vowelharmony,wherebyallthevowelsof a work have to have certain featuresin common.and it is with a detailed consideration ofvowelharmonythatweshallbeprimarilyconcerned in thissection. Although thedetailsofvowel harmonydiffersomewhatfrom languageto larguage, thereis a singlegeneralsystem thatiscommonto nearlyalloftheTurkiclanguages, and a very similar systemcommon to the Mongolian languages.Even though the phoneticnature of vowel harmonyis ratherdiferent in Tungusiclanguages, on a more abstrac(levelthe kind of systemthat operates(as opposedto its phonetic realisation) is of essentiallythe same kind. Vowel harmony also has certain repercussions on thepronunciation ofconsonants, mainlyofan assimiiatory kind; otherwise, the consonantal systems of Altaic languages are relatively straightforward. We maystartour discussion ofvowelharmonyby lookingat thesystem in Kirgiz, a Turkic language,and oneofthe mostconsistentand symmetricalvowelharmony systems. Kirgiz haswhatmight beregardedasa canonicalTurkicvowelsystem, with eightvowelphonemesdistinguishedby qualily (in addition,Kirgiz, like manyother Tur.kiclanguages, hasphonemicvowellength),the logicalpossibilitiesusingbinary oppositionsof front versusback, roundedversusunrounded,and high versus ronhigh (the nonhigh vowel a is low, the others mid). This is represented diagrammaticallyin Table 2.4. (The systemcan, of course!be representedmore revealinglyin threedimensions, onefor eachofthe parametersheight,frontness,and rounding).In a givenword (with the exceptionofcompoundwords,and loansfrom otherlanguages, to whichwereturnlater),allthevowelsmustsharc thesame feature for front-back and the samefeaturefor rounded-unrounded.This meansthat the value for thesetwo parametersis determinedonceand for all for a word, and all vowelsin that word mustshowthe samefcaturevalues.Vowelharmonydoesnot affectthe heightdimension in Turkic languages, so that highand nonhighvowels freelycombinewilh oneanotherin words.The easiest way to seetheoperationof vowelharmonyis not by extmininglonglistsofwordsto checkthatthisprincipleis
6o
2. Altaic languages Ta6le 2.4. Kirgiz vowel qualitt system Unrounded Fronl Back
Rounded Front Back
Hish Nonhigh
observed, althoughthiscouldofcoursebedone,but ratherto Iookat whathappens when suffixescombinewith stemsto give longerwords. Thesamerestriction on co-occurrence ofvowelsappliesto all morphemes withina givenword, with the resultthat in Kirgiz eachsuffixhasfour forms,onefor us€with stemsand containingonly thevowelsi ande;onefor usewithback frontunrounded stems and containing the vowelsr'and a; one for usewith front unrounded only roundedstemsand containingonly the vowelsu and o; and one for usewith back roundedstems,and containingonly the vowelsu and o. Sincethe only vowel contrasts thatcanbefoundin a suflixarethushighversus nonhigh,it isconvenient to (the precise quality the symbol 1as a cover symbol for any high vowel being use determinedby thefrontnessand roundnessofthe stem),and A asa coversymbolfor anynonhighvowel.Wemay thenseehowsufhxescombinewith stemsofthe various classes.For this purpose,we shalleraminetwo sumxes:the suffix -IrC1(-rCI after vowels)forms ordinals from cardinal numerals,and the suffix -dAn (-tAn after voiceless consonants) forms the ablativecaseof nouns.Table 2.5 illustrates the possibilities.Ifa seriesofsuffixes isadded.thenvowelharmony operates throughthe wholesequence, sothat by addingthethird personpossessive sumx-(s)1(r) and the locativesumx -dA ( -1Aaftera voiceless consonant),wegetsuchformsas ata-si-da 'at his father',ere-srn-de'at his mother',kdz-iin-dd'inhis eye',tuz-un-do'ilhis salt'. The regularityofthe Kirgiz systemisactuallyratheruntypicalofTurkic languages with whichvowelroulding is maintained asa whole,in particulartheconsistency throughout a word (so-calledlabial harmony, as opposedto palatal harmony, concerningthe front-back dimension).Beforelooking at someofthesedeviations, however,it is necessary to emphasizetwo aspectsof vowel harmony.First, vowel harmony involves neutralisation: although Kirgiz has eight distinct vowel qualities.in suffixesthereare effectivelyonly two possibilities,high or nonhigh,or moregenerally:once thefrontnessandroundedness ofa word aredeterminedby the first vowel of the stem (we shall seebelow why this vowel is determining),the front-back and rounded unroundedoppositionsare neutralisedfor all following vowels.Secondly, vowelharmonyinvolvesassimilation: not only is the qualityof vowelsofsr]cceeding syllables determined by thatof thefirstsyllable, but thevowels
2.2 Phonology
6r
Table 2.5. Illustntions
of Kirgiz vowel harmony
CARDINAL
ORDINAL
bir beS alti jijirma iia
bir-inai bes-inai alti-nai Jijirma-nli uc-uncu titrt-iinaii toguz-unau on-undu
toSuz
NOMINATIVE
ABLATIVE
i( et
i5-ten et-ten Jil-dan alma-dan iij-ddn kdl-d6n tuz-don lokoidon
jil alma iij kttl tuz tokoj
'five' 'six' 'lwenty' 'three' 'four' 'nine' 1en'
'meat'
.year' 'apple' .house, .take' 'salt' .forest.
of those successive syllablesshare the same paramgtervalue for frontnessand backness. Onecouldeasilyimaginea systemthat would haveneutralisationwllnour assimilation,e.g. in which all noninitial vowels would be back unrounded, irrespectiveof the value of the initial vowel; we shall seebelow that somethine approachingthis doesin fact characterise many Turkic languages. Onewayin whichmanyTurkiclanguagesdifler from Kirgizisin havingnoteight, butninevowelqualities, withdistinction of e from d in thefrontunrounded nonhigh box of Table 2.4. Maintenanceof this distinction is scatteredacrossthe Turkic languages,and showsonly weak correlation with subgroup and even language bounda es: for instance,Azerbaydzhanhas the distinction, whereasstandard Turkish doesnot, althoughmany dialectsof Turkish do, as in i7 .hand' versuser 'people'. Forpurposesofvowelharmony,iand e behavealike,andmostlanguages that haveboth phonemesallow only oneofthem in sumxes(thusAzerbavdzhanhas only a irt suffxes). The main deviation that is found in many Turkic languagesconcernslabial harmony, in particular with the nonhigh vowels.In many Turkic languagesthe rounded unroundedparam€leris simply neutralisedto unroundedfor noninitial nonhighvowels,i.e.we haveneutralisation withoutassimilation. In Table2.6we givea numberof Azerbaydzhan wordswith thesumxes-h of thegenitivecaseand
62
2. Altaic languages Table 2.6. Illustrations of Azerbaydzhan vowel hamony NOMINATIVE jarpag kiil:ik ox sdz
GENITIVE jarpay-in kiilej-in ox-un s6z-iin
LOCATIVE jarpag-da kiiliik-de ox-da s6z-dii
'leaf' 'wind'
-dA of the locative case:the stem-finalconsonantalternationsthat are to be observedin theseexamplesarequite regular;the alternationbetween-dA and -fA (thelatterafter voiceless consonants)is not reflectedin Azerbaydzhanorthography, and we haveretainedthe more morphophonemictranscriptionhere.It will be s€en from theseexamplesthat, whereasthe highvowelbehavespreciselyasin Ki.giz, the nonhigh vowel in suffixesshows palatal harmony, but only neutralisationwith This can be seennot only in sumxes,but alsoin stems:for respectto roundedness. 'wind',just aswehavesdz-diiar'dnot instance,we havethe word kijliik,not* ktil6k * sdz'do.Othersimilarviolationsoflabial harmony,right up to completeabsenceof labial harmony,are found in many Turkic languages.For instance,Turkish hasa systemmuchlike that ofAzerbaydzhan,exceptthat withinstemsthehighvowelsare automaticallyroundedafter a labial consonant,so that round€dhigh vowelscan occur in words wherethe precedingvowelsare not rounded,e g, tavuk'hen'. Above, we indicated in passingthat vowel harmony in Turkic languagesis determinedby thefirstvowelofthe stem Oneargumentfor thisclaimcanbededuced ofneutralisationofrounding ratherthan harmony,in noninitial from theexistenc€ theinitial syllablcalwayshasthe lull range like Azerbaydzhan: syllablesin languages qualities,o and c; are exclud€dfrom qualities, two vowel while of potentialvowel syllable Whileonecanpredictthelackof roundinginthesecond syllables. nonirritial in krj,Lik,there is no way of predictingthat of the flrst vowel,even knowing the second.Actually, the generalisationthat the first vowel is determiningis part of a more generalprinciple,namelythat vowelharmonyin Turkic (and more generally operatesfrom left to right, witheachvowelaffectingth€quality of Altaic) languages vowel.Another manifestationofthis principlecan be seenwhenwe the succeeding combinehigh-voweland nonhigh-vowelsumxesin a languagelike Azerbaydzhan Weshalltakethenounsoz'word',andthesumxes labialharmony, with inconsistent -lm'my'and -lAr,indicatingplurality. I fwe add -Im directlyto sijzwe getsiiz-iim, androundingof o carryingoveJintothehighvowelofthe sumx.lfwe thefrontness with thefrontnessofthe o carryingover,but the addJAr to sdz. theresult is soz-,/r'r, of roundingto unroundedfor the nonhighvowel.If we add both neutralisation sumxmustfollow theplural sumx,thentheresult suffixes.in whichcasethepossessive 'my * words', and not sdzJir-iim. Thus the quality of eachvowel is is sciz-liirim
2.2 Phonology
63
determined(exceptfor height)by that ofthe precedingvowel;only the initial vowel, which ofcourse has no precedingvowel,is independentin this respect. An interesting variationon neutralisation ratherthancomplete labialharmony is providedby Tatar, with respectto the close-midvowels,which, it will be recalled from the generaldiscussionofTatar in section2.r, derivefrom Proto-Turkic high vowels.The distinctionbetweeno and r, andthedistinctionbetw€€no and e arelosr in noninitial syllables,with unrounded vowels after unrounded vowels; after roundedvowels,onefindsprogressive delabialisationfrom left to right in theword, 'chisel' sothatin awordlike ctterge the firstvowelis fully rounded,thesecondlessso, the third evenlessso, and so on for longerwords;the currentorthographywrites unroundedvowelsin noninitialsyllablesAlthough wehavespokenso far aboutharmonyonly in relationto vowels,in fact phoneticallythe assimilatorypart ofvowel harmonyalso affectsconsonants,with consonantsbeingpalatalised(or havingamoreforwardarticulationlorconsonants, like velars,wherethe soft palateis the primary placeofarticulation) in front-vowel words,and velarised(or havingamorer€tractedarticulationwh€rethesoftpalateis the primary placeofarticulation,e.g.uvular articulationratherthan velar)in backvowel words; in addition, consonants in words with rounded vowels are allophonicallyrounded,althoughit is the palatalisationversusvelarisationthat is most relevant.The phoneticdifferenceis most markedwith the velars(prevelarin frontvowelwords, uvularinbackvowelwords) andl.Thus,a narrowertranscription ofthe Kirgizword tol'lake', whichweintroducedabove,would be {o/'; a narrower transcriptionoftheword toftoj'for€st'would be logoj. Sincethisdistinctionis,with certainexceptionsto be notedbelow,allophonic,we havenot in generalnotedit in transcriptions.In some languages,instead of uvular plosiveswe find uvular fricatives:thusAzerbaydzhanox 'arrow' correspondsto Turkish ok (phonetically og); continuantvaluesare alsosom€timesfound for the voicedprevelarin certain positions,especiallyintervocalically,as j; thus the Azerbaydzhanform ktlliljin 'wind (GEN)'contains a j representinga prevelarintervocalically. Although the distinctionpalatalisedversusvelarisedconsonantsis in generalless sali€ntphoneticallythan that betweenfront and back vowels,and can thereforebe consideredpurely allophonic,thereare someTurkic Ianguages and dialectswhere the phoneticonusofmaintainingthe distinctionhasbeenshiftedfrom thevowelsto theconsonants,so that onehasa tendelcytowardsconsonantharmonyratherthan vowel harmony. In both Gagauz and Karaim, fiont vowelsare backedafter a palatalisedconsonant,so that in Karaim wehaveko2urhdafor expectedkdzimde 'inmyeye',and diah for expectedcizen'stream';in Gagauz.we have 6ai'I'nthet than ber.and aat iiSiuia'on thetree'ratherthan aaCtsttre. Itwill beseenfrom theseexamplesthat the front-backoppositionis not carriedcompletelyby the
2. Aluic litnguages
04
consonants:words with an initial vowel still retain initial front' including front rounded.vowels,sincethe backing takesplaceas a historicalprocessonly after a similar ofUzbekimplythat Uzbekhasundergone Most descriptions consonants. histoical process, losing the oppositions ulii, old, and ;/t'' leading to n k ar\dq, E a\d G ' I and ,, sothat Uzbek phonologisationofthe oppositionsbetwee gd|arm', Turkishkol versusftol.However'aswill cf. versus wouldhavekril'lake' of Uzbekfailsto takeaccountofcertainoppositions beshownbelow,thisanalysis betueenvowelsthat areclearlyphonemic introducedinto the vowel harmonyrulesof Turkic The main complications through the introduction of large numbersof loanwords'in have been languages of Muslimpeopl€s'and wordsinto theIanguages particularofArabic and Persian of the U.S S'R (andof morerecentlyof Russianwordsinto theTurkic languages of WesternEuropeanloansinto Turkish,Chineseloansinto Turkic languagcs Whilethese tovowelharmony not subject are these languag€s China).sincewordsin loans are sometimesassimilatedto the native vowel harmony pattern, as when 'possible',with successive Turkish derivesminkiin from miimkin from mumklt vowelassimilation'thevastmass ofregressiveand progressive diachronicprocesses andarenowfullyassimilated harmony, to vowel remain as exceptions ofsuchwords wordsin Azerbaydzhanare ofsuch question Examples in assuchinto thelanguages 'substance' from Arabic, dilaviir'bold' from Persian, and revolusija maddt 'revolution'from Russian. Althoughthesestemsviolatethegeneralrulesofvowel vowel harmonyrulesstill apply whensuffixesare added,and the regular harmony, since,asindicatedabove,vowelharmonyalwaysoperatesfrom left to right, it is the lastvowelof the stemwhichdeterminesthe vowelqualitiesof the suffixesThus the pluralsofthe nounsgivenaboveare maddii-liir ar.d rcvolusijalar. A similar phenomenonis found with som€nativewords' in particularthosethat deriveetymologicallyfrom a seriesof separatewords,e.g.compoundwords,and certain complex verb forms. An example of a compound noun would be suiri'seal',literallysu-it-i'waterdog-its',with the two roots su Azerbaydzhan 'water' and rt 'dog'; its plural is, ofcourse, suirTar,the quality of the sumx being determinedby the precedingvowel.SeveraldialectsofTurkmen form the present tensewith the sumx 1br/1bor, which is not subjectto vowelharmony and derives 'l 'l etymologicallyfrom a separateauxiliaryverb, e.g. al-jor-un take'' gel-jotun come',thevowelofthe sumxbeingdeterminedby theprecedingvowelo lnstandard Turkmen and other dialects,this sumx has beenassimilatedto the regularvowel harmony rules,as -jAr (i.e. -jar or -jiir, sinceTurkmen regularlydoes not have nonhighroundedvowelsin noninitialsyllables). Loanwordsfrom Arabic, in addition to leadingto massiveviolation of vowel especially withsomeoftheconsonants' harmonyin roots,alsoleadto complications
2.2 Phoilology
65
in their relationto adjacentvowels:Arabic hasa number ofphoncmic distinctionsin its consonant system which are purely allophonic in Turkic. Thus Arabic has separatephonemes k, g, x, and y (the last two phonetically uvular), whereasin Turkic IanguagesI, g. and x are usuallyallallophonesof k, while y is an allophone ofg; conversely, Arabic lacks front rounded and back unrounded vowel phonemes. Arabic also has phoncmic oppositions between so-called plain and cmphatic consonants. the latter being velarised and/or pharyngalised. In most Turkic languages,in the processofadapting Arabic words into thegiven languageattempts wereand are madeto retainthe rangeofphonemicdistinctionsthat Arabic has.With respectto the velar versus uvular oppositions, this meant having many instancesof uvular consonants adjacent to front vowels. and prevelar consonants adjacent to back vowels, and most Turkic languages now have a fairly large number ofwords with this structure. Thus Tatar has such loans from Arabic as dlggdl 'attention', aay?ii 'meaning', while Azerbaydzhan has such loans (from Persian) as ju,l 'rose'. While one way in which vowel harmony can be disruptedis externallybecauseof loansfrom other languages, vowelharmonycanalsobedisruptedinternally,ifsound changes occur to change the original quality of one of the vowels concerned. A relatively minor instance of this is to be found in Azerbaydzhan, where the opposition between i and r'is lost word-initially, both being merged to ,', in the dialects on which the standard language is based. Thus the standard language has rsrg'light', where many other dialects have tisrg.In general, this does not affect the vowels of subsequent syllables, so that exceptions to vowel harmony arise. With monosyllabicstems,however,the lossofany phoneticindication that the word is a back-vowel word leads to its reinterpretation as a front-vowel word, so that, for 'year' (cf. instancc. the pltrraf of r7 Turkish yrl [jit]) is i|-liir (ct.'f'urkish y -lar Uillarl). A more thoroughgoing breakdown of vowel harmony as a result of diachronicchangeis to be found in Uygur. whereProto-Turkic ri and ti mergeas i 'mother'. In everywhere,giving rise to such forms as ;iri-si'his mother'. cf. ,ta monosyllables, vowel harmony is reintroduced by fronting the vowel a, so that from Dal'cattle' we lorm me1-i'his cattle', although there are exceptionsto this rule among loanwords, e.g. &ar'deed' (from Persian), kar-i'his deed'. The end-product of these processesin Uygur is words with vowels from different vowel harmony series.and also the shift ot roots from one series to another as certain sumxes are added. e.g. back vowel ,ral to front vowel mel. we may consider Finally, in our discussionofvowelharmony in Turkic languages, those languageswhich are considered. or at least certain ofthe dialects ofwhich are considered,to have lost vowel harmony, usually leading to phonologisationof at least the oppositions between ,t and g. g and C (or the corresponding fricative), often also / and /- It does seemto be thc casethat certainTurkic languageson the
2. Altaic languages
66
in parlicularUzbekandUygur, aremovrngIn peripheryoftheTurkic-speakingarea, phonemic oppositionsi/i, uI ii ' and o I d;inUzbek' the loss of thisdirectionthlough this would lead to a vowel systemlike that of the neighbouringIranian language Tadzhik, i.e. i, e, a, o. i and u, and most publishedaccountsofuzbek do in fact claim assigllto Uzbeka vowelphonemesystemofpreciselythis kind. Suchanalyses result of in is the i' Uzbek phonetic rounded li and front of occurrenc€ that thg phonemes ha'te and the i.e. /V ltl assimilationto adjacentfronted consonants, allophones[ii] and [fi] whenadjacent,in particular,to k and gas opposedto q and O, The p.oblem that ariseswith this analysisconcernssuchminimal pairs as the lu.'stop', fiil'sort', uC following,givenin fairly narrowphonetictranscription: 'end', rji'three', which are minimal pairs for many speakersof Uzbek,and in the ofwhichKononov(I960:I9,32)may thetraditionalanalysis, standardlanguage.ln serveasan example,tJand i aresaidto beallophonesofa singlephoneme;however ln otherwords,thequalityofthe vowelis Candlare not setup asdistinctphonemes. but determinedby the adjacentconsonants, the quality ofthe consonantsis in turn in determinedby the adjacentvowel,leadingto a classicviolation of biuniqueness phonemicanalysis(moreover,onethatcannotbesavedby a moreabstractanalysis)' quality to While it may be doubtful whetherto assignthe phonemicdistinctiveness a whole it to the root as assign or to consonants, other ofthe the vowelor to oneor made must be distinction rather than to any specificsegmentthereof, still the somewhere.Incidentally,Uzbek orthographydoes not distinguishbetwcensuch pairs as thosegivenabove,althoughin the caseof words containingvelar/uvular consonantsdifferentsymbolsare usedfor the consonants;while Uzbek is probably moving in the directionindicatedby the orthography,it is clear that the standard language,at least,hasnot yet reachedtherc' Beforeturning to vowelharmonyin the other branchesof Altaic, we may briefly mention some of the other salient chamcteristicsof Turkic phonology. The opposition betweenvoiced and voicelessconsonants,especiallyplosives,is very beingwidespreadonly in intervocalicposition,with restrictedin Turkic languages, relativelyfew minimal pairs even there Word-finally, the distinction is usually member,thoughthedistinctionmay resurface neutralisedin favourofthe voiceless the consonantintervocalicagain, especiallyin when suffixesare added to make 'book', kitab-em 'ity book'. Word-initially, the loanwords, e-g. Tatar kitap plosivesisone ofthe maincriteriafor subgrouping prevalence ofvoicedor voiceless Chuvash,and Khakasand Shor,havealmost forinstanc€ so that, languages, Turkic havealmostexclusivelyinitial b Turkic languages p most initial whereas exclusively thelossofa voicingcontrastthat existedin Proto-Turkic,or Whetherthisrepresents creationofa new opposition,r€mainsunclea!. Many Turkic languageshavean oppositionbetweenshort and long vowelsthat
2.2 Phonology
6'l
seemsto continue a Proto-Turkic length distinction:Altay, Kirgiz, Tofa, Tuva, Turkmen, Khakas,Shor, and Yakut; in Gagauz,somewords retain proto-Turkic long vowels,but thedistinctionhaslargelybeenneutralised.Most Turkiclanguages havealsodevelopedsecondarylong vowels,eitherthroughthe lossofsyllable_final consonantswith compensatorylengthening, e.g. Qagatz iinii'ncedle.from *rgrd, ortbrough vowelcontractionafter the lossofintervocalicconsona[ts,asin Gagauz i 'well' from it, or in retentionof long vowelsin loans from other languages, especiallyArabic, e.g.Azerbaydzhanaalr'm.scholar'. The syllablestructureofTurkic languagesis generallyvery simple,with ar mosr oneinitial consonantand two finalconsonants. Earlierloansfrom foreignlanguages simplifyor breakupclustersofconsonantsthat violatethis rule,but at presentsuch loans, especiallyfrom Russian,are laken over in unmodified form. Sincehigh vowels,especiallyi, have a tendencyto be reducedor even lost betweenc€rtain consonants,phoneticinitial consonantcluste$ can a sein this way evenin nattve words,especiallyin rapid speech,asin Uzbek birinti or br'rCi.nrst'. Many Turkic languageshave stresson the final syllableof words, includingwords with several sumxesattached,as in Tatar bali ,child', plval balal6r, third person singular ,ofhis children,. possessive bala,/ar5, geritle balalaranSq Certainsumxes,however, fail to take lhe stress,for instancethe negativesumx -aA, givingriseto phonemrc stressdistinctionsin a fewinstances, suchasUzbek o,lmd.apple'versusdlza .don't take'. Thereare alsoindividual nativewords,and largenumbersofforeign words (especiallyof Russianorigin) that do not fall under this rule for final stress. The general principlesof vowel harmony in Mongolian languages,and in particularin Buryat and Kalmyk, are very similar to thoseofTurkic languages, so here we shall concentrateon the diferences. For proto-MoDgolian, we can reconstructa vowelsystemexactlylikethatgivenin Table2.4for Kirgiz.Themodern Mongolian languagesalso have phonemicvowel length, though this is always sgcondary,through lossof intervocalicconsonantsthat were presentin Classical Mongolian. In many modern languages,including Buryat, the so-called,front rounded' vowelsale actually central rounded vowels([u] and [e]). One major d€parturefrom the systemof Table 2.4, however,that is found eyenin Classical Mongolian,is the n€utralisationofthe ti opposition,so that only the onevowel , occursphongtically,in both front and backvowelwords;subsequcntly, this vowel palatalisedprecedingconsonants. Otherwise,palatalharmonyisasstlictinClassical Mongolianasin mostTurkic languages, and this strictnessis retained,with specific cxceptionsto be noted below, in thc modern languages.In addition to general exceptionsto be noted below, there are also individual exceptionsin Mongolian languages resultingfromcompoundingandloansfrom otherlanguages; asin Turkic languages, it is the lastvowelofsuch wordsthat is decisivein determininsthe vowel
2. Altaic languages
ofsumxes.The alternationoffront and backvowelsin sumxescanbeseenfrom such 'book', phllal nomuud, or, Buryat examplesas xeb 'form', pllJlal xebiijd, toll, 'elderbrother',plural axatat, usingtheseparateplural sumx -nAr forhumans,axa dtit'younger brother', plural dtr're.. The vowel l, neutralwith respectto vowel harmony,canb€seenin suffixesin mal'cattle, /tal-rl'my cattle',ger'house',ger-nl 'my house',and in front and back vowelstemssuchas /imbe'limba'(a kind of musicalinstrument)and ilalta 'victory'. Diachronically,the main way in which this systemhasbeendisruptedhasbeentn ofthe olderdiphthongsat oj, uj, and ei,€speciallythefirst themonophthongisation phonetically the result of thesemonophthongisationsis a long liont thrce, since vowel,e.g.in Buryat for the firstthree[da], [itit], [iiii] (distinctfrom [ee], [ud]). In includingKalmyk, the end resultofthis is the morewesterlyMongolianlanguages, the transf€rence ofwords which had thesediphthongsinto th€ front vowelclass.In Buryat, however,they remainas back vowel words, so that th€ classificationinto front v€rsusback words is no longerpurely phonetic,sincethe phoneticallyfront vowels[iiii], [iiii], and [iiii] behavemorphophonemicallyasback vowels,asin aJ7 'village',locativeajlta lanltal, notlitaltiil. Sincenoneofthe backdiphthongs [aAf] actually mergesphonetically with any of the front diphthongs in Buryat (in particular,rij is usuallyretainedasadiphthong,thusavoidingmergerwith uj), these new long vowelsbehaveconsistentlyas back vowels. It will alreadyhave beennoted from some of the examplesabove that labial harmonydoesnot work in the sameway in Mongolian languagesas in the most givensuchformsasBuryatxe6ttud'forms', with founded typicalTurkiclanguages, r.ifollowing unroundede. With respectto the high vowels,Mongolian languages haveneitherlabial harmonynor labial neutralisation,so that i can occur after any vowel,u afteranybackvowel,and i afteranynonbackvowel.With nonhighvowels, Mongolian languageshaveat leastneuttalisationof the labial feature.In the more westerlylanguages,including Kalmyk, there is consistentneutralisationto the unroundedvowels a, e in noninitial syllables,whetherthe initial syllablehas a roundedor an unroundedvowel,asin xoke,r'merry'.In themoreeasterlylanguages, including Buryat and Khalkha Mongolian, the quality of the precedingvowel is determiningprovidedthat that vowel is alsononhigh.In effect,this meansthat in noninitial syllables,o only occursfollowing o and o only occursfollowing o, with the additionalprovisothat the two nonhighroundedvowelsmay be separatedfrom one anotherby the neutml vowel i. Thus the instrumentalsumx in Buryat hasthe variants-(g\aarl-(g)eerl-G)oorl-G)iidr (i.e.-(g)AAr), asin mal'cattle',malaar; de4'candle', deggeer;bu./ag'source',bulagaar;soxoj'chalk',soxojgoor;compare 'sheep',locativexohindo. also the locativesuffix -dltA, as in xorr, is based,one further In the dialectsof Buryaton whichthe standardlanguage
2.2 Phonology
69
refinement has beenaddedt the short vowel o has beenunrounded to e (although the long vowel oo remains), so that the locative of diroct .stirrup, is dijKjijde. Labial assimilation can, however, still carry across such instances of e, as in xij'reldijdn 'conversation'. Since the long vowel ee and the earlier diphthong ey are often pronounced alike as [ee], and since unrounding affected the vowel oforiginal *oJ, one can also have phoneric [ee], deriving liom oj, after (t.j, as in tdddej lteedeef 'grandmother'. Thus, althoughthe currentvowel harmony systemofBuryat iseasily explicable on the basis of an original phonetic system to which various sound changes have applied, synchronically it is no longer a purely phonetically based vowel harmony system. In general in Mongolian languages, short vowels are pronounced indistinctly (tending towards schwa for the nonhigh vowels)in noninitial syllables.so rnar an alternativeanalysisof Mongolian vowel harmony would be to saythat in noninitial syllableswith short vowelsthereis simply neutralisationofvowelquality other than the high nonhigh opposition, with slight assimilation in quality to preceding vowels; this is, for instance, the analysis of Khalkha Mongolian adopted by poppe ( r97o). Other than in notation, this does not dilIer signilicantly from the analysis presented above. However. it should be noted that standard Kalmyk orthography adopts an extreme version of this analysis, simply omitting all noninitial short vow€ls (and writing noninitial long vowels with a singlevowel symbol, whereasthosein initial syllables are written with two). This gives rise to such orthographic curiosrtles as '(political) tolx/r, state', pronounced nojarxalhan, where a represents a schwalike vowel. Sincethe position of the vowel is not absolutelydeterminablefrom the consonant sequence,this is a departure from phonemic orthography. In Mongolian languages in general, not more than one consonant is permitted in both syllablejnitial and syilable-final positions. Within the Tungusic languages, there is much more variation from language to languagein the type ofvowel harmony system,but it seemsthat a singletype can be reconstructed for Proto-Tungusic, utilising a phonetic basis for the division of vowels into vowel harmony classes,then explaining some of the idiosyncrasies of individual languagesin terms ofsound changesthat applied to that original system. One of the most consistent systems is found in Even, and we may start from this, especially as Even is in many respects a very conservative Tungusic language. In Even, the vowels are divided into two classes, traditionally relerred to as hard (indicated by a subscript dot, except for a) and sofr (no subscript; harc a correspondsto soft e). Eachofthe hard vowelsis slightlylowerand further back than its soft counterpart.The vowel phonemesofEven are illustratedin Table 2.7;vowet lengthis phonemic,exceptfor ,. and thereare in addition two risingdiphthongs.soft re and hard r-a.The phoneticbasisofthe systemmight seemto be vowel height,wltn
1o
2. Altaic languages Table 2.7. Even vowel system Soft vowcls iu
z.j
Morphological
structure and categories
7r
Table 2.8. Evenki vowel system
Hard vowels iu
each hard vowellower than its corresponding soft vowel, but in fact this would have to berelativeheight(sincehard t forinstance,isin absolutetermshigherthansoft e), whereas the front-back dimension in Turkic vowel harmony refers to absolute front versusabsolute back. It has recently been argued (Ard I980) that the basic phonetic feature that conditions vowel harmony in the Tungusic languages, or at least ln Proto-Tungusicand still in someTungusiclanguages,suchas Ev€n,is advancement versusretraction ofthe tongue-root, a kind ofvowel harmony that is otherwise wellattested in West Aftican languages. We may now give some examples to illustrate 'crossbow' and j!lj 'dwelling'; in vowel harmony in Even, using the stems berken the dative, they are berken-du. juu-du; in the allative, berken-teki, 3uu-tki;i^the allative-locative berke-kle, itu-kla; in the allative-prolatwe berke-kle, jy4-k12. The harmony, incidentally, also affects cedain consonants: in particular, k has an allophone lql in hard vowel words, and g a fricative allophone (probably [s]) in hard vowel words, conditioned by the retraction of the tongue Nanay shows essentially the sam€ phonetic basis to its vowel harmony system, although it has far fewer phonemic vowel qualities, having the soft vowels i, u, ,, and the hard vowels i, g (orthographically o), and a, in addition to numerous diphthongs. Evenki shows modification ofa system ofthis kind, as shown in Table 2.8. The vowels t(i) and u(.1) are neutral with respect to vowel harmony, since they represent the merger of "i and *i, * u and * u. The vowel ee is also neutral, and representsthe merger ofsoft and harddiphthongs Ie, ra. The only soft vowel is t;the only hard vowels are a and o, which contrast only i[ the initial syllable, their occurrence being otherwise determined by labial harmony: o occurs only if the precedingvowelis o. This meansthat sumxescontainingi, u, or e do not havevowel harmony variants, whereas those containing the other vowels have three variants, , in solt vowel words, and a or o in hard vowel words, depending on whether the preceding vowel is o or not. Thus the accusative sumx -v fpfmA ocatrs in hira-va 'dvel, det-ve or der-p, 'tundra', and. oron-mo'reindeer'. Labial harmony is attested in a number ofTungusic languages,not always with absolute consistency. Thus Oroch, for instance, has two vowels neutral with respect to vowel harmony, t and i: an alternation between soft u and hard u; and an alternation between solt ,
and hard a, except that after o one finds hard o, as in the followingforms.. ugda_va_ rii 'his boat (ACC)' (literally 'boat-ACC-3SG'), ugda_du-ii-da .also in his boat, (lit€rally'boat-LOC-3SG-AND'); xu4*a-va-ii.his (sea-going)boat (ACC),, xu4_t+ du-rir'-dr'also in his (sea-going)boat,; oto7go-vo-ii ,his (one_person)boat (ACC), otorgo-du-ii-da: the last example shows that labial harmony does not operare across rntermediate vowels that are not subject to this process. The orthographic systemsthat have beendevisedforEvenki, Even, and Nanay fail to indicate some ofthe phonemic vowel differencesdiscussedabove, in addition to not marking vowel length. Syllable structure is simple in theTungusic Ianguagcs, as in other branches of Altaic, being at most one syllable-initial and one syllable_final consonant. The possibilities for syllable-final consonants tend to decrease as one moves southwards in the familyt in Nanay, even word_final , is lost, though it does leave nasalization in the preceding vowel, as in lxi ixUn-dq).
"settlement, (cf. locative
2.3 Morphologicalstructureandcategories In sectionr .2.2,it wasnotedin passingthat thecharacteristic trait ofthe morphologicalstructureof the Altaic languagesis agglutination,wherebythereis, correspondingto eachcategory,a separateamx (in Altaic languages,invariablya suffix)encodingthe appropriatevalue for that category,such as singular/plural number,etc.Sincewe havealreadyusedTurkic illustrationalmaterial,wemay now takesomeexamplesfrom theTungusiclanguageEvenki.Someofthe nounsumxesof Evenkiare:plural -1,accusative-wa, dativeJocative-duu, ablative_gir.Since1tls possibleto combinenumberandcaseseparately, onehascombinationssuchasthose inTable2.9fot bira'river'; thecasesumxalwaysfollowsthenumbersufnx.Ths same agglutinativestructurecan be seenin the conjugationofverbs: in Evenki,the suffix -caamarkspast tenseand -jaqaa oneof the future tenses; the person-and_number endingsare:singular:fiIst person-v, secondperson_s,third person_r; plural: first personexclusive-wun, inclusive-t or -p, secondpe$on _sur, third person _trr. Theseendingsarecombinedin Table2.ro with the tensesumxalwaysprecedingthe personand numbersuffix,for the verb baka-'find,. SincetheAltaic languages, perhapsespecialiy theTurkic languages, havea Iarge numberoI-categories that canbeexpressed by meansofsuffixes,it is possibleto build
12
2. Altaic languages T^ble 2.g. Itlustrutionof Evenki declension
NOM ACC DAT-LOC ABL
SG bira bira-wa bira-duu bira-git
PL bira-l biral-wa biral-duu bira-l-git
Table 2.Io. Illustralionsof Evenki coniugation
SGt 2 3 PLI EXCL INCL 2 3
PAST baka-6aa-v baka-caa-s baka-6aa-n baka-6aa-wun baka-daa-t(or -P) baka-baa-sun baka-6aa-tin
FUTURE baka-5a!aa-v baka-3a0aa-s baka-3a0aa-n baka-3a!aa-wun baka-3a!aa-t(or -P) baka-3arJaa-sun baka-3a!aa-tin
and many suchwordsare very long wordsby utilisinga numberofsuch categories, literally g srizla-s-gan-imiz-da' lJzbek e perfectlynatural in ordinary discourse, 'talk-RECIP-PASTPART-I PL-LOC', i.€ 'in our havingtalked to eachother" i'e' 'whenwe weretalking to eachother'. With nouns,onecan form suchcomplexesas 'book-Pl--ISC-LOC', i'e 'in my books' As we Uzbek kito\lar-im-da, literally shall seebelow.the order of sumxeswithin a word is fixed' Altaic Before looking at some individual categoriesof nouns and verbs in of the nature detail languages,it will be necessaryto expandin somewhatmore in all agglutinationin its purestform, and as it appearsin Altaic languages'since a sense' Altaic languagesthereare certaindeviationsfrom strict agglutination ln and harmony' ofvowel existence in the thereis a deviationfrom strict agglutination that a mean they since at morphemeboundaries' alsoother assimilatoryprocesses so givencategoryvaluedoesnot alwayshav€the samemorphemicrepresentation; -dat ' -diin ' -don' -dijn ' that, lor instance,theablativein Kirgiz canappearas€ither -en' -on' -tan, -ten, -ton, or 'tdn, or even(with a lessregularalternation)as -an' 'from his horse' However' suffix,asin at-rt-at -or afterthethird personpossessive that such alternationsate determinedby general say can one general rule as a the principlesof the phonologicalstructure of words in the Altaic larguages' generalprinciples'so alternationseffectivelyservingto preventviolationsof these from the strict not detract that the mere fact of regular alternations does interpretationof agglutination. than in However.in Altaic languagesone doesfind, albeit much lessfrequently
2.3 MorpholoEical structure and categories typicallyfusionallanguages like theolderlndo-Europeanlanguages, someinstances wheresegmentation into separatemorphemes is unclearorimpossible,andinstances wherethe expressionof a givencategoryvalue has diferent forms dependingon other morphemeswith which it is associated. We shallillustratethesedeviationsin turn. First, an exampleofproblematic segmentationhasalreadybeenintroduced, namelythe third personpossessive endingin Turkic languages,wherewe may use Kirgiz asa typicalexample.In isolation,whenaddedto a consonant-finalroot, the third personendingis usually-/ in Turkic languages, and this is the form we nnd in Kirgiz; if, however,casesumxesare addedto this form, thenan , must be inserted betweenthepossessive andcasesumxes,asin a f-rn-da 'in hishorse'.By settingthe'' up as a separatemorphemehere,we haveleft operrthe questionof whetherthe t shouldbeassigned to thepossessive ending(allomorph-rn beforeacaseending) orto -nda thecasesufnx(allomorph after thethird personpossessive ending),andin some sensethe choice is arbitrary. The segmentationis even more complicatedirl the accusativesingular:alter a vowel,onewould expectthe accusative ending-n1,asin loo 'camel', accusativetdd-nii, blul the accusativeof at-j 'his horse' is afi-n. although -n doesnot otherwisefunctionasan accusative sumx.and seemsratherto parallelthe r insertedbetweenpossessive and caseendings.Further,theaccusative cnding-/ in Turkic languages is itselfsomewhat problematical asan exponcntofa singlecategory,becauseit actually combinesexpressionof caseand definiteness, beingusedonly for definitedirect objects(seepp. 80-l). Use of differentsuffixesin combination with other sumxesis found in certain instancesin Turkic and other Altaic languages,so that in Kirgiz, for example,the firstpersonplural sumxis -k in thepasttense,e.g,kal-di-k'weremained',but -brzin oneofthe futuretenses,e.g. kal-at-biz'wewill remain'.Similarphenomena areto be foundin otherbranchesofAltaic: in Evenki.oneoftheotherfuturc t€nseshasa setof suffixesratherdifferentfrom thosegivenabove:baka-da-m,-hii, -n, -ra-w, -p (or -l), -s, -ra, wherethefirstpersonpluralexclusiveform makesit clearthat firstperson exclusivemeansspeaker(first personsingular, -w, which alternateswith -rn in Evenki)plusthird person(-ra). Anotherfeaturethat distinguishesTurkic languages from suchfusionallanguages as the olderIndo-European languages is the absence of morphological classes of major partsofspeech(e.g.nouns,verbs),suchthat differentnounswould belongto \ differentmorphologicalclassesand r€qui!e,at leastin certain instances,diferent suffixes.For Indo-European,we can illustrate this by contrastingRussianru,ka 'hand', plural ruki, with se/o'village',plural se/a,wherein the seconddeclension-a indicates nominativesingularand -r'nominative plural,whilewith declension rb (first declensionneuier)the nominativesingularendingis -o, and -a functionsas nominativcplural.I n general in TurkicandotherAltaiclanguages, all nounsdecline
2. Altaic languages
'14
and thereareno alike and all verbsconjugatealike:thereis no divisioninto classes, irregularitems. To this overallgeneralization,a smallnumb€r of provisosmust be made.Thus pronouns in Altaic languages,as in many othe$, show morphological idiosyncrasies, as when Azerbaydzhanhas genitivemlin-im'of me'for expected *mih-ln, or Turkish hasnominativebet 'I' but dative bat-a, with backvowels,for expected* ber-e. Thereare also a few other morphologicalirregularities,suchas, often,the verb'to be',which as in many languages may showsuppletion. In the Mongolianlanguages thedistinctionbetweenhumanandnonhumanclass€s ofnoun is relevantin formingplurals:in Buryat,for instance,only humannounscanform a collectiveplural in -nar, e.g.axa-nar'elderbrothers'.No Altaic language,however, genderdistinction,althoughTungusiclanguageshavesome hasa grammaticalised male femalelexicalpairsdifferingonly in vowelharmonyclass,e.g.Manchu rlara 'man', htha 'woman', and e',renhuwaian 'monk' (a loan from Chinese\huwalan 'nun'. In some Tungusic languages,verbs are divided into a small number of conjugationtypes,dependinglargelyon their phoneticstructure,though alsowith someidiosyncrasies. In Nanay,for instance,thereare four classes, and th€ different presenttenseformationscan be seenfrom the following examples.jytbu-am-bi'l work', ba-ra-mbi'l find', agbin-da-mbi'l appear',ga-da-mbi 'I gatherberries'; 'he 'hegath€red classes 3 and4 differin thepasttense,e.g.ag'6r'r-ka appeared',ga-ia beries'. But despitethesedeviationsfrom strict agglutination,the moryhology of Altaic languagesdoesapproachvery closeto the canonicalagglutilativ€ type. In a brief surveyofthis kind, it is obviouslyimpossibleto describeadequat€lyall the morphologicalcat€goriesacrossthe range of Altaic languages,and so in the remainderof this sectionwe shallconcentrateon someof the major categoriesof nounsand verbs,pointing out in particulardillerencesamongdiferent branchesof Altaic or amongindividual languages All Altaic languageshave the categoriesof number and case.The number distinction is singularversusplural (no separatedual), with a sufix marking the plural. The number of distinct casesin Altaic is usuallyfairly small,certainlyin comparisonto someof the systemsin Uralic and Caucasianlanguages,the basic systembeing nominative, accusative,genitive (not Tungusic,except Manchu), locative,dative (more accurately:allative),and ablative,with instrumentaloften presenttoo; lossof the genitiveis rare,but is exemplifiedin Yakut. The locational casessimplydistinguishplaceat versusmotion towardsversusmotion awayfrom, without specifyingwhetherthe location is more specifically'in', 'on' or'at', e.g. Kirgiz al-la'in, on, by thehone'- More accuratelocationalspecifications r€quirethe useofpostpositionsor genitiveexpressions, asin Evenkimoo doo-duki-n'out ofthe i.e.'from the tree'sinsid€'.Postpositions are tree',literally'treeinside-ABL-3SG', no separatecaseexists, alsousedfor relationswhere as!viththeinstrumental in most
2.3 Morphological
structure and categories
't5
Turkic languages,e.g. Azerbaydzhantaxta ib 'with a board', where r'1, rs the instrumentalpostposition.Actually, this particularpostpositionin Azerbaydzhan hasalmostbeentransformed,at leastoptionally,into a newcasesumx,sinceit can alsooccursuffixedto its noun,as -/a/-1d,i.e.with vowelharmonyvariants.Wherea noun hasboth the plural sumxand a casesuffx, all Altaic languages agreein having the order casesumxafter the numbersumx. Possessive sumxeson nounsarc lound in all Turkic languages, in most Tungusic languages(though not in Manchu), and in many Mongolian languages(including BuryatandKalmyk; in Mongolian(Khalkha),thesystemofpossessive suffixesis still in the processof dev€loping).In the Tungusic and Mongolian languages,the possessive sumxesare ofvery recentorigin, and are transparentlyreducedforms of thegenitiveofpersonalpronouns.Although theTurkic possessive suffixesprobably derivefrom pronouns,this etymologyis no longertransparent.One of the major morphologicaldifferencesbetweenTurkic on the one hand and Tungusic and Mongolian on the other is that in Turkic languages, the possessive suffixesprecede the casesumxes,whercasin Tungusicand Mongolian we havethe oppositeorder, reflectingthe recentdevelopmentofpossessive suffixesin Tungusicand Mongolian from postposedunstrcssedpronouns.Thus in contrastto Kirgiz at-im-da'horcerSG-LOC',i.e.'bymy horse',we find in Bturyatgal-da-m(ni)'fire-LOCrSG',i.e. 'by my fire', and in Etrenjpp-du-n 'boat-LOC-3SC',i.e. 'in his boat'. From the sumx orderingsgiven so far, the readercan deducethat in Tungusic and Mongolian languages the order where plural is included is Number Case Possessive. Within Turkic, nearly all languageshave the order Number PossessiveCase,as in Uzbek kitobJaFim-da 'book-PL-rSG-LOC', i.e. 'in my books'.The only exceptionis Chuvash,which haslost the CommonTurkic plural sumx-,/ar,replacingit by -sem,probablya recentinnovation,sinceit doesnot undergovowel harmony;this plural suffixfollows the possessive sumxes,as in fusdm-sem-e'friend-rSG-PL-DAT', i.e. 'to my friends',The phenomenonof innovatinga plural morpheme,thoughnot theform its€lf,is sharedbyChuvashwith the Permiclanguagesand Mari, with which it is in closecontact.In the possessive suffixes,asin the pronominalsystemgenerally,the distinctionmadeis betweenthe thre€personsinthesingularandplural; thedistinctionbetweenfirst personinclusive andexclusiveis found in someMongolianandTungusiclanguages. Commonto the MongolianandTungusiclanguagesis a specialseriesof reflexivepossessive suffixes, contrastingwith the other person-and-number combinations,and usedwhen the possessor is cor€ferentialwith the subjectof the sentence, as in Nanay buemeena ugda-di-ariana-j-pu'wegoto ourown boat', literally'weown boat-ALL-REFL goPRES-IPL';thesereflexiveforms must be usedirresDective of the personand nr.rmber of the subject. Vcry similarto posscssivc suflixeson nounsarc subjcct-agrccment sutiixeson
2. Altaic languages
't6
verbs,with almostexactlythe samedistribution betweenthe two acrosslanguages; no Altaic language,incidentally,hasagreement with nonsubjects. Subjectagreement is found in all Turkic languages,is widespreadthough clearly innovatory in Mongolian languages(and found in both Buryat and Kalmyk), and is found in nearlyall Tungusiclanguages,thoughnot in Manchu, Although a fully-developed systemofverb agreementis clearlyan innovationin the Mongolian languages, the suffixesdevelopingfrom unstressed postposedsubj€ctpronouns,someolthe verb forms found in Mongolian Ianguages havesubjectpersonrelerencebuilt into their meaning.In Buryat, for instance,therearc severalmodal sumxeswhich canonly be usedwhenthesubjectiseitherfirst,or second,or third person,eventhoughth€reis no separateindicationofthe personofthe subject.Thus the form in Jb indicatesa first personinclusiveplural invitation,e.g.jaba-ja'let'sgo'; the bareverbalstemis a secondpersonsingularimperative,e.g. bi xe./e'don't cry'; the suffix-g givesa third personcommand,e.g.jaba-g 'let himlthem go'. In Pao-anand Monguor, verbal forms havebeendiscov€redwherethe diferencebetweenfinal -i and final -a or -r_r distinguishes firstpersonfrom secondand third,,e.g.be vadi'Ifinish', Celeer& 'you hold', njag xaajo'he closes'.Sincetheseformshaveno obviousetymology,theyare probably archaisms,and thus indicative of an earlier period when Mongolian languageshad a very differentsystemof personand numberagreement. In Turkic and Mongolian languages,subjectsumxesare alsoregularlyaddedto p.edicativenouns,adjectives, andothernon-verbs,asin Azerbaydzhatsizham-iniz gatil-siniz'yolrlall2PL murderer-2Pl', i.e. 'you are all murderers',siz (iz-iniz ga javan-siniz'you self-2Pl-alsoyoung-2PL',i.e. 'you yourselvesare alsoyoung', or Btryat ende-b'here-r SG', i.e. 'I am here'.While someTungusiclanguagesmake fr€quentuseof this construction,e.gNanay siialuusimdi-si'you teacher-2SG', i.e. 'youarc a teacher', othersusean overtcopula,e.g.Evenki earl-mkolkosnisabi-si-n 'moth€r-Isc collective-farmer be-PRES-3SG', i.e.'my mother is a collectivefarmer'. Altaic languages haveawiderangeofinflectionalandderivationalsumxes that can be add€dto verbs,the former €xpressing differences oltense,aspect,and mood, the latter primarily servingto indicate diferencesof voice or valency(e.g. passive, causative,reciprocal), and also certain aspectualand other values, such as inchoative,direction,etc.As an exampleofthe kind ofcomplexesthat can be built up, one may cite Uzbek juv-in-tir-i)-mog 'to be forcedto washoneself',literally 'wash-REFL-CAUS-PASS-INFIN'. In addition, aspectual values are often expressed by meansofauxiliary verbs:thus,in thelastsentence oftheTatar texton p. 86,the auxiliaryverb tor ('sta[d' asa lexicalverb)with thepresentgerundexpresses progressiveaspect,i.e. selk-eptor-de 'shake-PRES-GERstand-PAST-3SG',i.e. '(it) wasshaking'.In this generalsurvey,it is impossible to dojusticeto this rangeof
2.4 Syntax
the phenomena, bemadetogrammarsofindividual languages; and referenceshould In the verb forms. also contain examplesofdiffere.lt textsand examplesentences following sectionon syntax we will, however,be looking in some detail at the idterrelationof finite and nonfiniteverb forms. is that of Onecharacte sticverbcategorythat is foundwidelyin Turkic languages personal from he cannot vouch inferentiality,wherebythe speakerindicatesthat leadingup to experience forthe truth ofthe situationdescribed(or tlle circumstances it). Thus in Uzbek we have,in addition to xato qili-di-m'l madea mistake'(past tensein -di) and xato qili-gan-man'I havemadea mistake'(perfectbasedon the madea mistake', participlein -gan),a furtherform xafo gtr-b-man'I have,it seems, -b. basedon the gerundin 2.4 Syntax showoveralla veryconsistentsyntactictypology, TheAltaic languag€s although there are deviations in individual languagesand language-groups. Basically,this typology can be summarizedby saying that an adjunct always precedes its head,i.e.adjectivesand genitivesalwaysprecedethe headnoun, noun phraseargumentsalwaysprecedetheirverb.In addition,thepositionbeforetheverb is reservedfor the focusof the sentenc€,that is for the essentialnew information carriedby the sentence- although the generalvalidity of this last statementhas hitherto only been tested in detail against certain Turkic languages.Finally, conjunctions,whethercoordinatingor subordinating,tend to be absent,and either onefindsliniteclausesstrung oneafter theo therparatactically,or longerperiodsare built up in which all subordinatev€rbsare non{inite,and only the last verb in the wholeperiodis a finiteform. We shallexaminetheseva ousphenomenain order.In general,of the three branchesof Altaic, Turkic languagesadhereto this strict Tungusic. in Mongolianandespecially typologymostclosely,with morc divergence Within noun phrasesyntax,the maio realisationofthe rule that theadjunctmust precedeits headis that adjectivesand genitivesprecedetheir h€adnouns.Examples 'cleverpe6on', with adjectivesare:Tatar kizil alma'red apple',Buryat sesenxit adjectivesdo not Evenki aja beja'goodperson'.In generalin the Altaic languages, category, andin Turkiclanguages agreewiththeirheadnounsinanymorphological this is an absoluterule. In Mongolian one does,however,find deviations,to the extent that in some languages(including Classical Mongolian, albeit rarely) ad.jectives can agreein numberwith their headnoun,or eventakethe numbersuffix insteadof the noun,e.g. B\lryat exegetniiid, exe-niid ger, ot exe-niiiidger-niid 'big houses';the former is the more traditionalform, and the most usualin speech. 'from thecleverperson'. In e.g.sese,xit-loo Thereis.however,no caseagreement, Tungusiclanguages, adjectives do not agreewiththeirheadnoun,excepttoa limited
2. Altaic languages
'78
extentinEvenandmorefullyin Evenki.Indeed,Evenkitakesadjectiveagreementso far that onecanfind adjectivesagreeingin number,case,and possession, asin ajrb-ljitin awi-l-ji-tin'with theirgoodboats',whercplural-1,instrumental-jl,andthird -li appearon both adjectiveand noun. personplural possessive The sameprinciplemanifestsitselfin the orderingofgenitiveand noun.In Turkic Ianguages, the basicconstructionis for the expressionreferringto the poss€ssor to appearirI thegenitivecase, whiletheheadnountakesa possessive suffixagreeingwltn the expressionreferring to the possessor.Thus we have'fatar kamilii-ne4 ul-a 'Kamilii'sson',literally'Kamilii,GEN son-3SG', i.e.'Kamilii'shis-son,, in apseudoEnglishrenderingthat comescloseto the Tatar original.The sameconstructlonls usedwith firstandsecondpe$on possessors, whenit isdesiredto lay emphasison the possessore.g. nrr-em kitab-em'mybook',literally'I-GENbook-rSG'. Ofcourse,if thereis no stresson theexpression referringto thepossessor, thenthesuffixalonewill suffice,i.e. kikb-em .ln additionto this basicconstruction,traditionallycalledthe izafet,therearethreefurtherconstructionsthat arc found in Turkic languages. The constructionclosestto English, with the genitivecaseof the possessorand no possessive sumxon the head,is rare,and apparentlyrestrictedto first and second personpossessors, as in colloquial 'fatar min-em kitap'rny book,. The second additionalpossibility,no markingon eithernoun,is againveryrestricted,occurring especiallywith nounsasadjunctswhich referto the materialofwhich somethingis (or seems to be)made,e.g.altenkelgan'goldenfeather-gmss'. The final possibilityis rathercommon,andtheprecisedistinction betweenthistypeandthebasictypetsone of the main practical problems in describinggenitive constructionsin Turkic languages.In thisconstruction, theadjuncttakesno sumx,buttheheadnounhasthe appropriat€possessive suffix.In Yakut, which has lost its genitiv€,€xceptin s€t expressions, thisservesasthe basicwayofexpressingpossessionjal-lar buruoJar-a 'house-Plsmoke-Pl-3', i.e. 'the smoke of the houses'(the combination -/ar-a functionsas third personplural possessive sufix, though this combination,across Turkic languages, is ambiguous:it may referto a singleobjectpossessed by several possessors, severalobjectspossessed by onepossessor, or severalobjectspossessed by severalpossessors). In other Turkic languages,it expresses a more intimate connectionbetweenpossessorand possessed (though without being identical to inalienablepossession), e.g.Tatar tukaj siget-jdre,T]ukajpoem-pl-3', i.e..Tukaj's poems'.Veryoften,it comesponds to an adjectivein English,e.g.Tatar rusukuda-sa 'Russiascientist-3', 'the i.e. Russianscientist'. In Mongolian languages,where the possessiv€ sumxesare in any event less integratedinto the languageas a whole, one finds most lrequently the English constructionwith thepossessor in thegenitiveand no sumxon thehead,:ax-in nom 'brother-GEN book', i.e. 'brother'sbook'. In Tungusiclanguages, on the orner
2.4 Syntax
19
hand, eventhough th€ possessive sumxesseemto be of recentorigin comparedto thoseofTurkic, the basicconstructionrequiresthe presence of a possessive sumx. Indeed,in the absence ofa separategenitivecase,this is thesoleoutwardmark ofthe possessive construction,asin Evenkipurta suwerekae-n'knife tip-3SG',i.e.'the tip ofthe knife'. However,the most interestingaspectofthe grammarofpossessron rn Tungusiclanguages is thedistinctionmadehere,but notelsewhere inAltaic, between alienable (indirect) and inalienable (direct) possession(Boldyrev 1976).The distinctionmay beillustratedftom Nanay,which,liketheotherTungusiclanguages, insertsa sumxbeforethepossessive sumxto indicatealienablepossession. In Nanay, naj d!li-ni'petsonhead-3SG', i.e.'theperson'shead'rcfersto theperson'sown head, the one that sits on his shoulders.On the other hand naj dili-tu-ni 'personheadALIEN-3SC'would referto theheadof, forinstance,someanimalwhichtheperson in questionhappensto own, for instancea trophy. Whenweturn tosentencesyntaxandwold orderphenomena, themostconsistent patterns verb-final are found in the Turkic and Mongolian languages,while in Tungusiclanguagesin generalfreer order is found, althoughthere is still a strong tendencyfor the finit€ verbto comesentence-finally; see,for instance,the Orok text on page89.Verb-finalordermay beillustratedby meansofa Tatar sentence, in what is a reasonablyneutralword order: (2)
KOLXOZII Jar uzganjel bu TRAKTOR-aI collective-farmerPL last vearthistractor ACC -nar i -de satep al-gan buy PAST-PART PL be PAST 'The collectivefarmersbousht this tractor last vear'
The subjectoccursat thebeginningofthe sentence; theverbalcomplexoccursat the end,with the linite verb rde in absolutefinal position;the directobjectimmediately precedesthe verb,and other constituentsarc arrangedbetweenthe subjectand the directobject.Althoughthisis thenormalword order,itis certainlynot theonly word order. First, it is possibleto permutethe individual noun phrases('the collective farmers','last year', 'this tractor'), to give sentenceswith the sam€ cognitive meaning,but differentemphases. position Thus the noun phrasein sentence-initial willnormally beinterpretedastopic ofthe sentence, andtheconstituerItimmediately beforetheverbalcomplexasfocus,sothat, for instance,bu TRAKTORnI uzganjel KOLXOZlelar satapalgannaride wonld meansomethinglike 'as for this tractor, theoneswho boughtit lastyearwerethecollectivefarmers',althoughthisrendering is much less natural than the original Tatar. The fact that the focus occurs preverbally immediately isalsoreflected in theiactthatspecialquestion words(such
2.4 Syntax
2. Altaic languages
as'who', 'what'), requestingan essentialnew pieceofinformation, alsooccupythis position, as in the following Kirgiz questions;kerege-deemne6a.? 'frame-LOC what be',i.e.'what is in the frame?',KARTA kajda asil-iprur-at 'map wherehangGER be-PRES', i.e.'wheredoesthemaphang?'. question Ifthe answerto a special is a whole sentence,then the new information immediatelyprecedesthe verbal complex,e.g.in answerto thefirstquestion'.kercge-dekat bar'in the framethereis a letter(kal)'; in answerto the second:KARTA kercgedeasiliplurat'the map hangs in the frame( keregede)'. However,evenin Turkic languages,deviationsfrom verb-finalword order are found, especiallyin the spokenlanguages:with the written languages,the rule of verb-finalorder hasbecomepart of prescriptivegrammar,so that publishedtexts often give a much greaterimpressionof verb-finalitythan is true of other styl€s. Indeed,thoseAltaic and,especially, Turkiclanguagesthataresaidnot to haveverblinal order areall languageswith an exclusivelyoral tradition, and it is conceivable that the absence ofany rule ofrigid verb-finalorder for suchlanguages is asmuch a reflectionofthis difierenceinstylisticfunctionsasanythingstructural.Forinstance, Gagauzis describedashavinga basicword orderwith theverbfollowingthesubject (SVO),or in descriptiveprosewith theverbinitialand thesubjectfinal.Therearetwo reasonshow this could havecomeabout:first, due to the influenceofneighbouring non-Turkiclanguages, suchasSlavoniclanguages and Romanian;second,dueto the stylistic function noted above,which was not then counteredwhen Gagauzwas elevatedto the statusof a written languagein the r 95os.Only further detailedwork on spontaneous speechin variousTurkic and other Altaic languages will be ableto resolvethis problem. One interestingword order phenomenonin ClassicalMongolian, and some modernMongolianlanguages (e.g.(Khalkha)Mongolian), is thepostposition ofan unstressed subjectafter theverb,thusbreakingtheusualverb-finalword order.Such postposedsubjects,when pronominal, are the origin of the subject-agreement sumxesthat are found in suchMongolian languagesas Buryat and Kalmyk. As far assyntacticpropertiesarc concerned,Altaic languagesin generalmake a sharpdistinctionbetweensubjectanddirect object,for instancein that verbsagree only with their subject,and that in the passiveonly an original direct objectcan app€arassubjectofa passiveverb (verbswithout direct objectsmay, however,be passivisableas impersonalpassives).However, this syntacticdistinction is not reflectedby any clearcutmorphologicaldistinction:while the subj€ct,at leastofa finite clause, nearly always appears in the nominative, there is no single morphologicalcasein which all and only directobjectsstand.ln Turkic languages, the generalprinciple is that ind€finitedirect objectsare in the nominative,while definitedirect objectsare in the accusative,as in Tatar bala-larkitap uk-ij-lar 'the
8I
childrenreada book' verctrsbalalar kitap-ne uk-ijJat'the childrcnreadthe book'. This specialdefiniteaccusativeis usuallydistinctfrom all other caseforms;only in Chuvashis it identicaltothedative.Although thedistinctionbetweenthetwodir€ct object forms is often stated as being in terms of denniteness,thus presumably versusabsenc€ ofthe definitearticlein languageslike correlatingwith the presence English,the definiteaccusativein lact hasa somewhatwider usethan this (Comde 'onc olthe books'), r978):itis alsousedifthe directobjectis part ofa definiteset(e.g. and wherethe referentofthe noun phraseis important for thediscourseasa whole (e.g. 'a certain book'). Mongolian languageshave a similar distinction between marked and unmarkeddirect objects,though here animacyis also important, in additionto definiteness, sothatevenindefinitehumandirectobjectstendlo takethe accusative ending.In ClassicalMongolian,andmoreliteraryvarietiesof(Khalkha) Mongolian, subj€ctsof finite clausessometimesstand in the ablativecase,if they referto a person;this usageis apparentlynot characteristicof Buryat or Kalmyk. Traditionally, in the Altaic languages,there seem to have been no finite subordinateclausesof the Indo-Europeantype, various nonfinite constructions being usedinstead,with verbaladv€rbs(often calledgerunds,especiallyin Soviet works, or con-verbs), verbal adjectives (participles), and verbal nouns (nominalisations).To introducethis discussion,we may examinesomeexamples from the Turkic languageTatar. In Tatar, as in most Turkic languages,thereis a reasonablyclearcutdistinctionbetweenverbaladverbsandverbaladjectives/nouns, although the internal division within the last classis dimcult to draw. Celtain just ascan adjectivesand nouns,which nonnniteforms can be usedas predicates, tendsto blur. but not r€move.the distinctionbetweenfinite and nonnniteforms. Englishrelativeclausesarenormallytranslat€dinto Tatar by usingaparticiplein placeof the verb of the relativeclause.This constructioncan be usedto form a r€lativeclausewherethe headnoun hasoneofa widemrrgeof functionswithin the relativeclause,suchassubjectasin'the man who went', direct objectin'the letter that you aresending',comitativein 'the manwith whomwe conversed'.Thcsethree tmnslateas follows into Tatar: exDressions
(3)
ke{e bar-gan go PAST-PART man
(4)
gan tot sez Sirli -j 3n you sendPRES-PARTPROG PAST-PART letter
(5)
keie bez sdjlii-!kiin person we talk RECIP PAST-PART
z. Altaic languages
2.4 Syntax
8z
In someTurkic languages, e.g.Turkish, thereis a formal distinctionbetweenverbal adjectiv€sand verbal nouns, coresponding roughly to the differencebetween relativisingon subjectsand relativisingon other constituents(Underhill r972).In most Turkic languagesthat have a systemlike that of Tatar, for relativisingon nonsubjectsthe subjectof the participlestandsin the genitive,and the headnoun takesthe correspoodingpossessive suffix,asin the following examplefrom Uzbek: (6)
joz -gan men-iq xat -im I GEN write PAST-PART letter ISG
l I
This means'theletterthat I wrote',literally'myhaving-written letter'. The sameverbalnoun formsareusedto replacenominalclauses,for instanc€th€ direct objectclausein a sentencelike'he found out that I had seen',which would comeout in Tatar as(7) or (8),sinceTatar herehasoptionaluseofthe genitiveand possessive suffx: (7.)
-ne bel -de minkilr-giin I PAST-PART see ACCknow PAST
(8)
-em -ne bel -de min-em kir-giin I GEN see PAST-PART ISG ACC know PAST
In this construction,it will be notedthat the verbalnoun declinesjustlike any other noun, occurringherein the accusativecase.In the locative,this sameform can be usedto indicatetim€ when,asin: (9)
min tjze-m -ne! ete -m belijn beryii sokat bujlap I self rSG GEN dog rSG with togetherravinealong -dA kiiriircl-Een ascendPAST-PART LOC 'when I wasclimbing along the ravinetogeth€rwith my dog'
Verbaladverbstakeno sumxesto iodicatethesubjectoftheirown clause;usually, thisis thesameasthat ofthe mainclause,thoughitis possibleforadiferentsubjectto be overtlyexpressed, In English,theycan oftenbe translatedby verb formsin -rng, althoughthey are usedmuch more frequ€ntlythan in English,and often the most natural Englishtranslationis just a coordinateconstruction,i.e. 'Zajnep rcad the letter and rcjoicedgreatly','the min stoppedand the childrenwent out onto the street'; gerundsare also the most natural way of translatingsuch coordinate sentences into Turkic languages, e.g.Tatar:
I
I I
(ro)
xat -na uka-gaC, ziijniip bik satlan-da letter ACC read GERZejnepmuchrejoicePAST
(r r)
jaqger tukta-gaC, bala -lar uram-ga tak -te Jar min stop GER child PL streetALL go-out PAST PL
83
In Mongolian languages, essentially the samepossibilitiesobtain, exceptthat the distinction betweenfinite and nonfinite verb forms is even less cl€ar: sinc€ subject verb agreementis a relativelyrecentphenomenon,many finite verb forms are simply nonfiniteforms with the appropriatepersonand number sumxes.The mdn additional complication in Mongolian languagesis the expressionof the subjectof nonfinite verb forms, which may be in the genitive,the accusative,the nominative,or eventhe ablative.Much work remainsto b€ done in isolatingand explainingthe criteriawhich condition the selectionofcase. From the aboveTurkic examples,it will be notedthat the usualrulesof Turkic word order are obeyedevenwhena constitu€ntis a complexdeverbalconstruction rather than just a noun or an adjective,in pa icular that attdbutesprecedetheir head,and that the verb follows its object.The Tungusiclanguageshavenonfinite constructionsvery similarto thoseofTurkic languages, butthe word orderrulesare much lessstrict, with more complexexpressions placed being after their head,asin the following Evenki examples:
u2)
-ta -m, biPIS'MO-wa ga bi-si I letter ACCreceivePAST-PART bePRES rSG -m min-dulaeugje-rii -wee -n akii broth€r rSG I LOC sendPART ACC aSC 'I havereceivedthe letter which my brother serltto me'
(r3l
-m ee -cee -n anii saa -re si motherISGNEC PAST 3SGknow you -wee -s tenewa omt -nee yesterdaycomeRESULT-PART ACC 2SG 'my mother doesn'tknow that you arrivedyesterday'
(r4,
-duu -w, ure ojcloo -n oo -rii mountaintop LOC aSCbe-atPART DAT-LOC rSG -n, agdi -la -D umneet xaktiral-la suddenlydarken INDEF 3SGthunderINDEF 3SG 'when I reached the mountain top, it suddenly grew dark and thundered'
2. Altaic languages
84
Evenki also has verbal adverbs, but with these it is not possible to give separat€ expressionto the subjoctofthe verbal adverb, which must be the sameasthat ofthe main verb;this is thereforean exampleofa 'same-reference' construction,with the same-subjectconstraint, as opposed to a switch-rcference construction (which would require distinct subjects)or a neutral construction,like the Tatar verbal adverbor the Evenkiparticiple,which may or may not havethe samesubject.The following example is of an Evenki verbal adverb:
(r 5.)
taduujuja-wii oo -kaim, ther€ tentREFL-POSSDUtNON-SIMUL-GER -tee -m aan0et spend-nightPAST rSG 'having pitched my tent there, I spent the night'
Ma[y Tungusic gorundshavedistinct singular and plural forms (seethe Orok text on p. 89). Although such nonfinite forms are the basic artd traditional way of expressing subordination(andalso sentence coordination,whennot bysimplejuxtaposition)in the Altaic languages,under the influenceof other languagesconstructionsmore similarto thoseofEnglishhavebeenintroduced.The moststrikinginfluencehere,at leastuntil veryrec€nttimes,wasthatofArabic andPersianon thelslamiclanguages, which borrowed from Arabic th€ coordinating conjunction wa 'arrd' (e.8. Azcrbaydzhan va), and from Persian the subordinatingconjunction fte (e.g. Azerbaydzhan,Turkish, Uzbek ftr). The stylisticevaluationoftheseloads,and the extent to which they are used, valies considerably from languag€ to language. In Uzbek theywereapparentlyneverpart ofordinary speech,and havebeenmore or lessbanishedfrom current writing in the U.S.S.R.In Azerbaydzhan,on the other hand,which hasa long historyof closecontactwith Persian,subordinating,ki and other conjunctions basedon this (e.g. dtia&i 'because')are very frequent, and have bcen so, apparently,since the thirteenth century. The following examplesarc thorefore taken from Azerbaydzhan:
(16)
-in -diin miielum i -di kiind xiiriibii-liir-in ki, settlementGEN ruin PL 3SG ABL clear be PASTthat -dir bvaandusmdn ked -mi! here enemy PASSINFER 3SG 'from the ruins of the settlcment,it wasclear that th€ enemvhad come by here'
2. Texts (r7)
85
-dir ki, bu tiitinlik -Eir-diin oyul lazim son necessary 3scthatthisdifficulty PL ABL bas cixar-sin cope coND 'one needsa solrwho would copewith thesedifficulties'
This constructiontype difers in severalwaysfrom the originalTurkic equivalents. First, its verb is finite. Second,the subordinateclausefollows the main clause,in particularfollowingtheverbofthat clause;in thecaseofrelatiyeclauses, th€relative clausealsofollowsitshead,andmay beseparatedfrom thathead.However,thereis one interesting respectin which the construction borrowed by the Turkic languages hasbeentransformedinthebolrowing process:inTurkic languages, theconjunction /
ASFAL'T jul -dan bar-gan AWoMASINA, kiniit asphalt way ABL go PAST-PART motor-vehicle suddenly botal-ap, urman-ga ker -de. uI altan turn PRES-GERforest ALL enter PAST-3SGit gold -giin -a bijrk -el kebek bul-ap &,rgal splashPASS PAST-PART as-if be PRES-GERturn-yellow SIMUL-GER -sen -nan. titr jul -dan balla-gan agatJar ara beginPASf-PART tlee PL middle-space3SG ABL narrow way ABL bar-u -nan ddvam it -rc MASINA-da bar-ua? go VN 3SG-ACCcontinuationdo PAST-3SGvehicle LOCgo PRES-PART -lit-neq ]er -e, urmanet -en-d jiis ker -giV, young PL GEN song 3 forest inside3 ALL €nter PAST-GER jaqgera-de. tagen da kiidle -Eik bul-ap againalso strong COMPAR be PRES-GERsouDd PAST-3SG
2. Texts
2. Altaic languag$
jele
-gez!
-di -p
keEkat-de bend-downIMPER-2PL say PRES-GERshout PAST-3SG someone jul karaj-an -da, MASINA4a -liir -ne, kil-ii& way edge 3SG LOC vehicle LOC go PRES-PART PL ACC -diij botak - Iaren kodag -en -a al -arEa teld -gen embrace3SG ALL take PURP wish PAST-PART ADV branch PL ACC -ep, kart imdn ut$-a i -dc. fuj spread-outPRES-GERold oak sit SIMUL-GER be PAST-ISG it -ep baralle beriv aaeq berniCiijaftag-an passPRES-GERen-routeone it-GEN some leaf ACC -ep oz al -de. imen, xejerlejul! tear-off PRES-GERtake PAST-3SGoak happy way -ganCa, di -giin kebek,julCe Jat ktiz-ddn jugal say PAST-PART as-if travellerPL eyc ABL disappearFUT-GER botag -en sek -ep tor -d?. branch ACC shakePRES-GERstand PAST-3SG (Adapted from a text by M. Xiisenov, reprinted in S. Ramazanovand X. Xismetu in, Tatar teleGRAMMATIKAsa: FONETIKA hiin MORFOLOGIJA. Kazan', 1954.) Notes Phon€tic:The symbolse, a, o, o represcntclose-midvowels(corespondingto Proto-Turkic *i, ai, 'u, rri). The symbols C, J repres€nt,in standardTatar, fricativesrathertha! africates; C is more palatalisedthan J. di-p kadkar-da:literally 'saying,(he) shouted';iD Tatar, as generallyin Turkic languages,only the verb di'say'can introduc€direct speech,and if necessary this must be used in th6 gerund form together u/ith any other verb of ling[istic communication(€.9.'shout').
FREETRANSLATION
Tuming suddenly,thevehiclewhichhad beengoingalongtheasphaltroad wenfinto theforest.It continucditsjourneyalongthc narrolvpath in betweenthe trces,which had begunto turn yellow,asifsplashedwith gold. Havingenteredtheinterior ofthe
87
forest, the song of thc young people travelling in the vehicle sounded again mor€ strongly, 'Duck down!' someoneshouted.By the edge of the path stood an old oak, spreadingout its branchesas ifwishing tq take thosetravelling in the vehicleinto its embracc.In passingby, one p€tsontore offsomeofits leavesThe oak, asifsaying' 'Bon voyagc!',went on shakingits branchesuntil the travellersdisappearedfrom sight.
B U R Y A TT E X T tuxaj jiircnxii medeen -iind' xelen languageabout generalinformatiotr PL 'xelen bolbol geegeoloiiitiiniizegdel xelen itim. languageSU social phenomenonCOP-PRESlanguageSU-COP -xa, hanal -iiid-ej xailsa beje beje -tejee xin pe$on PL GENbodybody COMIT-REFLbe-in-relation VNopinion -xa, bek bek -e andalda -lsa bodol -nuud-aa thought PL ACC-REFLexchangeRECIP VNbodybody ACC-REFL -xo arga zebseg -lso miin.' ojlgo unde$tand RECIP VNm€ansinstrumentCOP'AFFIRM geeie uxaan bodol -toi sexe xolboo-tqj xelen link ADJ direct languageSU mind thought COMIT -xa arga hanal bodol aDdalda tuladaa baj4ag be FREQ on-account-ofopinion thoughtexchangeVN means -Zo xiin -iiiid xamtiin -gaa lada -na. bolo becomesPRES-GERbe-ablePRES person PL common ABL aZal baj-guul -ta, xiis -ii6r aZabajdal-aa ACC-REFL be CAUS PRES-GERwork effort INSTR life jaba-xa -daa, mede-Ze, xiidelmeri xe -Ze PRES-GER go know DAT-LOC-REFL VN do PRES-GER work -han -Zo bngede-iee aba ojlgo ACC-REFL PRES-GERIAKEPERF'PART AII UNdCTStANd -eeree, xele -bel, todotxojl-on xel IanguageINSTR-REFL explain SIMUL'GER speakCOND iigc - niliid-iije mediiiilel bolgoa xolbo'Zo link PRES-GER word PL ACC sentenceas -deg. xiin -iiiid hanal bodol -oo bexi -t -iii strong V CAUS FREQ person PL opinion thought ACC-REFL
2. Altaic languagos xododoo ige - ntitid-eer ba mediiilel dotor iinen- ii d-ej always word PL INSTR and sent€ncewithin truth PL GEN - nuud-aar -dag, taaral garya -n xat-uul correspondencePL INSTR produceSIMUL-GER seeCAUS FREe -ee -giij haa, hanal bodol bolo -to t'iig do-thus PAST NEG if opinion thought becomePRES-GER -xa -gtij jiin. lada be-ableFUT NEC COP-PRES (Excerpted from D. D. Dugar-Zabon, Buiat xelen, negede*i xuSi: LEKSIK1, FONETIKe ba MORFOLOGL Ulan-Ude, r958.)
Noles Phonetic:ctand i representcentml vowels;ai, ei, oi, uj arephoneticallylong front vowels-; seepp. 68-9. geele, bolbol: thesearesubjectmarkers,althoughtheir precisefunction(perhaps in termsof topic--commentstructure)is not unde$tood. jiim , mini thesearc someof theinvariablecopularparticlesfound in Buryat and oiher Mongolian languages. bejebeje-:litenlly'body body';theuseof bE;etwiceindicatesreciprocity,i.e..one another'. ojlgo-Io aba-han:literally 'understanding,having taken'; this gerundwith the auxiliary verb aba-'take' indicatesdoing somethingfor oneself,i.e. .having understoodfor oneself'. Note th€ frequentstylisticdeviceof adjoining near synonyms,e.g. arga zebseg 'meansinstrument', hanal bodol' opinionthought'.
2. Texts
89
OROK TEXT
-nne yrguli amba wolf evil-power3SG -mune -sel Betta xalaanda bolo putta bee Ja -nt new younger-brother once autumnsnaremonth LOC aSG COMIT PLGetta -ri -ye -ti geeda qane putta- tti- nda-ma 4i- noo ugda-ji snare V pO SIMUL-GER PL go-offPAST 3PL they 3PL boat INSTR one -yo noo -ei bolon -bolon uflnee solo 4i. ta uni -ki river-ACC go-upriverPAST 3PL that river PROL they 3PL autumn autumn -li bi-tti g@da putta- tiu-uki [-ti]. 4ene -mje snare V HABIT-PART PLbe PAST rPL eo-of SIMUL-PROTR-GER one -n. cat-va umt -ya tt, au-va muDge -du xak -kotcee river-bendLOC land NON-SIMUL-GER PL tea ACC drink PAST 3PL tea ACC -ni jisei -ri xodi -ya -ti. agduma umt -ma drink SIMUL-GER PL finish PAST 3PL elder-brother3SC from-shore-to-forest -ni ite-nde-mi xaidapokto-ni kapa -xa [bi-wa -ni]. go-up PAST 3scsee GO PURP what track 3SG be ACC aSC -ni. noo-ni Ca kapa -yat6i ite -xe -ni geeda kadara poktoo he 3SC thither go-up PAST-GER seePAST 3SG one bcar track-ACC 3SG -ni -ni unnee -i pukti-xa tar kadara-qu solo that bear ALIEN 3SGriver-ACCgo-upriverPRES-PARTrun PAST 3SG -ri 3ig bara yrguli Dokto-ni. kadaraxamara-kke -ni xasa -ma track 3SG bear behind PROL 3SGpursueSIMUL-GER Plverymany wolf -ni. -du -xe -ti. tamatiunoo-ni ugda-taki aw rJene -ye go-oft PAST 3PL then he 3SG boat Allgo-down RETURN PAST 3SG (Adaptedfrom T. I. Petrova,Iazyk orokov (ul'ta). Leningrad,1967.)
FREETRANSLATION
Generalinformation about language. Languagcis a socialphenomenon.'Languageis an instrumentso that p€oplecan be in r€lalion with one another,exchangethoughts,and understandone another., Languageis ableto bea meansfor exchangingthoughtbecause it is directlylinked withthought. P€ople,in buildingtheirlife by commoneffortandperforminglabou!, knorv and unde$tand everythingwith their language,more accuratelyspcaking, theyconsolidatethe wordsby linkingthemasa sentence. Peoplealwaysexpress their opinion with words and with reflectionsoftruths in a sentenc€, otherwisethought would not be able to arise.
Notes Phonetic;Consonantsare palatalisedbefore i, e. The sourc€indicatesthat the oppositiorisi/1 and u/f arebeinglostin Orok, anddoesnot indicatethem.C€rtain inconsistencies of the original havc beenretained,in the absenceof independent cheokson the data. noo-ti'they', noo-ni'he': in Orok, the third personpronounstem noo- lequires the correspondingpossessive sumxto distinguishthesetwo forms. bolon-bolon. rcdvplicationcan indicatedistributivity,i.e. 'cachautumn' putta-ttu-uki-li : for t putta4Ci-wki-li.
2. Altaic languag$
90
FREE TRANSLATION
The evil power of wolvcs. Onc€, in autumn, in th€ month of snare-setting,Getta and his younger brother w€nt off, setting soares.They went up one river by boat. Along that river they usedto s€t snarcsevery autumn. When they were going, after they had landed at a c€rtain river-bend, they drank tca. They finishcd drinking tea. The elder brother went up from lhe shore to thc forost to go and seewhose tracks were there. Havinggoneupthere,he sawthetracksofone bear.The tracksofthis bearofhis ran upriver.Very many wolveswent chasingalong behindthe bear.Thcn hc wclt back down to the boat.
FURTHER READINC
General intrcductions to the field ofAltaic linguistics, presupposingat leastthe gpneticuniiy of Micro-Altaic, are Poppe (1965), Ramstedt (195?-52), and Benzing (1953), the last conc.ntr.ting on Turkic languages.Possiblesyntactic typological arsuEents for the uaity of Uralo-Altaic are discussedin Fokos-Fuchs (r 962), HdO r, s.ra (rgg-8) is a handbook on Altaic linguistics dealing separatelywith Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic languagcs. The staodard Soviet introduction to Turtic linguistics is Baskakov (1959). Of wo.ks available in English, Menges(!968) provides information both or comparative Brammarand on individual languages, while Wurm (1954) examines the sociolinguistics of the Turuc languagesof the U.S.S,R., adopting a very critical view of Soviet polici€s in this ares. The frrst two volume! ofa controversial new comparative grammar of Turkic languagesare Sterbak (r97o; t9??). Ou:line sketchesof individual Turkic languogesfrom a comparative-historical p€rcpective,written in Erglish, French, o. Germa!, are given in P, ?F I ( r 959),whil€ sketches of the Turkic larguagesof the U.S.S.R.constitute.IaNSSSRII (1960. Gadzieva(1973)is a !€cent Soviet work on syntactic typology of Turkic languages.Although Turkisb is not a laDguageof the U.S.S.R., it r€maios the rtrost fully described Turlic languagE:an exc€llent refercncegmrnmarin Englishis Lewis(1967). The following referencegrammarsfor individual Turkic langu.gesofthe U.S.S.R. follow the order of languagesia Table z.z. For Chuvash,thereis a descriptionin Englishby Krueger( I96r). For Azlrbaydzhan, in addition to a comprehensivegrammar in Rusia\ GAzJa (r97r\, there b a more basictreatment in Eoglish by Simpson( r 957)aswell asa pedagogicalgrammar, cotrcentratingon the dialectsoflran (Householder and Lofti r955). Acomprchensive account of CaSauz, including syntai is now available in Pokovskaja (1964; r9?8). Fo! Turkmen, itr additior to the 6rst volume ofa gramma! in Russianb, Baskakov ( r 97o),there is a more basic lrearment in English (Dulling 196o). Musaev ( 1964)i6 the stsndard work on Karaim" while Dmitriev ( r94o)remainsthe standard comprehensiveaccount ofKumyk. For Karachay-Balkar, Aliev ( r 9?2)d€alswith syntax only. There is no recent literatuie on Crimean Tatar. For Tatar ther€is a comprehensivegrammariD Russian,STUa (r969F7r), and a more basic treatmcnt in Elglish, Poppe( r963). For dialectsof Sib€ria,s€eTumaI€va ( r 977).For Bashkir, thc most reoe[t Soviet treatment is Dmitriev (1948), while in EDglishtherc is Poppc (1964).
2. Further reading
9r
The most recent monograph acrount of Nogay is Baskakov ( r94o), though therc is a more . recent sketch of Nogay gammar by Baskakov itr NogRS (1962). For Karakalpak, thc statrdard work is Baskakov (r95t-2); in addition, th€re is a discussion of Karakalpak phonology in English by Menges( r94?). For Kaz.kh, standard works in Russianare S(rzl. (1962)on phoneticsand morphology,and Balakaev(1959)on syntax. The standard Russian grammar of Uztlek is Kononov (1960),while in English th€.e is the briefer treatment by Sjoberg (1963),as well as a ped.gogical gammar by Raun ( 1969).Von Gabain (1945), in Germaq deals wiih Uzb€k as written before the switch to the Cyrillic alphabet. For Uygur, referenceshould be m6de to Nadtip (1960),also available in an Englisi translation. The standardgrammarof Tuva in Russianis Isxakovand Pal'mbax(196r). Of the very limiled matelial on Tofa, Rassadin( r 9?8)dealswith morphology only. The Russiadliterature on Yakut is particularly €xtensive, with Xaritotrov (1947) on morphology and Ubrjatova ( 1950-76)on syntax, the latter makiog Yakut one ofthe most fully dis€ussedTurkic langusgcs of the U.S.S,R. from a sydtactic viewpoint, In Eqlish there is Kruegpr ( r963), whil€ s classic desc{iption, still of value, is thal in German by Bithrlilgk (t8jI). GXaftJ, ( r 9?5)is the standard account ofKhakas in Russian,phile for Shor referenccmust b€ made back to Dyrenkova ( r94r ). There is no comprehensivedcscription ofchulym Tat8r. An older referencein Russianfor Kirgiz is Batmanov ( 1939-40),while Batmanov ( r 963)is the frrst volume of a newseries:in English, thereis Herbert and Poppe( r963). For Altay, Baskako! (1958)shouldbe consulted. For Mongolian languages,Poppe( ! 955)providesan irtroduction in English. Sanz€ev(r 953; 1963)is a standard cot[parative grammar in Russian. Skgtchesof Buryat and Kalmyk ..e included in JTNSSSR V (1968). Poppe (t97o), thougb devot€d priBarily to (Khalkha) Mongoliat, also includessomegeDemlinfotmation on the olhcr Mongolian languages.Give[ the ioterplay betweenthe modem languagesand the classicallanguage,a refereDcEto the latter is in order: Popp€ (1954) (in English). The most fully delcrib€d Mongolian latguage is (Khalkha) Mongolan, for which see Street (1963); Bertagaev (1964), on syntax; also the tranelolmational syntax approach adopted in Binnick (19?9), Buryat is describedin English in Poppe (1960), and in more detail in Russian in GlurJa (1962), on phonetics arld morphology, and B€ltagaev and Cydendambaev( 1962)on sydt.r. (r94o). For Kalmyk, seeSanz€ev The only comprehensivecomparative glammar ofthe Tungusic la.guagesis Ben"ing ( l9j6), but more specifrcproblems are trcated in the following: phonology in Cincius (1949);verbal morphologyin Sunik( I962)iand syntaxin Sunik( 1947).Sketches of theindividuallanguages of the U.S.S.R. are to be found in J8NSSSR V (1968),and for most of the smaller languagca theseale the only comprehensiverec€nt accounts. For Evenki, comprehelsive accounts of phonetics and morphology ale provided by Konstantinova (r96d and of syntax by Kolesnikova( I 966).Evenis described in Germanby Benzing( I95S),andin Russianby Cincius (1947).For Nanay, thereis the detaileddescriptionby Avlorirr (r959F6r).For the smaller Ianguages,one may cite the brGfdescription ofulcha by Petlova ( 1935),and the sameauthor's accouoloforok (Pelrova 1967).
3. IJralic larguages
Uralic languages
In looking at the various branchesofAltaic, in particular the Turkic languages'we werefacedwith immenseproblemsin the internal classificationof languagesinto genetic subgroups, but with a very consistent typology across all the languages concemed.In the caseof Uralic languages,we have preciselythe opposite problem: the internal classification of Uralic into subgroups presentsfew problerns (though there are mor€ complicated situations when one comesto the subclassificationof individual branches),but typologically the Uralic languagesvary immenselyfrom one to the other, especiallyin phonology (including morphophonemics)and syntax. The straightforward geneticclassification of the Uralic languagesis in large part a reflection ofthe historical circumstaDcesthat gaverise to the current disftibution of gradually variousgtoupsof speakersof Uralic dialects/languages Uralic languages: Pcrmic, the Ugric, Samoyedic, in the order: branchofUralic, splitoffrom themain stands somewhat remainderthen splitting into Volgaic and Balto-Finnic; only Lapp outside this classification, sinceit is considereda s€paratebranch of Uralic, despite its close amrlitiesto Balto-Finnic. In addition, the various btanchesof Uralic developedin relativeisolation from one another,often geographicallyseparated from one another asa result of immigration of other peopl€s(esp€ciallyTurkic and Russian) itrto intervening areas,and also as a result of their own migrations, most spectacularlyin the caseof the Hungarians. In typological petspcctive, it is in general the casethat the more easterly Uralic languagesadheremore closelyto the canonicalsubject--object-verb(SOV) typology' i,e. like Turkic languages,wheteas the more westelly languagesare closc to the generalEurop€an type, itr particular with subjcct-verb--object(SVO) as their basic word order. There are, howevcr, individual exceptions to this, especially in morphophonemics,where Balto-Finnic. and Samoyedic share a number of complications. The usual explanation given for this situation is that Proto-Uralic wastlpologically similar to Turkic latrguages,aad that the more westerlylanguages havecomeunder strong Indo-European influence,leadingto areal difusion of SVO features.However. it must alsobe noted that many ofthc more eastcrlylanguages,as
93
well as somo of the centrally plac€d ldnguages,have been uoder strong Turkic influence, which could have originatcd, or more likely reinforced, thos€ asp€ctsof their structure that are characteristicofcanonical SOV languages.There is really no evidencethat Proto.Llralic was consistcntlySOV in typology, although it was probably more so than the Uralic languagescurrently spokenin the westof the area occupied by Uralic-speaking peoples,in particular the Balto-Finnic languages. Most of the Uralic languagesare languagesofthe U.S.S.R.,but, just aswith the Turkic and Mongolian languages,the b€st-knownand most widely spokenUralic languagesare not, namely Finnish and Hungarian (although, as we shall s€e,there are substantiallumbers of Finns and Hungariansin the U.S-S.R.).One further language,Lapp, is technicallya languageof the U.S.S.R.,being spokenby an autochthonouspopulationwithout beingthe ofrcial languageofany foreignstate, but in fact most Lapps live in northern Scandinavia(including, here, Norway, Swedcn,and Finland),so Lapp is rathermarginallya languageofthe U.S.S.R.All the other Uralic languagesare spokenalmostexclusivelywithin thc U.S.S.R. ln cultural terms,the variousUralic peoplesarevery diferent from oDeanother, indeedit is misleadingto speakofan ethnic,asopposedto a linguistic,unity ofthe speakersof Uralic languages. In general,speakersof Uralic larguagesdo uot difer markcdly in appearanc€and customs from their neighboun, at least Bot more so than do any adjacentspe€ch-communities. Thus,the Hungarianspresenttheir own admittedly distinct brand of central European culture, but it is still more rccognisably central European than r€lated to that of their nearest linguistic relativcs,the Khanty and Mansi in west€rnSibcria.Likewise,the Fintrsfit into the generalpatternofscandinavianculture,asto a largeextentdo th€ Estonians.Most of the other Uralic peoplesin EuropeanRussiadiffer littlc in appearanc€and customsfrom the sufiounding Russianpopulation,and in the caseofthe smaller populationgroupsin particular(e.9.the smallerBalto-Finniclanguages) are often undergoingthe last stagesofa processofethnic and linguistic assimilation that b€gan before the earliest Russianchroniclesfrom the beginning ofthe presentmillennium. The Uralic peoplesof Siberiaand the Far North, e.g.Ob'-Ugdc and Samoyedic peoples,fit traditionally into the sam€kind ofsubsistenc€economy,with primary emphasison hunting,frshing,andreindcer-breeding, asdo thenon-Uralicpeoplesof the samearea. Table 3.r presentsthe customary geneticclassification of the Uralic languages, reflectingthe way in which thevariousbranchesofuralichave in tum split ofrfrom the main branch;the somewhatanomalouspositionof Lapp in this diagramwill be discussedbelow, Beforegoing on to the detaileddiscussioubelow, somepreliminary points relative to Table 3.r uc€d to be discussed.First, the idtial division of Uralic into Samoyedicand Finno-Ugricis a major division,and in manynays themodem
94
3. Uralic languages Table 3s- Genetic classifrcationof tho Unlic languages Samoyedic Northern Samoyedic:Nenets (Yurak sarnoyedic) Ercts (Yenis€YSanoy€dic) Nganasan Cfavgi SamoYedic) Southem Samoyedic: Selkup (Ostyak SaDoyedic) Kamas (Sayan SamoyedD Finno-Ugric Ugric: Hulgarian (nativeethnonymlMagyar) Ob'-Ug.ic: Khanty (Ostyak) Mansi (Vogul) Finno-Permic: Permic: Komi (Zyryan): Komiczyryan) Komi-Perllyak Udmurt (Votyak) FiDno-volSaic: volSaic: Mordva: Erzya-Mordva Moksha-Mordva Mari (Cheremis): Meadow-Eastern Mari . Hill Mari Lapp Balto-Fillricr Finnkh (Suomi) Karelian Ingrian (Izhor.) Vcps Eslonian Liv
Samoy€dic and Fimo-Ugric languages are very differelt from oDe anothcr' However, their gcnetic r€lationship is not rcally in doubt. Sirce th€ Finno-Ugric languagesare much better kflown, and have been much more thoroughly studied than the Samoyedic languages,and also since thete are more Finno'Ugric than Samoyediclanguagcswith far mote speakers,the term Finno-Ugric is often uscd looselyto include the Samoyediclanguages.ln the prosentwork, lY€shall distinguish the terms,with Finno-Ugric beingone of th€ two main branchesof Uralic' The geneticunity of Finno-Ugric was, incidentally,establishedslightly earli€r than was that of Indo-European: in I77o Jenos Sajnovics published his Demonstratio idioma lJngarorum et Lapponum idem esse(Demonstration that the Ianguage of the Hungarians and Lapps is the same), while in 1799 SdLrnuel Gyarmathi publishedhis Afrnitas linguae Hungaricae cum linguis fmnicae originis (Afrni ty of the Hungaian languagewith the languagesof Finnish oigin); malnyof the specific parallels noted by thesescholars havc withstood the test of time, and given that the similarity of Hungarian to Finnish or Lapp is rnuch lessobvious than
3.1 The iadividual languages
95
that of Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit to one anothcr, their wofk standsas a remarkable achievement. In Table 3.1,it will be notedfurthcr that mostof the Uralic p€opleshaveat least two ethnonymswhich arecunent in the literatue: usually,oneof theseis the namc given to themsclvesby speakersof the languagecotccrned (or a large subgroup thereof, where no uniform nameis usedby all membersofthe group), aod th€ other was originally that given to them by one of their ncighboursand subscquently adoptedby thc scientificcommunity,Sinceoutsidersusuallylearn about a given people in the first instanceftom that people'sneighbours,this situation ls not uncommonin ethnography.In pre-RevolutionaryRussiamany ofthesenonnative ethnonymstook on pejorativcconnotations,so after the Revolutiona policy wss adoptedhere,aselsewhere in the U.S.S.R,,of usingprimarily the nativeaame,and thispolicyhasnow b€enextendcdto all Uralic peoplesofthe U.S.S.R. (thoughnot to the non-Sovietpeoples,the Hungariansand Finns, wherethc native cthnonyms, Magyar and Suomircspectively, arc not usedby the internationalcommunity).In the presentwork, we adherebasicallyto this Sovietpolicy,giventhe orientationof our book asa treatiscon thelanguages ofthe U.S.S.R.Io mostnon-sovietsp€cialist literatureonUralic languages. the traditionalnootrativetermsareusei, soreference will haveto be madeto the comparative nomenclatureasgiven in Table r . The otrly 3. departures\pe have made from this policy are to useItrgrian (which is used oy one subgoup ofthe Ingrians) rather than Izhora (Russian .rzo.s*ir, sinc€ the two are basicallyjustphoneticvariantsofthe samcetymon,and to uscLapp ratherthan the native name Saamc (Russian namskij, whicb has replaced the earlier term loparskiJ), our motivation here being that the term Lapp is so w€ll-known to the English-speakingcommunity that it would b€ pedantic to insist on Saame-
The individud lmgurScs In this section, we shall look at each of the languagesin .urn, concentratingon languages ofthc U.S.S.R.,followingthe reverseorderofbranches from that giyenin Tablc a.r, i.e. €ssentiallyworking from westto east. 3.r
Balto-Finniclaaguages The Balto-Finnic languagesform a very closcly-knit geneticgoup, and intcmal classificationwithin this group is extremelydifficult, indeed even the questionofhow manydistinctlanguages areto berecognised hasbcenthesubjectof considerable controversy,especiallyin so far asit servedduring thc fust halfofthis century to motivate and exacerbateterritorial disputcsbetweenFinland and the 3.r.r
3. Uralic languages
96
U,S.S.R. within Balto'Finnic, two exhemes of divergence can b€ recognis€d' representedby Finnish and Estonian.Most of th€ other customarilyrecognised languagesare closerto Finnish than they are to Estonian(e g' Karelian, Ingrian' Veps), white Vot standsbetweenthe more Finnish-like and the morc Estonianlike languages,probably the result of Finnicisation of an originally more Estonian Liv standssomewhatapa from this classification,becauseof a speech-variety. numberofidiosyncraticfeatures,thoughit is clearlycloserto Estonianthan it is to Finnish. One of tho main distinguishingcriteria betweenFinnish and languages closerto it on theotheris th€ closerto it on theonehandandEstonianandlanguages extent to which final vowelsand consonaDtsare retained(asin Finnish) or lost (asin Estonian).The applicationofthis criterion is complicatedby the fact that neither Finnish dialectsnor Estoniandialectsare consistentin this respect,with South' than thegeneralmass WesternFinnishdialcctshavinga mor€Estonianappearance a more Finnish having dialects Estonian North-Eastem and of Finnish dial€cts, is asa dialect ofBalto-Finnic classification Ptobablythe bestinternal app€arance. asa result of largely chain, though one where severalintermediatelinks are missing, th€ir assimilationto Russian,butpartly asa resultofthe consolidationofremaining Batto-Finniclanguages,with periphelaldialectsassimilatingto the more central dialects. Finnishis the nativelanguageof atmostall Finns, the majority of whom live in Finland,althoughthereare alsoFinnishminoritiesin Swedenand thc U S'S R', as well as elsewhereithe total numberof speakelsis over 4 million ln Finland itself, over goyo of the population is elhnically Finnish, speakingFinnish as a native language.However,the Swedishminority occupiesa specialpositionbecauseofthe particulat historical developmentof Finland, and Swedishis an oficial languageof Finland alongsideFinnish, although the percentageof Swedishspoakershas declinednoticeablyovor the last hundredyears,from over 14% in I88o' At least until the declatationof Finnish indcpendeoccin I9I7, Finland and te[itories to the eastwelethe subjectofcompetingterritorialclaimsby Swedenand Russia.From the Middle AgesFinland wasunder Swedishrule, but Sweden'after beingforcedto cedeterritoriesto theeastandsouthofpresent'dayFinlandto Russia in varioustreatiesduringtheeighteenthcentury,flnallycededFinlandto theRussian ' Empirein I8o9. HoweYer,Tsa st policy in Finland wasvery diferent from that in othernon-Russianpartsofthe Empire:Finlandretaineda largemeasureofinternal autonomy,in particular much of the control of the Grand Duchy was left in the handsofthe Swedisharistocracy.Until almostthc endofthe nineteenthcentury,the sole omcial laDguageof Fidand was Swedish.ln the secondhalf of the ninete€nth century, Finnish-sp€akers won & number of concessions,leading finally in the Constitutionof I9I9 to the declarationof Finnish and Swedishascoequaloffcial
3.1 The individual languages
g7
languagesof the ncwly formed republic, a situation whicb continues to the present day. The diferences among Finnish dialects is quite marked, and there are even instanceswheredifferencesamongdialectsofFinnish (definedasa languagein ethnic andpoliticalterms)aregreaterthanthosebetweensomedial€ctsofFiuuisb andsome other Balto-Finnic languages:this applies in particular to Karelian, The current standard is not basedspecifically on any single dialect, and developedin the midnineteenthcentury asa comprbmisebetwe€ncompetingclaims ofseveral individual dialect areas.In vocabulary, Finnish is one of the most pu stic of Europ€an languages, but the development of Finnish syntax shows considerable foreign influence,especiallyof Swedish. In the U.S.S.R.thereare 84,750Finns, a declinefrom the ry59 figureof 92,711, and the rate oflanguagerelentionin r 97ois givenasonly 5r %. Although the Finns in the U.S.S.R.had,in a scnse,thei own autonomousunitduringtheexistenceofthe Karelo-Finnish S.S.R., the abolition of this Union Republic in 1956 and its replacementby the KarelianA.S.S.R.meansthat the Karelians,but not the Finns, have regional autonomy; however,as we shall seebelow, Finnish, in the Latin alphabet,is usedasa lalguagein educationandpublicationin theKarelianA.S,S.R. The d€scendantsof the Balto-Finnic tribe of thc Karelians do not form a unit. culturally or linguistically.The more westerlyKareliansjoinedtogetherwith their neighboursto thewestin theformation ofthepresent-dayFinnishpeople,andthere is no morereasonto distinguishthemfrom Finnsin generalthan to do sofor alty of theothertribesthatjoinedwiththenamc-givingtribe,theSuomi,in thisprocess. The morc easterly Karelians, however, had much closer contacts with Russians,aud adoptedbasicallyRussiancustoms,includingthe Ofihodox religion.Whenpart of thcir toritory was annexedby Swedenin the seventeenth century,someof these Kareliansweresoaggravatedbythcreligious andotherinterference from theSwedes that they migrated well into Russian teritory, to Tvcr' (now Kalinin), where their desccndants still live.Thc term Karelianshouldbe understoodhere.in its reference to a separateBalto-Finnicpeopleand languagc,to refer to the easlernKarelians. Karclian falls into threemain dialects:Karelian proper, Olonets(in Sovietwork, especially,often called livvikovskil), atd.Lud. Of thes€,Kareliao profrer is closeEtto Finnish.In r9?o,therewcrer46,08rethnicKarelians,ofwhom 63%had Kareliar as their nativelanguage,a noticeabledrop from ]-r.3o/o of 16,1,278 irL rg1g.S7.6Vo of Karelianslivein theKarelianA. S.S.R., wheretheyform, however,only r r .8% of the total population(asagainst Russianswith68.r%);a futher 26.r % livein theKalinin oblast-thesearethedescendants ofthoscwhomovedhereto avoidSwedishcontrol. Karelian was used to a very limited cxtent before the Revolution as a written language,primarily for religiousworks. In the r93os,a writtenlanguagewasusedin
3. Uftlic languages
98
the U,S.S,R.for someeducationaland publishingpurposes,but its duration was veryshortlived, Despitethe largonumberofKarclian speakers, certainlyrelativeto many ofthc other languagesofthe U.S.S.R.,most SovietKareliansare bilingualin Russian,asa resultofliving in areaswherethe populatio[ is increasinglyRussian, and use Russianas their written language:even in the early post-Revolutionary yea$, substantiallymore Karelians were literate in Russian than in Finnish. However,standardFinnishis socloseto Karelianthat mostKarelianscan,withvery little effort, becomeliterate in standard Finnish. At present,both Russianand in educationand publishing,by theKarelians, Finnishareuscdaswrittenlanguages, playing with Russian thedominant!ole,especially in viewoftheethnicandlinguistic assimilationof the Karcliansto th€ Russians. Ingrian hasoften beenconsideredas a dialectof Finnish and/or Karelian, and arosefrom thelallguageofFinnishandKareliansottlerswhomigratcd to thisregion, present-day to the west of Leningrad.Currently, the Ingrians are being rapidly assimilatedto the Russians:in 1959therewere 1,062ethnicIngrians,in r97o only j8r: in 1959,34.j% of IngriansgaveIngrian as th€ir nativelanguage,in I97o only 26.6%.An Ingrian written languagewasusedfor very basicpurposesin the r93os, but was then discontinued. Vepsis anotherlanglageatpresentintheproc.ess ofrapid assimilationto Russian, a processwhich hasbeengoing on sincethe earliestwritten mentionofthe Vepsa thousandyearsago.ThenumberofethnicVepsfelldramaticallyfrom r6,374inr959 to 8,28r in I97o, the language-retention rate falling from 46.r% to 34.3%.They inhabit the tdangle formed by the lakes Ladozhskoye,Onezhskoyeand Beloye Ozero.IrI the r93os,Veps,lik€ severalof the smallerBalto-Finniclanguages,was used as a written language,but its status as a written languagewas soon discontinued. Vot is spokenfurther westfrom Ing an, betw€enLeningradand the Estonian border; it is very closeto someEstoniandialects,indeedVot and North-Eastern Littoral dialectsof Estonianare mutually cornprehensible, making thesespeechvarietiescloserto one another than are extremedialectsof Estonianitself. The lrumber of Vot speake$ is very small, indeed so small that they are not listed separatelyin officialSovietstatisticsin rcc€ntyears.In the l94ostherewerearound 5ooVot, but th€y sufferedbadly ir the Nazi occupationand retreatfrom this part of the U.S.S.R.Ariste(r968)estimatesthat the numberofVot speakersis probably under loo. vot has neverbeelrusedas a written language. With the Estonianswe come to the secondmost numerousof the Balto-Finnic peoples,and the only Balto-Finniclanguageother than Finnish to havea i 'ritten form at present.Most Estonianslive in the U.S.S.R.:I,007,356(thesmallestofany cthnic group having a Union Republic),of whom 95.5% sp€akEstonianas their
j.r
Thc individual languages
gg
nativelanguage.9r.8% ofsoviet Estonianslive in the EstonianS.S.R., wherethey constitute 68.270of the total population. The Estoniansthus form a compacr population group and this, together with their own well-devcloped culture, d€velopedlargely in isolation from Russian,has kept them very indepctdent linguistically:Estonianshave somethingof a reputation in the U.S.S.R.tor not speakingRussianwell, Although part of Estonianwas under Russian(Kiyevan) rule in the eleventh century,their territory wasfor mostofthe interveningperiodthesubject ofstruggl€s betwcenGcrman, polish,and Danishinvaders(th€ nameofthe capital city, Tallin (Estonian:Tallinn), mcant originally .Danish fortress'),with the Germanstinally gaining control. Even when Estonia becamepart of the RussianEmDir€in the eighteenthcentury,the ecolomic and political power of the Gcrman landowners remainedparamount, After the Revolution, Estonia becam€independcnt, like Latvia and Lithuania, only to be reoccupiedby the U.S.S.R.in r94o part as ofthe nonaggresslonpact with Germany. Estonia was subsequcntlyoccupied by the Germans,and its efectiveincorporationinto the U.S.S.R.starrcdaftcr thc Second World War. Estonia is generallyregardedas the technologically most advanced rcpublic in the U.S.S.R.,with continuedmaintenanc€of someof its cultural ties towards Scandinavia,especiallyFinland. Large numbersof Estonians also live abroad,mainly refugeesfrom the incorporationof Estoniainto the U.S.S.R..the greatcstconcentrationsbeingin Swedenand North America. Largelyasa rcsultofthe longperiodofforeignruleduringwhich Estoniancurture was completelysubordinatedto that of the rulers,Estoniandeveloped relatively recentlyasa unifiedstandardlanguage.Ind€ed,eventheethnonym Estoniangained wide acceptanceamong Estoniansonly during the nineteenthcentury. Another retardingfactor in the developmentofa standardlanguagewas the greatdlspanty b€tweerdifferentdialectsof Estonian,Indeed,on purely structuralgrounds, one could argue that thcre are actually two EstoDianlanguages, North EstonEn (or Estonianproper)andsouth EstoniarLwith theformerbeingcroser to Finnishthanit is to the South Estonian.Onceagain,however,cultural and political facto$ have won out overstructulalsimilariryindefininglanguageboundarics, sothat Estonians asa wholehaveafeelingofunityamongthemselvesand ofdistinctnessfrom sDeakers of other Balto-Finnic languagcs.Within North Estonianthcre is also a cleavagc betweenthemassofNorthEstonianandtheNorth_Eastemdialect, whichiscloserto Finnish.In theearlydevelopmentofwrirten Estonian,the southem dialectDlayeda major role. mainly becauseit was the languagespokenaround Tartu (thencalled Dorpat), Estonia'sonly universitycity. However.the numericalpreponderance of speakersof Northern Estonian,and the fact that the capital city Tallin (formerly Req ) is in the Northern dialect area, determinedthe eventual adoDtion of a
3. Urulic languages
roo
as standardbasedon theNolthern dialect,and theSoutherndialectis no longerused the basisof a written language. Estonianhasa numberoffeaturesdistinguishingit from themassofBalto-Finnic Lexically,it hasa largenumberof loansfrom German(includingLow Ianguages. 'priest' (German Priesrer), p"t 'confession'(G€rman German), e.g. preesfer 'dress'(GermanK/erd) ln addition' Beichte),kriit'chalk' (GermanKreide), kleit andcarly ofstandardEstonianin thelatenineteenthcentury duringthedevelopment basis, arbitrary an essentially on werecleated tweniiethcenturiesseveralneologisms 'weapon', rcetna 'to g relv e many of which have beensurprisinglysuccessful, of betray'. From a structuralviewpoint,however,the most characteristicleature Estonian(all dialectsexceptth€ North-Eastern)is th€ three-wayphonemiclength 'flax', 'l"ta 'town-GEN" ltina oppositionin consonantsand vowels,as in /tna 'town-PARTIT'. We shallexaminethis phenomenonmore closely'aswell tlinnnal assomeofits implicationsfor Estonianmorphologicalstructure,in sections3 2 and -The to beconsideredis Liv, atpresentspokenby lastofthe Balto-Finniclanguages perhaps3oopeopleon the Kurland (Courland)peninsulain Latvia; all arebilingual in Latvian,and indeedtheir inevitableabsorptionsooninto the Latviansethnically (Indoand linguisticallycan be viewedas the final stagein the mergingof Baltic European)and Balto-Finnicsubstratumto giveriseto Latvian (cf p I47) ln the Middle AgestheareawhereLiv wasspokenwasa muchlargerareaalongtheGulfof Riga, and on the eastem side of the gulf Liv becameextinct only during the nineteenth century. Liv is markedly divergent from th€ other Balto-Finnic languages,though with some similaritiesto Estonian, €speciallythe dialect of island,with which the Liv probablymaintainedclose Sarema(Estonian;Saaremaa) contact.Like Estonian,and unlikemost Balto-Finniclanguages(otherthan SouthWesterndialectsof Finnish), Liv has many words ending in a wide vadety of theresultoflossoffinal vowels;however,it doesnothave consonants,diachronically the complexquantitativedistinctiols ofEstonian. Unique to Liv amongthe BaltoFirlnic languagesis a phon€micallydistinctbroken intonation(glottal constriction (se€p and devoicingin the secondpart ofa vowel),clearlydueto Latvian influence r5r), althoughits occurrencein Liv follows from regularsoundchanges(e g from in addition,Liv hasrising lossoffi, andbeforeceltainnewlygeminatedconsonants); also quantitativedistinctions and(rarely)fallingtones.InEstonian,incideIItally,the havepitch correlates,so that in a wider perspectivgthes€prosodicsystemscan be groupedtogetherascharacteristicof Estonianand Liv asopposedto other BaltoFinnic languages. Liv was usedin a limited way asa written languageduring the periodofLatvian thelastpublicationbeingin l939 At presentit is not uscdasa written independence, language,and Latvian seruesthe function of written languagefor the Liv Liv is
j.t
The individual
languages
loI
under strong Latvian influenca, most noticeably in the l€xicon, but also typologically,forinstancein thedev€lopmentofthe brokentone,perhapsalsoin the recentunroundingoffrontroundedvowels,andperhapsalsoin thedevelopmentofa dativecaseseparatefrom theallative,althoughthe morphologicalmaterialusedfor this distinctionis Balto-Finnic(thus Liv distinguishes dativejaalgan frorn allative jalgal, whereasEstonianhasja,la,le,from jalg 'foot', in both functions). 3.r.2 Lapp The positionofLapp within the family-trceof Uralic is oneofthe few points of unclarity in the relationsamong the major branchesof this languagefamily, and this appliesin particularto the relationbetwcenLappand Balto-Finoic. Ethnically,the Lapps are clearlydistinct from the Balto-Finnicpeoples,and their languageis muchmoredifferentfrom anyBalto-Finniclanguage thananyoneBaltoFinniclanguageis from anyother.However,thereis noevidencefor onetraditiolal peoplewho adopteda view, that the Lapps wereoriginally a non-Uralic-sp€aking Uralic language from their neighbours, and in particular the retention of reconstructedProto-Uralicvocabularyin Lapp is not noticeablylower than that in manyotherUralic languages. Lapp doeshavea numberofclearsimila tiestoBaltoFinnic, including individual morpbological affixes, in addition to typological sirnilaritieswhich may be the resultofcommon origin or ofcontact (for instanc€, consonantgradationin morphology,discussed in section3,2below).The presently availableevidencesuggeststhat Lapp is a branchseparatefrom Balto-Finnic,but morecloselyrelatcdto Balto-Finnicthan to any other branchof Uralic, so that the family-treeof Uraliccan bemodifiedby insertinga Finno-LappicgroupaboveLapp and Balto-Finnicl Finno-Lappic would thus be coordinatewith Volgaic within Finno-Volgaic,and it would in turn consistoftwo coordinatebranches,Lapp and Balto-Finnic. The differentiationwithin Lapp is very great,and it is thusmisleadingto think of Lapp as a singlelanguage,despitethe cl€ar ethnicunity of the Lapps. In fact, in rccentwork, aroundeightdistinctLappishlanguageshave beenrecogniscd. Dialect differencesdo notcorrespondto thepoliticalfrontiersofthe areain whichthe Lapps live,sothat the termsNorwegian,Swedish,Finnish,Soviet(Russian)Lapp areeven more misleading.The threemain dialectareasarc Western(Northem), Southem, and Eastern,ofwhich only th€ third is represented in the U.S.S.R.Subdivisionsof WesternLapp are Ruija (themostwidelyspokenLapp language/dialect), Lule, and Pite.SouthernLapp proper is spokensouth ofth€ rive! Ume, while Ume Lapp is tmnsitional betweenWesternand SouthernLapp. EasternLapp consistsof the Inari, Skolt (Koltta), and Kola dialects,mostSovietLappsbeingspeakers ofone of the subdialectsof the last named. The I97ocensus recorded r ,884Lappsin rheU.S,S.R..ofwhom56.2%haveLapp
3, Uralic |angiages
j.r
I02
astheirnativelanguage.Inabsoluteterms,thenumberofLappscontinuesto rise,i.e. ethnicassimilationseemsnot to be marked,in contrastto the smallerBalto-FiDnic peoples,but linguisticassimilationis clearlyon the increase.Outsidethe U.S.S.R, therearesomeI9,oooLappsinNorway,S,oooinSweden,andz,oooinFinland.Lapp is used as a written languagein Scandinavia,though becauseof the marked arein factin betweendifferentvarietiesofLapp severalwritten languages differences ofthecountry language by thedominant influenced strongly Lapp is everywhere use. in which it is spoken(Norwegian,Swedish,Finnish, Russian).
The individual languages
r03
reinforcedthesefeaturesof Mari. The Mordva fall into two major groups,differingfromoneanotherethnicallyand linguisticalty, although the basic unity of the Mordva ethnic group is not compromisedthereby:thesetwo groupsare the Erzya and the Moksha, the Erzya outnumberingtheMokshabyabouttwo toone,althoughdetailedstatisticaldataon the population numbersfor Erzya and Moksha individually are not available' Linguistically,thediferencesbetweenErzyaand Mokshaaresogreatthat speake$ of the one are often unable to unde$tand the other' and at presenttwo written languagesare in use. Indeed,in Soviet linguistic, as opposedto ethnographic, asdifferentlanguages litemture,it is usualto considerMokshaand Erzyaseparately,
with other ethnicgroups,e.g.Tatar).This reflectsin part the historyofthe Mordva, and their attempts to evadefirst Tatar, then Russiandomination by migrating frcquently,until they were finally forced to adopt Orthodox Christianity in the eighteenth century.Only35.4%ofthepopulation oftheMordvaA.S.S.R. isMordva (the majorityis Russian), and only 28.9%of Mordva live ir their A.S.S.R.,the remainderbeing scatteredacrossadjacentadministrativ€oblasts. Mordva was used in a very limited way before the Revolution for religious publications,but it wasonly after the Revolutionthat the two literary languages, Erzyaand Moksha, werefinally developedas mediaofeducation and publishing. While the phonemicsystemof Erzyadoesnot departsignificantlyfrom the range represented in the majority of Uralic languages, Moksha hasa numberofunusual phonemicoppositions,in particularbetweenvoicedandvoiceless nasalsandliquids, e.g. kalnii 'fish-DIM', kalrd 'fish-NOM-PL', kaf/ .willow-DEF-cEN', *a/r 'willow-NOM-PL'; the voicelessphonemesoccur, in general,only at certain morphemeboundaries. The Mari are rathermorecompactlysettledthan the Mordva, althoughtheytoo havebeensplit up by RussiancolonisationalongtheVolga,andthisis reflectedin the muchhigherlanguage-retention rate:9r.2% of598,628ethnicMari, eventhoughthe drop from 95.r % in r959is noticeable.The Mari constitute43.?%ofthe population of their A.S.S.R., though there are also compact arcas of Mari settlementrn neighbouringadministrativeareas,especiallythe BashkirA.S.S.R.,wherc rg.3%of all Mari live. The questionof whether Mari is a singlelanguage,or rather two languages,namely, Meadow-EasternMad and Hill Mari, remainsundecidedin omcialSovietpublications,althoughit isclearthat theMa constitutea singleethnic group, and equallyclear that at presenttwo written languagesare in use,with the namesasgivenabove.IfMari isconsidereda singlelanguage, th€nthesewouldbethe two major dialects(in addition to a third, unwritten,Easterndialect),eachwith its own written form. Thereareapparentlyno practicalplansfor thecreationofa single Mari standardlanguage.One phoneticcharacteristicofboth forms of Mari is the existenceof voiced fricatives, to the exclusion of voiced plosivcs (except as allophonesofthe fomer after nasals),in particular p, d, aad y, in addition to z and z.
within the Mordva subbranchof Volgaic The Mordva arc the most numerousUralic people in the U S.SR, slightly outnumberingtheEstoniansboth in absolutenumbersandin numberofspeakersof thecorrespondinglanguage(assumingErzyaandMokshaarecountedtogether)Of haveMordva asthei nativelanguageHow€ver,despite r,262,6'10Mordva,'77.8% thelargeabsolutenumbers,the Mordva livescattercdacrossa hugeterritory,where theyare almosteverywhetea minority amonga Russianmajority (and oftenmixed
Permiclanguages The presgnt-dayPermiclanguagesare very closeto one another,and indeedtheearliestattested Permiclanguage,Old Permic,cannotreadilybedescribed astheancestorofany oneindividualmodernPermiclanguage, althoughitiscloserto Komi than to Udmu . The developmentof Old Permicas a written languageis a uniquephenomenonin the pre-RevolutionarylanguagesituationofRussia.At the
Volgaiclanguages than most of The Volgaicbranchof Uralic is ratherlesshomogeneous Mordva within Volgaic, main subbranches particularthe two theotherbranches;in havingmoresimilarities with Mordva andMari, areverydifferentfrom oneanother, to Balto-Finnicthan Mari does.However,the groupingtogetherof Mordva and is Mari, on the basisofsharedinnovationsnot sharedwith other Uralic languages. to considerable subject have been of Volgaic question. Both subbranches beyond arealso Turkicinfluence,astheyarespokenin areaswherevariousTurkiclanguages in (Chuvash,Tatar), and this Turkic influenceis most noticeable Mari, represented which isquitesimilartypologicallyto aTurkic language,with verb-finalword order useofnonfiniteverbforms;asnotedon pp.92-3,it isunclearto what andwidespread extent this can be regardedas a survival of the Proto-Uralic stateas opposedto Turkic influence,but at the leastTurkic influencemust be attributed with having 3.r3
3.t.4
3. Uralic languages
r04
end of the fourteenthc€ntury,actually beforethe final incorporationof the area into theMuscovitestate,Steph€nofPerm inhabitedbyspeakersofPermiclanguages undertook missionaryactivity amongthe Permians,having himselflearnedtheir language,and deviseda Permic written language,using an alphabetof his own creation.Wdtten Old Permicwas known to only a small proportion of the local population,and theuseofthis w ttenlanguagesoondiedout, but thesuNivingtexts are of extremeimportancefor historicaltomparative study of Uralic languages, becauseOld Permicis the oldestUralic languageattestedby connectedtextsafter Hungarian; and since Hungarian is strongly aberrant from the generalUralic pattern,the importanceof Old Permicis therebyincreasedconsiderably' At present,the Komi are considered,ethnicallyand linguistically'to form two s€parategroups,the Komi-Zyryansand the Komi-Permyak However,in termsof linguisticstructure,Komi-Zyryanand Komi-Permyakareveryclosetooneanother indeed,and if one were to divid€ the whole of the Komi area into major dialect groups,thesewould probablybe Komi-Zyryan, Komi-Permyak,and Yaz'va,with the Yaz'va dialectactuallybeing the most divergentol the three;speakersof the Yaz'va dialectare generallyreckonedofficiallyin with the Komi-Permyak ln nonSovietliterature,the term Komi tendsnot to be used'being replacedby Zyryan' which is thus a cover-termfor all the Komi. In the U.S S.R, Komi is often used without any qualificationto refer specificallyto Komi-Zyryan The l97o census figuresgiveboth combinedstatisticsfor all Komi, thenseparatestatisticsfor KomiZyryan and Komi-Permyak.Komi-Zyryan was the native languageof 82 7% of A S S R , wherethey 3zr,894ethnicKomi-Zyryan,85.5v.of whomlivein their owrt constitute28.670of the population (the overwhelmingmajority is Russian) The Komi-Permyakconstitutea majority in their own N.O. (58.2%),whete 80 6% of rate is 85.8% among the I53,9oI ethnic Komithem live; the language-ret€ntion Permyak. lt is interestingto note that, although the Komi-Zyryan are more numerousthan the Komi-Permyakand have a greaterlev€l of local autonomy, is actuallyhigheramongthe latter than aniong the former:the language-retention ratefor Komi-Zyryan lell from 89.3%to 82.7%betweenthe I959and rgTocensuses, that lor Komi-Permyakfrom 87.60l.to 85.8%. After therapidconsignmentofthe Old Permicwrittenlanguageto oblivion,Komi wasusedto a very limited extentfor religiousand certainother purposesbeforethe Revolution.At pres€nt,Komi is usedfor educationand publicationin the Komi A.S.S.R.,while Komi-Permyakservessimilar lunctions,to a slightlymore limited extent.in the Komi-PermYakN.O. The Udmurt are considerablymore numerousthan the Komi, thoughthey have '1c.4328 roughly the samepercentag€of languageretention: in rg7o' 82'6Voof Udmurt saveUdmurt astheir nativelanguage;the Udmurt constitute34 2% ofthe
3.1 The individual languages
r05
populationof their A.S.S.R.,which hasa Russianmajodty population,and 6g.7% of all Udmurt live in that republic.Apart from religiousand a few other rcxn publishedin the nineteenthcentury,Udmurt was not usedas a written language beforethe Revolution,whereasnow it is usedfor schoolingand publishingin the Udmurt A.S.S.R. In concludingthis section,we may note that representatives of the Volgaicand Permicpeoplesdo not, in genelal,differ in appearance or generalcustomsfrom the Russian population with whom they live, language being often the marn distinguishingcriterion.(Ofcourse,assimilatedspeakersof Uralic languageshave playeda large part in determiningthe ethnic compositionof the Russianpeople themselves.) Only in the nodh-eastofthe Komi-populatedarea,borderingon the areasinhabitedbytheKhanty andMansi,do Komi speakers startpresentingamore Siberian physiognomy,resulting from their closer connectionswith Siberian peoples,in pafiicular the Ob'-Ugric peoples,to whom we now turn. Ugric languages The Ugric languagesfall into two subbranches,Ob,_Ugric and Hungarian.The Ob'-Ugric languagesare so-calledbecausethey are spokenon th€ riverOb'and its tributariesin westernSiberia.Theoriginalhomeofthe Ugrianswas to the west of the Urals, from which the Ob'-Ugric peoplesundertook a short migrationto theeastofthismountain mnge,whilethe Hungariansembarkedon the most far-rcachingmigrationofany ofthe Uralic peoples,bringingthemeventually to present-dayHungaryin thelateninthcenturyA,D. Hungarianand theOb'_Ugric languagesare very differentfrom one another in many respects,and it has been suggestedthat Ob'-Ugric and Hungarianshould actually be regardedas distinct branchesof Finno-Ugric rather than as subbranchesof a single branch. The idiosyncrasies ofHungarian could, ofcourse,equallybe accountedfor by the long of separation betweenHungarian and Ob,-Ugric (and indeed between ?eriod Hungarian and all Uralic languages),leading to both different spontaneous innovationsin eithergroupoflanguagesandstrongforeigninffuenceon Hunganan. The two Ob'-Ugric languages areKhanty and Mansi.Khantyis spokenby 6g.9% ofthe 2 r, r 38ethnicKhanty, whileMansiis spokenby only 52.4%ofthe T,Troethnic Mansi.57.8%of th€Khantyand86.7%oftheMansilivein theKhanty-Mansi N.O., but they constitutea total of only |Vo of the population of this predominantly Russian-settled area.The Khanty and Mansi wereincorporatedinto the Russian Empireat the time ofthe collapseofthe Tatar khanateofKazan', ofwhich theyhad previously been vassals.They live scatteredacrossvast areasin north-weslern Siberia,mainly along the river Ob' and its tributaries,engagingtraditionally in hunting and fishing, with the reindeeras the main domesticatedanimal. The 3.r.5
3. Uralic languages
l06
assimilationofspeakersof Ob'-Ugric languagesto Russianwill probably increase ofoil and naturalgasdiscoveredin their dramaticallyin futureyea6, asthe reserves N.O. are exploited. The dialectsofKhanty areextremelydivergent,moresothan for any other Uralic lalguage,so that it is essentiallythe ethnic unity ofthe Khanty that leadsto their languagebeingconsidereda singlelanguagewith severaldialectsrather than as a group of languagesforming a subgroupwithin Ob'-Ugric. The major division is betweenWestern and Easterndialects.Within the Easterndialects,thereis a further bifulcation betweenthe Surgutdialectand the Vakh-Vasyugandialect:the latterof these is highly aberrant, both in phonetic structur€ (larg€ number of vowel phonemes,including four reducedvowels,back rounded,back unrounded,front rounded, front unrounded,participating in a stdct front-back vowel harmony syst€m),and in syntax:Vakh Khanty is the only Uralic languageto havea clearly definedergativeconstruction,as will be illustratedon pp. I30 L Within westem dialectofthe mouth of the Ob'(also Khanty, we havethe relativelyhomogeneous knownastheObdorskdialect),thevirtually extinctIrtyshdialect,andfinallytheOb' dialect, with three subdialects:Sharyshkary,Kazym, and Central Ob'. The is sogreatthat mutualintelligibilityis excluded, amongallthesedialects divergences andno attempthasbeenmadetocreateasinglewrittenKhanty Ianguagethat would aswritten ofall dialects.In practice,6vedialectshavebeendeveloped servespeakers Vakhvarying extents: Surgut, languagesin the U.S.S.R.,thoughthey are usedto Vasyugan,Sharyshkary,Kazym, and Central Ob' (more specificallythe Sh€rkaly variety of Central Ob'); the last namedof thesehas beenthe most widely used. Written Khanty is usedin basiceducation(first two grades),is taught as a school subjectbeyond this level,and is also used for a certain amount of publicationol However,the lack ofa unifiedstandardlanguageand the strongRussianisation theareawherethc Khanty livewillundoubtedlysoonleadto theadoptionofRussian as the basicmediumof readingand writing, no doubt soon to be followed by the adoption of Russianas th€ spokenlanguagetoo. by marked Though not to thesameextentasKhanty, Mansi is alsocharacterised differencesamong the various dialects,of which four dialect groups are usually asWestern,Eastern,Northern,andSouthern. referredto geographically recognised, The area wherc the Southerndialect is spokenhas beensubjectto most intense Russianinfluence,and this dialectis almostextinct.The highestlanguage-retention rate is for the Northern dial€ct,and it is in this dialectthat publishingis at present carriedout, aswellasinstructionin thefirst two gradesofprimary school,afterwhich Mansi remainsasa schoolsubjectthrough furthergrades.As with Khanty, the low will of Russian, retention,the dialectdiversity,and the influence rateof language orobablv soon lead to the extinctionof Mansi.
j.t
The individual languages
to'1
Hungarianis not, of course, a language of theU.S.S.R., althoughtherearesome Hungarians in theU.S.S.R., predominantly in Transcarpathia, in areascededto the U.S.S.R.by Hungaryafterthe SecondWorld War. Hungariansin th€ U.S.S.R. numberr66,45r,ofwhom theremarkably highproportionof96.6%haverctained Hungarianastheir nativelanguage.much higherthan that for other ethnicgroups, e.g.theSlovaks,who foundthemselves in theU.S.S. R. asa resultof similarfrontier shifts.AlthoughthepositionofHungarianin the family-tree of Uralicis relatively clear, and although Hungarian has the longestrecordedhistory of any Uralic language-thefirstcontinuoustext,the Halottj Beszed(FuneralOratio datesfrom the early thirteenthcentury Hungarianis very divergentfrom the basicmassof Uralic languages and its rolein the reconstructionofproto-Uralic and in tracingthe developmentof Uralic in generalis correspondinglysmall.Hungarianvocabulary, for instance,reffectsthe chequeredhistory of the Hungarians,with loansfrom the peopleswith whom the Hungarianscameinto contactin their wanderingsfrom the Urals (Chuvash,Ossete,variousTurkic languagesother than Chuvash),from the peopleswith whom they came into contact in their new homeland in Europe (Slavoniclanguages), and from the peoplesunder whoserule they lived for many centuries(Turkish. Cerman), as well as from Latin, for a long period the administrative language ofHungary.At present, Hungarians constitute almostthe wholepopularionof Hungary,but, asa resultof thecreationofother independent states after the First World War, in particular Romania, yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, Hungarians formIargen?rtional minorities in thesecountries. Some r2,7oo,ooo Hungarians livein Hungary,over rj millionin Romania,and j million eachin Yugoslaviaand Czechoslor akia. SinceHungarianisnot a language oftheU.S.S.R., andsinceit issodivergent from thegeneralrun of Uralic languages, weshallrefcrto HungarianrelativelyIittle in the ensuingdiscussion,exceptfor certain specificpoints where Hungarian presents interesting parallelsto the Ob'-Ugriclanguages or revealing contrastswith other Uralic languages. 3.r.6 Samoyediclanguages Although Samoyedicis coordinatewith Finno-Ugric as a branchof Uralic, the speakersof Samoyediclanguagesnumber far fewer than do thoseof Finno-Ugriclanguages. and live scatteredacrossvastareasofnorthern andcentral Siberia.extendinginto the far north of EuropeanRussiatoo. ln currentSoviet usage,the Russianterm samoedl 'Samoyeds'has been replacedby samodijcy 'Samodi',mainly because the term Samoyedcameto be felt as insultingin preRevolutionaryRussian(because, in part, of association with the Russianprefix samo-'self'andthc root -ed'eater',althoughtheRussianfor 'cannibal'is,in fact,
3. Urulic languages
r08
just a phonetic not samoedbut ljudoed, i.e. people-eater). Sincethis is essentially vaiant of samoedy,we haveretainedthe customaryEnglishterm Samoyedin this preseDtatlon. The Samoyediclanguagesfall into two main branches,Northern Samoyedicand SouthernSamoyedic.While the Northeln Samoyediclanguages arestill rcasonably viable, the Southern Samoyediclanguagesarc witnessingthe last stagesof assimilationby other languages,in earlierperiodsby Turkic languagesof central Sibe a, more recentlyby Russian.The only SouthernSamoyediclanguagewith a sizablenumberofspeakersis Selkup.The only other SouthernSamoyediclanguage still spoken(or, at l€ast,spokenin r97o)is Kamas,with just one sp€akerin r97o. Other SouthernSamoyediclanguagesare known essentiallyby nameonly, having beenassimilatedbeforedetailedrecordingscould be madeof them, e.g.Karagas, Koybal, etc. The most numerousofthe survivingSamoyedicpeoplesare the Nenets,who live acrossa vastareastretchingfrom the White Seain EuropeanRussiato the Taymyr peninsulain Siberia.ln r 97otherewere28,7o5Nenets,makingthemthe largestofthe 'peoplesofthe North, Siberia,and the Fa! East'i 83.4%o[them claimedNenetsas their nativelanguage.TheNenetshave,in wholeor in part, threeN.O.snamedafter them: the NenetsN.O., where 2o.47oof the Nenetslive, constituting 15% of the population;theYamal-NenetsN.O. (6r.I % ofall Nenets,constituting2 r.9yoofthe population); and the Taymyr (Dolgan-Nenets)N.O. (7.5% of the Nerets, constituting5.9% of the population).The majo ty population of each of these nationalareasis Russian.Therearetwo maindialectsofNenets:Tundraand Forest Nenets,the latter with only about r,ooo speakers.Intelligibility betweenthe two dialectsis low. Internally,however,eachdialectis remarkablyhomogeneousin the caseof Tundra Nenetsthis was fosteredby closecontactsbetweenall groupsof Nenetsas the result of frequent meetingsbetweendifferentgroups during their nomadicexislence, aswellasby relativelyrecentexpansion overmuchofthe areain (in which they live. Nenets the Tundm Nenets variety) is the only Samoyedic languageto bc used at all widely as a written language,including educational materialsfor the first five gradesof primary school. Enetsis the closestof the Samoyediclanguagesto Nenets,in the south of th€ Taymyrpeninsula.PrecisestatisticsofthenumberofethnicEnetsandthepercentage ofEnetsspeakingEnetsarenot available,asthe Enetsusuallyclassifythemselves as Nenetsor Nganasanin the c€nsus(dependingon which group they live and work mostcloselywith), and arein anycasetoo few to belistedseparatelyin thepublished censusreturns.They probably numberaround zoo.Their languagehasneverbeen usedas a written language. Finally, among the Northern Samoyedicpeoples,the Nganasaninhabit the
3.2 Phonology
r09
northernpart oftheTaymyr peninsula,makingthemthenorthernmostpeopl€in the U.S.S.R.,in oneofits climaticallyleasthospitabl€parts.In r 97otheynumbered953, of whom ?5.4%spokeNganasanas a nativelanguage. Oneofthe phoneticcharacte sticsofthe NorthernSamoyedic languages isat least one phonemicglottal stop. In Nenetsand Nganasanthere are two glottal stops, usuallydescribedasnasalisedand nonnasalised respectively: most Sovietaccounts list them as distinct phoneticallyand phonemically,and they are certainlydistinct morphophonemically,Morphopironemically,the former alterateswith n and j, thelatter with s and d (thesedata are for Ncnets;in En€ts,the rangeofsoundswith which th€y alternateis broader). Of the SouthernSamoyediclanguages, only Selkupcanreally be saidto survive, beingspokenby 5I. t 7oof4,282ethnicSelkup,a percentage thathasremainedmore or lessconstantsincethe 50.6%rcgisteredin t959.Thereare two main dialectsof Selkup,the more southerlyNarym dialectand the more northerlyTaz dialect.The speakers ofNarym Selkuphavebeenalmostcompl€t€lyassimilatedby theRussians, sothatTazis theonly dialectwith a substantialnumberofspeakers,Theredoescxist a Selkupwritten language,but its useis very restricted,at presentapparentlyto a singleprimerusedin thefirstgradeofprimary school.Because oftheir closetieswith theKhanty (formerlyknown astheOstyak),to thesouthofwhom theylive,in earlier literature the Selkup (like the geneticallycompletelyunrelated Ket) are often confusedwith the Ostyak, or given the name Ostyak Samoyeds.Linguistically, how€ver,thereis no closegeneticconnectionbetweenKhanty and Selkup,and no geneticconnectionwhatso€verbetw€eneither of theseand Ket. 3.2 Phonology As soon as one starts looking at typological propertiesof Uralic languages, one finds,in contrastto Turkic languages, or evenAltaic languagcsasa whole,a relativelywiderangeofdiversity.EventhoughUralic languages areclearly all relatedgenetically,while this cannot be saidof Altaic languages,they presenta much wider rangeofstructuresin both phonologyand syntax.For instance,there are Uralic languageswith vowel harmony and Uralic languageswithout vowel harmony,the distinctionnot necessarily correlatingwith geneticsubgroupswithin Uralic: thus Finnish and Hungarianhavevowel harmony,whereasEstoniandoes not. Thereare Uralic languages with basicsubject-object-verbword order,suchas the Ob'-Ug c and Samoyediclanguages,and Uralic languageswith basic subject-verbobject word order, suchas the Balto-Finniclanguages. Evenmore surp singly,oneoften findslanguages that sharetypologicalfeaiures in commonasa resultofhistoricalaccid€nt,i.e.two Uralic languageswhich arenot clos€lyrelatedgeneticallyend up having some fgaturein common that was not
3. Uralic languages
I ro
directly inheritedfrom the proto-language,and wfuichmay be absentfrom other languagesmore closelyrelatedto theselanguagesthan th€selanguagesare to one another.For instance,both Finnish and most Hungariandialectshaveexactlythe samesystemofshort vowelphonemes:r'eri (;d u o a .Inbothla\Euages,with respect to vowelharmony/ and e arc neutral,the morphophonemicback_frontopposttion opposingonly u, o, a to ii,
j.z Phonology
rrl
but only one correspondingback vowel a. The operationof the alternationsthat result from Vakh vowel harmony can be seenin the following examples.The impelativeofthe definiteobjectconjugation (seepp. r25 6)endsin -il-i,e.g. peni 'put it', v6ri'do it'. The firstpersonsingularpossessive sumxis -amf -iim,asin olvam 'my thr€shold',semAm'my eye'.The dual numberof nouns is indicatedwith the 'two 'two -yen/-y6n,e.E. s.uffix otfjryyer spears'.pisihydr tables'.The alternation 0/o is found in the ablativesumx -oy/-dy,e.g.juy-oy' ftom the trce', kiiy-iiy'from stone'.Exceptionsto vowel harmonyin nativewords are almost unknown, being restrictedto compoundwords,also the suffix -uj (passive),which doesnot havea variant *-rij; in suchinstances,the last vowel determinesthe front/backquality of vowelsin subsequentamxes,e.g. versujam'l wasmade'.ln loans,especiallyfrom Russian,exceptionsto vowel harmonyare, ofcou$e, more fiequent.Thus,in the text on p. I38, we havethe Russiangiven nameMIRON. A more frequentkind offront/back vowelharmonyin Uralic languagesis where thevowelsi and e areneutral,occurringinboth front voweland backvowelwords, whereasthe othervowelsdividestrictlyaccordingto phoneticcriteria- this includes thefront unroundedvoweli aswell asthefront roundedvowelsctand i, opposedto all the back vowels,rounded or not. This systemis found, in particular, irt the northern Balto-Finniclanguagesand in Hungarian.Examplesmay be givenfrom Karelian, where the adessive(usedin Karelian also in allative meaning)has the variants Jlal-[[ii, e.g. pihalla'on the street',b:ut leinliflii'on the wall'. Suffixes containingonly the vowelsi and e do not, ofcourse,showany alt€rnation,asin the comitative-nke, e.g.pihanke 'with the street',lerrihke 'with the wall'. The words piha andleinii alsoillustratetheneutralvowelsi and € co-occurringwithboth front and back vowelsin back vowel and front vowel roots respectively.Roots which consistsolelyofthe neutralvowelsmay beeitherfront vowelor, lesscommonly,back vowelwords,so that in Hungarian,for instance,the word cln fciim] 'address'isa lrontvow€l word (dativec.imnek[ciimnek]),whereastheword n,id[hiid] 'bridge'is a backvowel word (dativefi/dnak [hiidnak]). Thereare evenminimal pairs ofthe typeHungarian ,ir [iir] (backvowel)'write', 1I [iir] (front vowel)'Irish'. Oneeven finds words with inconsistentassignment,such as Finnish men''sea', which is basicallyfront vowel,e.g.inessivede.e-ssi, but takesthebackvowelalternantin the partitive singuiar:mer-ta. SomeUralic languagesthat havebasicallythe systgmoutlinedabovehaveother deviationsfrom the straightforwardsystem,in particular a tendencyfor vowel harmonynot to extendbeyondthefirst fewsyllablesofaword.InVeps, for instance, vowelharmony isusuallyrestricted to thefirsttwoorthrcesyllables, afterwhichonly back vowel alternantsoccur. In Estonian,this tendencyhas beencarried to an extreme. so that thedistinctionbetween backvowelandfront vowelalternants has
3. Urulic languages
rt2
beenneutralisedin noninitial syllables.What this means,in effect,is that Estonian hasneutralisationofthe fronti/backopposition,but without the assimilationto the precedingvowel that characterises vowel harmony proper. In Estonian,then, the nonneutral front vowels i o r.i occur only in initial syllables,and there is no alternationleftoverfromthevowelharmonythatcharacterisedProto-Balto-Finnic. Civen th€neutralnatureofthe vowelsiand e in somanyUralic languages, andth9 fact that words containingonly neutralvowelsmay be either front vowel or back vowel words morphophonemically,it is tempting to distinguish two vowels morphophonemicallywhereonly oneis presentphonetically,i.e. to distinguishthe morphophonemicallyfront vowels/i/ and /e/ from the morphophoncmicallyback vowels/i/ and/a/, eventhoughboth seriesarealwaysrealisedphoneticallyasi and e. Thereis no directevidence in favourofthis asa historicalaccountofwhat took place, with mergerof original front and back unroundedvowels.Although someof the Balto-Finnic languages,in particular Estonian, have back unrounded vowels (Estonian has [y], written d), this seemsto be a secondarydev€lopment,with retractionofcertain original instances of e in backvowelwords.Ofcourse,equally, there is no evidenceagainstthis as a historicalexplanation- the questionsimply remainsopen. Synchronically,there would be certain problemsfor this abstract morphophonemicanalysis,for instancewords like merr'sea' in Finnish, which behavesometimesas if they contained back vowels and sometimesas if they containedfront vowels.This suggests that rootscontainingthe vowelsi and e, and no nonneutralvowels,but which behavelike back vowel roots, are simply to be marked as exceptionsto the generalvowel harmony rule, and such exception marking can, of cou$e, be subjectto other idiosyncraticfeatures,such as the oppositionpartitivesingularversusallother cas€-numbercombinationsin Finnish me.i (partitive singularmerta, but partitive plural m€rrr). Labialharmonyis muchlesscommonin Uraliclanguages. It is found,forinstance, in HungariaD,which has,asalreadynoted,beenseparatedfrom the massofFinnoUgric languagesfor a very longperiod,during much ofwhich it hasbeenin contact with Turkic languages. In Hungarian,only the mid vowelsareafected,sothat there is alternationbetweeno in back vowelwords(no labial harmony,sincr Hungarian has no unroundedvowel correspondingto o) and e or d in front vowel words dependingon whetherthe precedingvowelis roundedor not, For instance,the first personsingularindefinite-objectconjugation ending is -okl-ekl-ijk, as in dllok 'I 'I 'I [aallok] stand', veszek[vesek] take', ri./d.k sit'. Although the high front roundedvowelrjcan triggerlabialharmony,asin rj1ok,it doesnot participatein this alternation,i.e. there are no alterlation sets-il-ul-ii. A restrictedkind of labial harmony,or ratherassimilation(sirlceit is morphologicallyrestrictedand doesnot apply to all vowelsof a given word) is found in Meadow-EasternMari: certain
3.2 Phonology
II3
suffixeshave three alternants-el -ol-ii, the last two being usedonly if the initial (stressed)vowel is rounded,e.g. with locative -!toI -ttoI -ltiit ,t|ndrSte'in bread', olrkrtto'in themeadow',,ki.t il,3to'iniron'. whatis unusualaboutthisassimilation, is that it is in the generalcontextofvowel harmonyin Uralic and Altaic languages, not a characteristicof adjacentsyllables,but involvesrather conditioningof the vowelofthe suffixby the initial vowelofthe root, with interveningvowelspcrhaps belongingto differing phoneticseries. The secondphonologicalfeatureof Uralic languagesthat we shall examineis consonantgradation,which is restrictedeffectivelyto the Balto-Finnicand Lapp branchesof Uralic, at leastasa systematicsetof alternations;o y a few languages within thesebranchesofUralic, e.g.veps and Liv, do not havcconsonantgradation, and in these languagesgradation has clearly been lost r€cently. Viewed diachronically,gradation consistsin the weakeningof the phonetic value of a syllable,sothatwhereonehasa consonantwhenit occursat thebeginningofaclosed plosiveat thebeginrlingofanopensyllablein oneform ofa word, geminatevoiceless plosive thenin formsofthat sameword wherethe syllableiscloseda singlevoiceless thebeginningofanopensyllable, appears.Whereonehasasinglevoicelessplosiveat thenonehasa voicedplosiv€,a fricative,orzeroatthe beginningofaclosedsyllable on the the choiceamong thesethree dependson the individual language/dialect, individualconsonant,andalsoon theenvironmentinwhichthatconsonantappears. We may illustrate this phenomenonby taking someexamplesfrom Karelian, of nounsendingina vowel(hencean opensyllable)in thenominativesingular,with the ending -r in the genitivesingular,thus closingthe syllable(Table 3.2). plosivesis the plosivesand singlevoiceless The altemationofgeminatevoiceless samein all languagesthat havethis alt€rnation,but thereare variationswith other consonantsand consonantclusters:for instanc€,standardFinnish do€snot have the alternatioriof ts (correspondingto Karelian [q in metsii'forest', g€nitive 'joundy', me$An,or alternationof plosivesafter another plosive,as ia matka ger,itive matkan. With consonantsother than those describcd, there is no 'bird-cherry tree', genitive tuomer. alternation,e.g. with sonants,as in tuomi tncidentally,the fourth examplein Table3.2,which is a loan from RussianpaDiat' 'memory'! showsthat the alternationcan apply to loanwords,althoughit usually doesnot applytomore recentloansotherthanthosecontaininga geminatevoiceless plosivein the appropriateposition. As wasindicatedin introducingconsonantgradationabove,thealternationis the reflex of a regular sound change,wherebyconsonantswerc weakenedin closed syllables.In all languagesthat havethis altemation,however,the altemationhas beenmorphologised.to a greateror lesserdegree,by lossofsomcoftheconditioning lactors,sothat thcrearenow closedsyllablesthat havethestronggmdeconsoDantat
3. Uralic languages
tt4
Table 3.2. Consonantgradation in Karelian NOM SC
GEN SC
kukka heppi ajtta puameili meCda soba ruaoo peldo matka
kukan iiipin ajtan puameiin mo6iin ruavon p€llon matalr
'flower' 'pinch' 'storeroom 'memory' 'lorest' 'shirf 'work' 'field' 'journey'
their beginningand,evenmore frequently,op€nsyllablesthat havetheweakgrade. ther€are relativelyfew suchexceptions.In In the northernBalto-Finniclanguages, Kalelian, for instance,the illative singular,thoughendingin -r, doesnot take the weakgrade,sothat theillativeof abu 'help'is abu-h.At anearlierperiod,therewasa following vowel,cl Finnish (older and dialeclal)apu-hun (standardFinnish has apuur, throughlossofintervocalic,h).Another exampleofstrong gradein a closed syllableis tuarto-J'your father',whereagaintherewasoriginallya final voweli, cf. the Finnishsecondpersonsingularpossessive ending-si (althoughhcreitshould b€ noted that the morphemeboundary betweena noun and its possessive endingis strongenoughto blockgradationevenwherethereis a closedsyllable,asin Finnish apu-nsa'his help'). Theinversephenomenon, weakgradein an opensyllable,is found in Karelian/ate 'floor' (genetivelaltrbt), and in the imperativekuvo of kudu-o'weave-INFIN'; in thesewords,a finalconsonanthasbeenlost:someFinnishdialectshaveafinalglottal stop in suchwords.With suchforms,the occuffenceofthe strongversusthe weak grade is determined not by the phonological structure of the word, but by synchronicallyarbitrary morphologicalcharacterisation(e.g.the imperativetakes the weak grade).Oiven the synchronicarbitrarinessof the altemation in cedain instances,one often finds gradesthat arc not justifiableetymologically,and even doubletswith differentgradesdevelopingfrom the sameetymon,as with Finnish ikiiinen'year old', idincr 'etcrnal',both with the samederivationalpattem applied to /<:i (genitive idn) 'age'. In most ofthe northernBalto-Finniclanguagesand dialects,d€viationsfrom the stdct synchronicphoneticconditioningofconsonantgradationare relativelyrare. Whenonelooksat thesouthemBalto-Finniclanguages, however,andin particular Estonian,the situationis veryditrerent:Estonianhasund€rgonesomany historical
3.2 Phonology
II5
processes of loss of final vowelsand consonantsand simplificationof geminate clusters,while still in general retaining strong and weak gradesin the same morphologicalcategories, that thereis now virtually no coffelationbelweenstlong gradeand opensyllable,weakgradeand closedsyllable.We may illustratethis by looking at two Estoniannouns,so-da'war' (weakgradesdTa)and Jblg 'foot' (stem jalga-,weakgradejala-). The nominativesingularsareasgivenabove,sdda,jalg.ln the genitivesingular,Balto-FiDnichasthe ending-r. In Estonian,however,wordfinal n is generallylost, so that in fact the barc stem appearsas the genitivein Estonian-Sincethe syllablowasoriginallyclosedby the 0nal n, one findsthe weak grade,eventhough synchronicallythe syllableis open,i.e. s6ja, jala. One result of this is that for certainnouns.suchas sdda 'war'. the differenccrn gradeis the only distinctionbetw€enthe nominativeand genitivesingulars,a clear illustration of morphologisationof a phonologicalalternation.For words which happentocontaina nonalternatingconsonant,nominativealrdgenitivesingularare identical, e.g. g/ra 'mother'. ln Estonian, the in€ssivehas th€ €nding -s, correspondingto Proto-Balto-Finnic *-ssa; in both Proto-Balto-Finnic and Estonianthesyllableisclosed,sothat herewedo haveweakgradecorelatingwith a closedsyllable:sdTb-s, -!,/a-s,cf. Finnishsoda-ssa(weakgradeof sota),jala-ssa.ln the allative,however,Estonianhasthe suffix -1e,which doesnot closethe syllable, correspondingto Finnish J,le,which doesclosethe syllable;thus Estonianagain endsupwith weakgradein an opcnsyllable,e.g-sdjale, jalale (cf. Finnishsoda-1.1e, jalalle). Firally, we may note the exampleof the comitativecasein -ga, where Estodan againhasweakgradein an open syllable:. sdja-ga,jala-ga; the comitative g€nitive plus postposition, d€rivesfrom the a i.e.from an intermediateform ofthe *-rtka, for type whichclosedtheprecedingsyllable,againaccountingdiachronically theweakgradeinEstonian,althoughagainsynchronicallyonecanonly specifythat thisparticularmorphologicalendingrequirestheweakgrade.WhereEstol}ianopen syllablescontinueProto-Balto-Finnicop€n syllables,the strong gradeis retairled, e.g.genitiveplural sdda-de,ja lga-de,althoughmorphologicalanalogyhasledto the introduction ofweak gradesin somesuchinstances,e.g.essives6ja-na,jala-na weakgrade,as in most other singularobliquecases;cf. Finfish sota-na,jalka-na (stronggrade). In Estonian,thesealternationshavebeencafiiedonestagefudher, in that in many instances wherethenorthernBalto-Finniclanguages havealternationbetweenopen and closedsyllableswithout any alternationin the st€m,Estonianhasintroduced somealternationinto the stem,eventhough thc originaldistinctionbetweenopen aod clos€dsyllablemay have beenlost. Thus th€ altelnation betweenstrong and weakgradesis extendedto giveanalternationbetweenlongconsonants or vowels(in (in an originalopen an originalcloscdsyllable) andoverlongvowelsor consonants
3. Uralic languages
r ro
syllable).For instance,the noun kool [koool] 'school' has its genitive koorr' (phonetically[kooli]), and its illative kool/ (phoneticaltylkoooli]). The noun ,/au,/ 'song' (Finnish ./au1u) genitive has .laulu(phonetically[lawlu]) (Finnish flawwl] laulu-n), and illative laulu (phoneticallyflawwlu]) (Finnish /au,lu-uz).The noun /rnr linnnl 'town', cf. Finnish 1.irna'castle', has genitivelinna (phonetically !innal) (cf. Finnish ,/rnna-n),but illative lrrra (phoneticalty[tinnna]) (cf. Firnish linna-an). From theseexamples,it will be seenthat an originally long vowel (including a diphthong, which also has two moras) or long consonantb€comes overlong(thrcemoras)in an originally open syllable. Sincethe conditioningfactorofop€n versusclosedsyllableis frequentlylosr,anq sincethereis alreadya two-wayphoneticdistinctionoflength,Estonianendsup with a three-wayphoneticdistinctionoflength, asin fto1t'rubbish',lroolj ,school-GEN,, koolr [koooli] 'school-ILL',or lina'flax', linna 'town-GEN', lrma [linnna] ,townILL'. Estonianorthography,incidentally,doesnot usuallydistinguishbetweenlong and overlongsegments,exceptin the caseof the plosives,wherethe orthography writes short b (voicelessin Estonian),long p, overlongpp. Long and overlong contrastin manyenvironments, but not all: for instance,inmonosyllablesthereis no contrast, and phoneticallythe vowel of ftool, the diphthong of 1au,l,the final consonantof /rin are all redundantlyoverlong.The long/overlongoppositionis, incidentally,foundinall EstoniandialectsexcepttheNorth-EasternLittoral dialect. In recentwork (e.g.Remmelr975),someevidencehasemergedthat, at leastfor certain speakersof Estonian, there is actually a four-way length opposition, although th€ distinction betweenoverlongand doubly overlongis very restricted morphologically,but minimal tripletsbetweenlong,overlong,anddoubly overlong (Qz, Q3, Q4) can be found, asin the following inflectionalforms of du .courtyard,: genitivesingulardue (Q:), partitive singular due (Q3), illative singular due (e4). The lengthdistinctionbetweenQ2,Q3,andQ4is,incidentally,alsoaccompanied by pitchdiff€rences, sothat a combinationoflength andpitch providestheusualcuefor distinguishingthe threenonshortquantities:morcover,nativespeakersofEstonian who make the Q3/Q4 distinction consistentlyapparently have dimculties in perceivingit in minimal pair listeningexperiments. Although EstonianandLapp arenot closelyrelatedgeneticallyor geographically, beingseparatedin both respectsby northern Balto-Finnic,Lapp hasdevelopeda very similaralternationinvolvingthreelengths(cf. Estonianshort,long, overlong), in response to similardiachronicprocesses, suchasthelossoffinal *-n inthegenitive. As an exampleof the use of alternationas the sole marker of a morphological distinction,w€ may cite the following examplefrom Kola Lapp (Kildin dialect): ludd'bullet', nominativeplural 1ud,wherethe nominativesingularhasthe strong grade (cf. Finnish ,/uoti)and the nominativeplural the weak grade (cf. Finnish
3.3 Morphological sttucture and categories
rr'l
./uod1t).In discussingEstonianabove,we notedthat the long/overlongdistinction appliesto sonants,althoughthe short/longdistinctionitselfdoesnot participatein alternationsofsonants(cf. ema 'mother', nominativeand genitivesingular).Lapp hasgoneone stagefurther than Estonianin extendingthe short long alt€rnationto 'name' (stronggrad€,cf. sonantstoo, so that we havenominativesingulart€Drt Finnish nmi), nominativeplural tst (weakgede, cf. Finnish nrme-r).Lapp thus showsan extremeform ofmorphologisationofthe alternation:the alternationisthe sole mark of certain morphologicaloppositions,and is extendedto numerous instanceswhere the alternation is not justified as the product of regular sound changes. As a final exampleof Uralic phonology,we may expandsomewhatour earlier glottal stopsin Nenets.The distinction mentionof the nasalisedand nonnasalised 'lake',genitivesingular amongthemcanbeseenfrom minimal tripletsolthe type lo to-7, nominative plural fo-2, although the second and third may not be distinguishablefrom one anotherphoneticallyin isolation.In theseexamples,the nasalisedglottal stop derivesfrom Proto-Uralic tr, the nonnasalisedglottal stop from Proto-Uralic *t (cf. the genitivesingularending-n and the nominativeplural ending -l in Finnish). This derivation of the glottal stops can be seen glottal stop often alt€rnateswith in the fact that the nasalised morphophonemically glottal stop 'l (alsowith j), as in we7'dog',allative wen-d7;while the nonnasalised oftenalternateswith d (and alsos), e.g.',a2'tent', accusativerhad-mv.Theearlier valuesof theseglottal stopsalso appearmorphophonemicallyin certainjuncture phenomena,sothat ifwe takethewordspronouncedin isolationas lr'-7'deer-GEN', suchasti-| goba (for 1l-2'deer-Pl',and xoba 'fur', plural xoba-2,we getsequences *tj-T xobal.the fur of the deer', tj koba? (for *ti-? xoba-\ 'the furs of the deer', giving a variety of sandhiphenomenonacrossword boundaliesthat is rare in thg Uralic languages,and probably completelyabsentfrom all branchesof the typologicallyrelatedAltaic languages.
3.3 Morphologicalstructureandcategories it is In looking at the morphologicaltypologyof the Uralic languages, usefultotakeasone'spoint ofdeparturethealmostcanonical agglutinative,sumxing structureofthe Altaic languages, especiallyTurkic languages, and thenseehow the g€neral Uralic languagesdepartfrom this type,while still beingirl close!to this type than to the fusional type representedby the older Indo-Europeanlanguages.The resultofthis inspectionis that therearecertainUralic languages whichareveryclose (especially to thecanonicalagglutinativetype,for instancethe Ob'-Ugric languages in their nonrinalmorphology verbmorphologyhasmore tracesof fusion)and
3. Uralic languages
I I8
Mari: but lor most Uralic languag€s, evenwherewe canposit an earlierstagecloser to canonical agglutination, synchronicallythey depart considerablyfrom this model.One way ofcarlying out this programmein a limited spaceis to take onc branchof Uralic, and showhow agglutinativestructurehasbeendestroyedin that branch,with occasionalasidesto otherbranches;from this viewpoiot,Balto-Finnic is a good branchto take, sinceit hasone of the Uralic languageswith the greatest divergencefrom agglutination,namely Estonian. We may start by looking at Karelian,concentratingon the noun moryhology. In many rcspectsKarelianis agglutinative,with a plural suffix -i (which replaces stem-finala), to whichthe sameendingsasin the singulararea dded,e.g.hambahasta 'tooth-ELAT', hambah-i-sta'tooth-PL-ELAT',hambara-tra'tooth-ABESS', hambah-i-tta'tooth-Pl-ABESS', hambaha-na'tooth-EsS', hambah-i-na'toothPL-ESS'.However,even in a relativelystraightforwardarea like Karelian noun morphology, there are somedeviations:the plural ending -i is used only in the obliquecases;in the nominativethe endingis -t, so that the nominativeplural of 'tooth' is hambaha-t.Moreover,therc aresomecaseswheresingula!and plural are formedradicallydifferently,e.g.partitivesir\g\lar hammas-ta,pfural hambah-i-e. In the closelyrelatedlanguageFinnish,th€ complicationsin forming certainplural cases,namelythe partitive and genitive,are widespread,and severalnouns have alternativeforms, evenin the standardlanguage,the resultsof various kinds of analogy,generaland specific:thus Daa 'land'has genitiveplurals marder and maitten (vrhichlatter violatesthe generalrule of consonantgradation,whereby geminateconsonantscannot appearin closedsyllables);ftevAit'spdng' (i.e. the season)has keviiiden, keviiitten, and keviitten. Whenonelooksoverto Estonian,the situationis €venlesssystematisable, ascan be imaginedfrom the discussionofsection3.2.Many formsaredistinguishedsolely by internal alternations,such as nominativesingular sdda 'war'versus genitive singularsd,|b,or evenmore clearlynominativesingularjalg 'leg', genitivesingular jala, partitivesingular_,Ja1ga, partitivepluralJa/gu(thecorresponding Finnishforms arejalka, jala-n, jalka-a, jalko-j-a). While thebasicBalto-Finnicplural endings-, and -i are still often recognisable, other plural forms seemquite idiosylcratic, 99. partitlve plval jalgu, wherethe u was originally a morphophonemicvariant of stem-finala (cf. Finnish 7alko1:-a),but with the loss of the original suffixeshas becomethe solemarker ofpartitive plural. Although, to a certainextent,abstract phonologicalanalysescan bring some appearanceof systematicityto Estonian inflection,a numberofcompletelyadhocstatements still remainto b€made,anditis not clear that traditional Estoniangmmmar is so far wrong in simply settingup differentdeclensionalclassesof noun, on the Latin, Ancient Gre€k, or Sanskrit model.Onecomplicationwhich Estonian,like the other Uralic languages, doesnot sharewith Indo-Europeanlanguages,however,is a genderor classdistinction.
j.j
Morphological structure and cateEories
I I9
While somedeviationsfrom strict agglutinationin Uralic languagesrepresent innovations,such as thosementionedabove,othersseemmore likely to be vefy archaic,suchastheformationofplural demonstratives in Balto-Finnicby replacing i[itial t or s by r, e.g.Estoniansee'this',ree-d'these'. In termsofnoun categories, most Uralic languages agreein havingnumber,case, suffxes have been lost, clearly as a recent and possession,although possessive phenomenon,in severalBalto-Finniclanguagesand ar€ restrictedin usein Lapp. Beyondthis, the Mordva languagesare uniquewithin Uralic in havingdevelopeda postponeddefinite article,asin Erzyaftudo'house',*udo-i'the house'.Thekindsof problemsmentionedabov€for Estonianapply alsoto many Moldva segmentation forms,so that the adicleis not alwayssoreadilysegmentable asin this example,e.g. 'hors€', g€nitive Moksha a,laia ala{a-rt, definiteCer,itiyeala!a-[.With respectto number,most Uralic languageshave a singular/pluraloppositioil, but Lapp, the Ob'-Ugric and Samoyediclanguagesalso havea separatedual. The range of casesfound in individual Uralic languagesva es considerably, mainly becauseindividual Uralic languageshave innovated new cases,from postpositionsfor the most part. Thus th€ Centml Ob' dialectof Khanty hasonly three cases in noun declension (nominative-accusativ€,dative-allative, locative-instrumental),while Komi-Permyak has as many as seventeen.Th€ comitativein -,kaor -ke found in the majority ofBalto-Finnic languag€s is a recent innovation from reductionof a postpositionsimilar to Finnish kanssaot kera, meaning'with'. In Hungarian,almostall the localcasesuffixesarc innovations,so that forms like hdz-ban [haazban] 'house-INESS',hez-b6l Lhaazbool'l'houseELAT' wereoriginally possessive constructionsofthe type'at the house'sinside', 'from th€ house'sinside',whereonly the final partsofthe sumxes(-r, -1)continue Proto-Uralic casesumxes. Th€ rangeofcasesthat is found in mostlanguages includesnominative,accusative ( *-n, not howeverusedfor all direct objects,seepp. 128-9),genitive( *-r, though accusativeand genitivehavebeenlargelylost from the Ob'-Ugric languages), and threespatialcasesfor locationat, motion towards,and motion from. The complex systemsfound in individuallanguagesare all basedor thissystem.Whilemostofthe newer casesare formed from postpositions,themselvesoften deriving from possessive constructions,the systemin Balto-Finnicis rather more idiosyncratic. Basically,there are sumxes *-ra for location, *-ne for direction, and *-ta for movementaway (locative,allative,ablative).Dependingon whetherthe relevant spaceis insideor not (on top of, beside,etc.),a differentconsonantis placedbefore givingcomplexcaseendihgs*-sna(inessive),*-1na(adessive),*-sne thecaseending, *-1re (illative), (allative), *-sfa (elative), *-1ta (ablative); the consonantsther contractwith theoriginalcaseendingsto give-ssa,Jla, -sse,Jle, -sta, -lta.With the exceptionof -sse(which is found in Estonian),theseare the modernFinnishforms.
3. Uralic languages
r2o
Furtherchangeshaveagainobscuredthe systemin somelanguages, forinstancethe mergerof the adessiveand allativeto -/,lain Karelian. One of the main morphological discrepanciesamong the Uralic languages concernstheord€rofpossessive andcasesuffxeswhenboth arepresenton thesame stem,with the languagesdividing into those(Ugric) wherethe casesumxesalways follow the possessive sumxes,those (Balto-Finnic, Lapp, Samoyedic)where the possessive sumxesusuallyfollow the casesumxes,and thosewhereboth ordersare found, dependingon individualcombinationsofcaseand number,sometimeswith altemativespossible(Volgaic and Permic languages).Thus Finnish talo-ssa-nt 'house-INESSI SG', i.e.'in my house',contmstswith Mansi ko1-arr-r'house-rSGLOC'(samemeaning);within Komi-Zyryan,contrast,terfta-jr'-rrm'house-ELATIPL', i.e. 'out of our house',with ketka-nim-len 'house-rPL-GEN', i.e. 'of our house'.In someBalto-Finniclanguages, recentlydevelopedcase endings,suchasthe comitative, follow the possessive ending, retaining their original order in the sequenc€ noun-possessive followedby postposition,which sugg€sts that this order mayoverallbean innovationinUmlic, with theordercase-possessive astheoriginal order, r€flectingthe later developmentofpossessivesuffxesrelativeto at leastthe original case sumxes;this would pamllel the developmentin Mongolian and Tungusiclanguages,rather than in Turkic languages(p. 75). Many of the verb categoriesthat are found in individual Uralic languagesor branchesare innovationsofthe languageor branchin question.For instance,some Uralic languageshave a number of diferent tenses,but the only semantictense distinctionthat can be tracedback to Proto-Uralicis pastversusnonpast,and it is usuallythisdistinctionwhichis positedasthetensedistinctionfor Proto-Uralic.The presenttensehasno marker,or, in certainlanguages, e.g.Balto-Finnic,a final t-k. Therearcat leasttwo pasttens€markersthat arewidespread,-i and -s,both ofwhich arefound,for instance,in Estonian,althoughth€ydo notcontrast,eachverbtaking only one or th€ other: thus saa-ma'receive-INFIN' has sar'-r 'I received',while &rrjula-ma'write-INFIN' has krtrta-sr'-r 'I wrote'. The possibilitythat theremay havebeentwo diferent pasttensesin Proto-Uraliccannot be excluded,especially whenit is notedthatVakh Khantyactuallyhasfour dilferentpasttenses,differingin degrees ofremoteness andaspect,ofwhich onehasnosuftx(thepresenttensehas-/) -.r. and onehasthe suffx ln thediscussionofsyntaxbelow,weshallexaminesomeof the otherverbcategories. in parricularvoice. 3.4 Syntax The internal structureof noun phrasesin Uralic languagesis very similarto that ofTurkic languages, with theexceptionthatpreposedrelativeclauses arc not the rule in a largenumberof Uralic languages,aswill be shown in greater detailbelow.The generalrulethat th€adjunctprecedesits headdoes,however,hold,
3.4 Syntax
r2l
'strong-GENman-GEN deed',i.e. asin theEstonianlrovn phrasetugevamehelegu 'a strongman'sdeed',wherethe adjectivefugevaprecedes its head mele, and the precedes legu. No Uralic language phrase its h€ad genitive tugeva mehe noun whole inversion hastheinversewordorderasitsgeneralrule,andin thoselanguageswhere is reasonablycommon,this may well be attdbutableto Russianinfluence constructionsin Uralic languagesshow a rangesomewhatsimilar to Possessive that found in Turkic languages,though it is usuallythe casethat a given Uralic languagewill haveonly one ofthe possibleconstructions,and the most widespread sumxon the Turkicconstructionwith thegenitivesumxon theadjunctandpossessive headis rare in Uralic: it occursasa lesspreferredaltemativein Hungarian,with the dativesubstitutingfor thegenitive(lostin Hungarian),asin a szdba-nakazajta-ja la 'the door of the room', sobaanakaz ajtajal the room-DAT the door-3sc', i.e. although th€ more common constructionts a szobaajn-ja. The most common Uralic constructionis like English,justhavingthe genitivemarking on the adJunct, (whichhaveno genitive asin theEstonianexampl€givenabove.The Ugriclanguages havinganunmarkedadjunctandtheheadwith a case)usually expresspossessionby 'the roofofthe house'. possessive sumx,e.g.Mansi kol ala-te'houseroof-3SG',i.e. Although agre€mentof attdbutive adjectiveswith their head seemsto be an in Uralic,and that haveit,itis fairly widespread innovationin thoseUralic languages would be a clear in somelalguagesit is quite clearlythe norm: thus in Finnish, it norms for agreem€ntnot to b€ made.Agreementis violatio[ of (nonprescriptive) most widespreadin Balto-Finnic,Lapp, and Samoyedic,though the amount of agreementvariesfrom languageto language.In Estonian,for instance,thereis a generalisedoblique (originally, genitive)form that is used insteadof complete in nominativesingular sothat onehascompleteagreement agre€mentin manycases, ametlik teade'officiajnewsitem', genitivesing\lat ametlikuteafe,paltitive singular ametlikku teadet,ablativeametlikult tealelr,nominativeplural ametlikud teated, e ametlikuteateta,and but only partial agreementinessiveattetlrku teatena,abessiv comitative ametliku teateEa.With the comitative,this could be accountedfor in termsofthe relativelyr€centdevelopm€ntofthis cas€from a postposition,but the essiveis a caseinheritedfrom the Proto-Umlic locative. Most Uralic languageshavepostpositions,and in most branchesof Uralic there 'towards',in port deke'towardsthe house'areno prepositions,suchasMari deke In Balto-Finniclanguages,however,thereare severalprepositions,in addition to postpositions,and evensomeitemsthat canbeusedaseith€r'ThusEstonianhasthe 'under' (with the genitivecase),asin /auaa,l1'under the table',the postpositiona.1.1 'alongthe forest" prepositionprki 'along' (with thepartitivecase),asin prkt melsa and mtitida'along' (with the partitive), which can be either a prepositionor a postposition,e.g. m(jcidamaanteedor maanteedmd.ida'along the highway'. withintheclause, thereis rather Whenwc turn to thcorderof majorconstituents
3. Urulic languages
lesshomogeneityacrossUralic languages;in particular division must be made betweenthoselanguagesthat havesubject-object-verbas their basicword order (Samoyedic languages,Ob'-Ugric languages,Mari), and those that have subject-verb-object(Permic languages,Mordva languages,Lapp, Balto-Finnic languages). Although this classificatiolgivesthe basicword order for th€ various Uralic languages,word order in Uralic languagesis in generalfairly free,so that deviationsfrom this word order are not urcommon in order to expressspecific pragmatic(topic--comment) functions.Moreover,Hungarianhasnot be€nincluded in theaboveclassification sinceit is difficultto reacha definitivedecisionon whether Hungarian is basically subject-obj€ct-verbor subject-verb-object,the choice betweenthes€two beingdeterminedmuch more than in other Uralic languagesby structure;indeed,goodHungarianstylelaysdown considelationsoftopic--comment that, wher€a clausecontainsa numberofnonsubjectnoun phrasearguments,these should be positionedroughly equallybeforeand after the verb. ln themoredetaileddiscussionofword orderand relatedtypologicalparamelers below,we shallconcentrateon a comparisonbetweenVakh Khanty, a fairly strict language,and Estonian, with its basic subject-verb-object subject--object-verb pointsmad€will apply to other Uralic languageswith the ofthe word order.Most will be noted. The samebasicword order, although somespecificdiscrepancies division of Uralic languagesinto two groups according to basic word order thewesterlylanguages beingthosethat colrespondsroughlyto an east/westdivision, have beenmost subjectto infiuencefrom Germanicand Slavoniclanguageswith their basicsubject-verb-objectorder.The possibilitythatcontactwasinfluentialin the distribution of word order patternsis further strengthenedby the anomalous but with verbpositionof Mari, mor€west€rlysituatedthan the Permiclanguages, final word order and a strongTurkic influelrce. Exampl€(I8) below illustratesthe basicword order ofVakh Khanty, with the th€ direct objectprecedingthe the verb sentence-finally, subjectsentence-initially, verb, and other constituentsarrangedbetweenthe subjectand the object:
(r 8)
3.4 Syntax
r22
ii teyi Sjnam mii maintim sem- ydl -i;m -nd I myself eye DU rSC INSTR this all -im wu -yal seePAST-INDEF-REMISC-DEF-OBJ 'I sawthis all with my own eyes'
Variationson this word order are most likely to concernthe order ofnoun phrase arguments,althoughthefinal positionofthe verbis by no meansabsolutelyrigid. As we shallseebelow,thepositionimmediatelybeforethe verbis reservcdfor the focus (essentialnew information)constituent,which hasa strongtendencyto bethedirect objectwherethereis no other markedtopic-{omment structure.
r2t
In Estonian, on the other hand, a clause usually begins with the subject immediatelyfollowedby the verb- the subjectmay b€ omitted ifit is an unstressed pronounand theverbshowsagreementwiththisomittedpronoun,in whichcasethe verb will be initial. This is illustratedin example(r9): (I9)
ema saati-s mu-lle paki moth€r send PAST-3SGI ALL parcel-GEN 'mother sentme a parcel'
It should be noted that, in gen€ral,this sameword order holds in both main and subordinateclauses,ascanbe seenif we embed(I9) underthe wrb luge-si-n'readPAST-rSG': (20)
lugesin, et ema saatismulle paki 'I read that mother sentme a parcel'
While this appliesto finite subordinateclauses,it is lesstrue ofnonfinitc substitutes (s€epp. r34 6 for a fullerdiscussion for subordinateclauses ofthese).In €xample(2 r) befow,the nonfiniteconstructionlugedesraamatut'while readingthe book' could equallywell be phrasedasraamatutlugedes,whereasthis kind ofobject preposing would clearly be more markedfor a finite clauser (2r)
-s luge-dc namatu-t, ,:rtu-s ta r€adINFIN-2 INESS book PARTIT sit PAST-rSG he -s aia gardenINESS 'while readingthe book he sat in the garden'
With participial constructionssubstituting for relative clauses,the palticiple regularlyoccursfinal to this construction,so that thereis a cleardiferencein word order betweenfinite relativeclauseand nonfiniteparticipialconstruction,asin (22) and (23) respectively: (22)
vanake silmitse-s kaua inimest, old-man observ€PAST-3SGfor-along-time personPARTIT kes sammu-s ile 6ue elumaja who go PAST-3SGacrosscourtyard-GENresidential paole building-lLL
(23)
vanakesilmitseskaua iile due elumajapoole sammu-vat go PRES-PART tntmes-I personPARTIT 'for a longtime the old man observedthe personwho wasgoingacross thecourtyardto the residential building'
3. Unlic languages
t24
the influenceofforeign word order patternson In certainmorespecifrcinstances, ismoreclear.For instance,in Estonianthepastpa iciplcin certainUralic languaF€s thecompoundperfecfi-spoaitionedat the endofits clause,awayfrom thc auxiliary verb'to be',precisclymirroring theCermanword orderin thisconstruction,whereas the other Balto-Finnic languagesusually have auxiliary verb and past participle position: adjac€ntin sentence-second (24
kooli oma vihiku dpilane ol-i pupil be PAST-3SGown notebook-GENschool-ILl unusta-nud forget PAST-PART 'the pupil had forgottenhis notebookat school'
Eventhefinal CompareGerman:der Schilerhatte seinHeft in det Schulevergessen. in other like (23),and correspondingsentences position ofparticiplesin sentences Balto-Finnic languages,correspondsto the verb-final participial construations found in German and, under German influence,Swedish,so that they cannot without further investigationbe adducedas relict evidencein favour of an earlier period whereverb-finalword order was the norm. As was noted at the beginningof the discussionof word order of major clause theimmediatelypreverbalpositionis constituents,in theverb-frnalUralic languages particularly clearillustrationofthis is to look at reservedfor the focuselement.On€ special question and answer sequences,where the special question word (interrogativepronoun)and likewisethe noun phrasesubstitutingfor it in the reply occur preverbally,e.g.Vakh Khanty: (25)
-in wer J lanpiifi mdY6li-kd what TRANSFORM make PRES 2SG-DEF-OBJ file 'what do you make the file out of?'
This preverbal focus pattern also characterisesHungarian, where it has been investigatedin detail by Kiefer (1967).ln the subject-verb-objectlanguages,the usual order is that found in the majority of European languages,with the interrogativepronoun sentence-initial;moreover, although this sentence-initial the specialquestionword, it is not usedfor the noun phrase positioncharacterises substitutingfor it in the reply, which either takes the position in the sentence determinedby its grammaticalrclation(e.g.subjectbeforethe verb,objectafter the verb), or gravitatestowards sentence-finalposition, for new information, e.g. Estonian: -n -d? tul -i kooli -st (26\ kust sa tul -i whenceyou come PAST zSG come PAST ISG school ELAT 'wheredid you comefrom? I camefrom the school'
3.4 Syntax
r25
Table 33. Subject-agreementin Estonian PRESENT tul€-n tule-d tule-b tule-me tule-te tule-vacl
PAST 'I
come'
'he
comes'
'you come' 'they come'
tuli-n tuli-d tuli tull-me tulFle tulid
'I came' 'you came' 'he came' 'you came' 'they came'
In all Uralic languages,there is subject-verbagreement,and in all languages nearlyall predicatesagreewith their subjectin this way,with a distinctionfor three pe6onsand two numbers(threenumbersin languages with a separatedual).ln thg third person,there is often a zero agreementmarker, especiallyin the singular, thoughin somelanguages this alsoappliesto the plural, in which casethird person singularandpluralareidentical;wh€rethird person,especially third personsingular, endingsdo exist, they are usually of nominal, including participial, origin (e.g. Estonianthird personplural -vad in the prescnttense,originally the plural of the presentparticiple).Table3.3illustratesthiswith somepresentandpasttenseformsin Estonian;it will benotedthat thesubject-agreement sumxesarevery similar,though not invariably identical, acrossdifferent tenses.In a few instancesin certajn languages,there is no subject-verbagreement.In Estonian, for instance,the in ferentialdoesnot changefor personand numberof the subject,i,e, ma tulevat'l am saidto come',sa tuleyat 'you aresaidto come',ta tulevat'heis saidto come';in origin, this verb form is the partitive of the presentparticiple.Similarly,Estonian lackssubject-verbagreement in thenegati,,/e,a,g, maei tule'ld,onotcome',saei tu,le 'you do not come', ta ei tule'he doesnot come'. In someUralic languages wealsofind object-verbagreement, orat leastencoding ofcertain featuresofthe direct objectin the verb.ln all Uralic languagesthat have object-agreement, thisagreement is triggeredonly by definitedirectobjects,although the precisecharacterisationof the setof triggeringdirect objectsvariessomewhat from languageto language(for Hungarian,seeComrie(r978)). In the Samoyedic and Ob'-Ugric languages,for instance,it seemsalsoto dependon topic--comment structure,while in the Mordva languagesverbsagreewith their direct objectsonly when the sentencehasperfectiveaspectualvalue. The simplestsystemof'object-agreement'is found in Hungarian,wherethe socalleddefiniteobjectconjugationmerelyencodeswhetheror not thereis a definite directobjectofthe thirdperson,without encodinganyfurtherfeatures(e.g.number) of that direct object. Intransitive verbs, of course, have only the indefrnite 'go-rSC',i.e.'l go'),whiletransitive (e.g.rnegy-ck conjugation verbshave fmeriek]
r26
3. Uralic languages Table 3.4. Indefrnite object and defrnite object conjugations in Hungarian
olvas-ok
[olvaSok]
olvas-ol olvas
[olvalol] [olva{]
'I
read'
'you read' 'he reads'
olvas-om olvas-od olvas-sa
[olvasom] [olvasod] [olva!!a]
'I tead it' 'you readil' 'he readsit'
'eat' Table 3.5. Defrnite and indefinite conjugations of Mansi tee-
3sc
rz7
Table 3-6. Enya-Mordva verb forms (past tenseof kund- 'catch') showing subject and object agfeement
DEFINITE
INDEFINITE
rSC 2SG
3.4 Syntax
INDEF OBJ
SG DEF OBJ
DU DEF OBJ
PL DEF OBJ
tee-lem t€e-Y-n(en) tee-Y
tee-Y-l-aft tee-yJ-en tee-Y-l-€
tee-y-ay'm tee-y-ay-n(3n) tee-Y-aY-e
tee-Y-an-am tee-l_anltee-Y-aan-en tee-l-an-e
of thc direct object;thc indicationof the both forms,dependingon the definiteness definitenessof the direct object is fused in the verb with the subject-agreement marker. ascan be seenin Table 3.4. A somewhatmore prolific systemis found in the Samoyedicand Ob'-Ugric wheretheverbencodesin additionthe numberofthc directobject-Table languages, possibleto 3.5givessomeappropriateMansi forms,andit will benotedthat hereit is (singulardirectobject and numberofthe the definiteness indicating identifya sumx y-t, diual-ay, phtral -at). In the Moldva languages,illushatedh€reby the EEya forms in Table 3.6,the suffixencodestbe personand numbcr of both subjectand
SU: ISG 2SG 3SG
No obj€ct
rSG
kund-i-ri kund-i-[ kund-i-S
kund-i-mik kund-i-mim
3SG kund-iiii kund-!iiiI
kund-i-ja kund-i-k kund-i-iie
notedbelow.The precisesemanticdifferentiationofpartial from total is oneofthe mostcomplexareasin thedescriptionofany Balto-Finniclanguage,sohereweshall restrictourselvesto certainsalientdistinctionsthat providespecificinstances ofthe generaldifference,taking examplesfrom Estonian.In intransitivesubjectposition, the distinction is particularly common with the verb'to be'and closesynonyms wherethcintransitivesubjectis a plural countnounor a massnoun,in whichcasethe totavpartial distinctioncorrespondsto that between'theX'(i.e. all ofthe X) and 'someX' (i.e, someof the X): (2j)
-s leib on kapi breadbe-3SGcupboard INESS 'the breadis in the cupboard'
(28)
-s kapi on leiba cupboard INESS be-3SGbread-PARTIT 'there is somebread in the cupboard'
directobject;etymologically,at least,many ofthesecombinationsaresegmentable sumx. sumx and an object-agreement into a subject-agreement of simple claus€sin Uralic in the syntax One of the most fascinatingareas languagesconc€rnsthe case-markingofsubjectsand direct objects,sincein many a varietyofformal casescanbeusedin the sam€function(i.e.to encodea languages givengrammaticalrelation),dependingon varioussemantic'syntactic,and other
In direct objectposition,the partial/total oppositioncan alsocorrsspondto that betweendefiniteand indefinitewith olural count or massnouns:
factors. andweshallsta The mostcomplexsystemsarefoundin Balto-Finniclanguages, here with one distinction, that betweentotal and partial noul phrases,that is restrictedto thes€languagesand Lapp, though very chamcteristicof them- For intransitivcsubjectsand transitivedirect objects,a semanticdistinction is drawn betweenan entity that is totally affectedby the situationdescribedand on€ that is only partially affectedby the situationdescribed:thenoun phrasesreferringto such pa ially affectedentitiesstandin the partitivecase,while total subjectsstandin rhe nominativeand total direct objectsare assignedcaseaccordingto principlesto be
However,the notion of partial affectedness of an entity can also have aspectual value,as in the following pair of examples:
(2q
dpilane vdtti-s Ieiva /leiba pupil take PAST-3SGbread-cEN bread-PARTIT 'tbe pupil took the/somebread'
(30J
6pilane luge-s raamatu pupil readPAST-3SGbook-cEN 'the pupil read the book'
(3r)
dpilane luge-s taamatu-t book PARTIT 'the pupil wasreadingthe book'
In (3o),with a total directobject,the senseisthat th€etrectofthe actionon theentity is complete,i.e.perfectiveaspect;in (3I), with a partial directobject,the s€nseis that the efect on the entity is not (yet) complete,i.e. imperfectiveasp€ct Although in in English thedillerencebetwe€ntotal andpartialcanbeexpressed specificinstances progressive, it is versus nonprogressive or indefinite and by that betweendefinite with be identified cannot distinction important to b€arinmind that theBalto-Finnic eith€rolthese.In particular,in a pair like (32){33) wh€rethedirect objectis plural, while (32)with a total direcl objectcanbe renderedunequivocallyas'the pupil read thebooks',(33)with a partial objectrangesacrossall threeofEnglish'the pupil was 'the pupil readsomebooks','thepupil wasreadingsomebooks', readingthebooks', or aspect: i.e. there is no unequivocalencodingof definiteness (32,l
6piIane I uge-s raamatu-d PL book
(33)
dpilane luge-s raamafid book PARTIT'PL
\:.q,
Turning now to Uralic languagesother than Balto-Finnic, and to the casewefind that in markingoftotal subjectsanddirectobjectsin Balto-Finniclanguages, betweena phrases strict distinction have a of noun generalonly certain classes objects, for direct used only nominativeusedonly for subjectsand an accusative phrases the so-called whereasin nearly all languagesfor many classesof noun nominativeisusedto encodeboth ofthesegrammaticalrelations.The leastextensive useofthc accusativeis found in someofthe Ob'-Ugric languagesand dialects'In distinction, Northern Mansi, for instance,nouns show no nominativc/accusative pronouns personal is although personalpronouns do-the casedistinction with commonto al Uralic languages: (34)
(35)
3.4 Syntax
I28
3. L|rulic lanluages
ruuiiwan tihiaq saY -i Rodion lasso weavePRES-3SG 'Rodion is weavinga lasso' 'am waaintaal-as J am na|-en I you ACC see-FREQPASTSG-DEF-OBJ ISG 'l often usedto see You'
fornounE,but this caseiII *-zt canbereconstructed For Proto-Uralic,an accusative seemsto have beenr€strictedto singularnouns' perhapsevento singulardefinite nouns (Wickman 1954),and restrictionsol this kind still apply in most ljralic languages.In Balto-Finnic, for instance,the s€parateaccusativecase(which is
t29
homophonouswith th€ genitive,through the mergerof *-m and *-n in word-final position)is usedin the singular,but not in the plural, as in Estonian: (36)
dpilanes vdtti-s raamatu pupil take-PAST-3SGbook-CEN 'the pupil took the book'
(37)
6pilanes vdtti-s faamatu-d pL pupil take PAST-3SGbook 'the pupil took the books'
Only in Mari do we find widespreaduse of the accusativein -m in the plural, essentiallyas a generalmarker of accusative, e.g. pasu 'field', accusativepasu-m, plwal pasu-plak,accusative pasu-m-l|la&.(As notedon p.75, Mari hasinnovated a plural marker,and thisnewpluralmarker,unusuallyfor a Uralic language,follows the casesumxes.) This stilldoesnot exhaust thecomplexityofcase-marking (or in in Balto-Finnic theSamoyediclanguages, whichseemto shareatleastsomeofthe followingunusual leatureswith Balto-Finnic),becausecertainnoun phraseseithertake the separate (genitiveJike)accusativeornot, dependingon thesyntacticconfiguration. Basically, the nominativedirect object occursin certain constructionsthat a.e subjectless, while the accusativeis usedwherethereis an expressed subject.More exactly,the nominative direct object occurs in imperative constructions, in impersonal constructionswith an infinitivedependenton an impersonalmain verb,and alsoin the impersonalpassive.Personalpronounsare not alfectedby this complexcasemarking: theyinvariablystandin the accusativewhenfunctioningasdirectobject, evenin oneofthe constructionsjustspecified.Estonianexamplesof thenominative directobjectofan imperativeandofan impersonalinfinitivalconstructionaregiven below((38)-(39),respectively): (18)
too raamat siia bring-IMPER-:SGbook hither 'bring the book here'
(39)
on tarvis uus raamat ost -a be-3SGnecessary new book buy INFIN 'it is necessary to buy a new book'
This case-markingsystemwith the impersonalpassiverequiresa little more discussion, andcanin turnleadon to a moregeneral discussion ofsomeproperties of voicein Uraliclanguages. The Balto-Finnic languages havean impersonal passive,
l. Unlic languages
r30
indicatingthatsomeulrspecified entity or entitiesdidsomething;it is not possibleto specifythe agent,and the impersonalform is, ofcourse, invariablefor personand numbe!.This form canbe usedfrqm intrasitiveverbs,so that from Estonianelama 'to live' weget the presentimpersonalpassive€,lata,kse, literally'it is lived',i.e.'one lives'.If we sta.t with a transitiveverb,e.g.parema 'to put', thenagainwecanform atrimpersonalpassive,in whichthedirectobjectremainsasdirectobjectbut appears in the nominativecase.(The fact that the direct objectremainsassuchcan be seen moreclearlywith personalpronouns,whichstandin the accusativehere.)Estonian example(4o) illustratesthis: (40,
maja -le pan-nakse uus katus houseALL put PASS-PRESnew roc,f 'a new roof will be put on the house'
Nominativedirect objectswith subjectless conslructionsare interestingnot only in theirown right within Balto-Finnicand,perhaps,someotherbranchesof Uralic,but also in that they form an areal featurein the Baltic, having spreadto the Baltic languagesLatvian and (nonstandard)Lithuanian, and apparentlyalso to North Russiandialects(Timberlake r9?4): seep. r52 for a discussionof the Latvian parallels.In theBalticlanguages thereis,incidentally,onedifference: thenominative direct object is not usedwith the imperative. In theaberrantVakhdialectof Khantywefind,uniquewithinUralic,anergativelikeconstruction is concerned, as far ascase-marking alongside the regularUralic constructionwith the transitivesubjectin the nominativeand the direct objectin (for pronouns)or the noninative.Example(4r) below either the accusative illustratesthis Vakh construction:
14r)
iu sart -ne mdn-t kaf il komlayte-yal this pike LOC I ACC almost down capsize PASTJNDEFREM 'thispike almostcapsized me'
The salientfeaturesof the constructionare (i) that the transitivesubjecttakesthe locativesuffix -rr, (ii) that thedirect object,ifa pronoun,takesthe accusativecase form (othernounslackthenominativeAccusative distinction),and (iii) that theverb is a transitiveactiveform, whereappropriateof the denniteobject conjugation, showingsubjectagreement with thelocativesubjectnounphrase.This construction contrastsnot only with the regulartransitiveconstruction,but alsowith a passive construction.in whichtheagentalsoapp€arsin th€ locative,but wherethepatieotis in the nominative(evenif a personalpronoun) and subjectagreementis with this patient noun phrase:
3.4 Syntax \42)
r]r
miin-n5 peckdn-nii -yiis jiji _i I LOC gun INSTR shoot PAST-INDEF-REC pASS_3SG 'he was shot by me with a gun'
The diference betweenthe regularand the ergativeconstructionshas beenthe subjectof a fairly extensivelitorature,the consensus being that the distinctionis connected with topic--commentstructure, perhaps witb the definitenessor thematicityofthedir€ct objectin theergativeconstruction,perhapsin orderto focus the subject in the ergative conskuction. However, the precisenature of this distinction, and its interactionwith that betweendefinite object and indefinite conjugationoftransitiveverbs,remainsto beelaborated,In particular,muchofthe investigationofthis problemhasbeencaried out with referenceto text collections but without access to nativespeakers to checkoutpossiblcalternativeconstructions, whereasfor a semanticdistinctionofthis subtletya combinationofthe two methods seemsrequired. Although this particular constructionis restrictedto Vakh Khanty, there is a phenomenonin Mansi that may conc€ivablybe relatedto this, namclythe frequenr useofthe passive.In Mansi, this passivecan be formedfrom both intransitiveand transitiveverbs,When formed from an intrasitivevcrb, it is impersonal(with the invariablepassivesuffix -we, and no subjectagreement):
\43)
woowta jaarJk por+t ti koortki-l taxsa-we thin ice time LOC hereskate INSTR run pASS 'at the time ofthin ice peopleskatehere.
Where,however,the verbis transitive,theexpressioD rcferringto the patientstands in the nominative(distinctfrom theaccusative for personalpronouns),and theverb agreeswith this expression, asin taw waa-we'lteiskrrrown,,na7 waa-we_n,yolarc known', am waa-we-m'I am known'. The agent-expression can be included,in which casethe topic-{omment function of,the constluctionis to put the agenrIn focusposition(Rombandeeva r9?3irr3): (44
iaajaani annee-n sakwata-we -s teacup Anna ALL broak PASSPAST 'the teacup was broken by Anna'
Itremains,however,a taskfor futureresearchto establishwhetherthereisacommon genetic origin to the Vakh Khanty ergative and Mansi agentive passtve conslructtons. One of the featuresof Uralic, and especiallyFinnish, syntax that has long interestedgenerallinguistsis theexpressionofnegation.ln many Uralic languages,
t32
3. Unlic languages
asexplainedin somewhatmoredetailbelow,insteadofhavinganinvariablenegative 'l particlein conjunctionwith a finite verb,asin RussianTbnerdu do not go', fyte 'l 'you do not go' versusy-aidu go', ty rdej'you go', wefind that thelexicalverb ide{' remainsin an invariableform while the negativeelement,an auxiliaryverb,shows 'I many verbcategories.In Finnish,for instance,correspondingto amrmative,lue, 'you read',/u-kee'he reads',wehavein thenegativeer,lue'l do not read', read',luel 'hedoesnot read',with the variablenegativeauxiliary 'you do not read',eilue et.lre e- and the invariableform /ue ofthe lexicalverb. oneinterestingaspectof With respectto theinternaltypologyof Uraliclanguages, negationis the way in which verb categories(especiallypersonand number,tense, mood) are distributedbetweenthe negativeauxiliaryand the lexicalverb,sincethe in the usualpatternin Uraliclanguagesis for someofthesecategoesto beexpressed in both with duplication verb, occasionally negativeauxiliary,othersin the lexical (asin Estonian)with lossof the overt auxiliaryand lexicalverb,veryoccasionally in neitherthe auxiliarynor the lexicalverb. expressionofsome category,expressed Only very few Uralic languageshave invariable negativeparticlesof the [ndoEuropeantype the Ugric languages,including Hungarian,are of this type, e g 'you eat', teeylem'l eat it' teesem'l ate', Mansi positive teeyom'l eat', aegypr , negatlveat teeyem,at teeyen,at teeylem,al teesam.Estonianalsohasan invariable negativepafticle ei, but this is clearlya secondarydevelopment,with generalisation of what was originally the third person(singular)presenttenseof the negative auxiliary,cf. Finnish er'with preciselythis function. in the in the auxiliaryandnot expressed Thecategoriesmostfrequentlyexpressed lexicalverbare personand number,so that in Ingrian (Soykadialect),for instance' 'you weave',kuoltoo 'he weaves', 'I correspondingto positivekuot weave',kuod thereis negative:en kuo, ed kuo, ei kuo. In somelanguages,the distribution of personand number acrossauxiliary and main verb is more complex,with some in theiexical here(e.g.third personplural in Karelian)beingexpressed subcategories verbratherthan in theauxiliary.Iu Komi, the negativeauxiliarytypicallyexpresses person(though it may also, optionally and redundantly,specifynumber),while pairs: in the lexicalverb,as in the following positive/negative numberis expressed gi'a gi'an gi2am gi1annid
'l write' 'you write' 'we write' 'you write'
og giZ on gi, og giZej on giiej
'l do not write' 'you do not write' 'we do not write' 'you do not write'
in neithertheauxiliarynor the lexical In Estonian.personandnumberareexpressed 'l to positive/oea read',./oed'youread"etc' thereis verb,so that corresponding
3.1 Syntax
r33
onlythe onenegativeform eiloe;personand numberofthe subjectmust be identified by the subject pronoun. The most extreme example of arbitrary distribution of personand number betweenauxiliary and lexicalverb is found in Liv. ascan be seen from the following pairs (where the apostrophe indicates broken tone on the preceding vowel): 'l read' 'you read' 'he reads'
lugub lugud lugub lu'ggetu lu'gget lu'ggabad
'we read' 'you read' 'they read'
iib lug iid lug iib lug iib lu'ggem tit lu'gget lib lu'gget
'l do not read' 'you do not read' 'he does not read' 'we do not read' 'you do not read' 'they do not read'
Tenseis also frequentlyexpressedin the negativeauxiliary in Uralic languagcs, though lessfrequentlythan personand number.In most Balto-Finnic languages, for instance,tenseis not expressedin the auxiliary, although there are exceptions(e.g. Liv, North-Easternand SoutherndialectsofEstonian).In thoselanguageswherethe tensedistinctionis not shownin the auxiliary,the lexicalverbtakeson the form ofthe past participle in the past tense,so that in Ingrian, for i[stance, correspondingto positive kuoJr 'l wove', kuol 'you wove' we have negative er kuftoond .l did not \veave',ed kuttoond 'you did not weave'.In Komi, on the other hand, tenseis shown in the auxiliary,and the lexicalverb standsin thesameform asin the presentnegative (seeabove), as in the following positive/negativepairs: giZi giZn giZitu giZinnid
'l wrote' 'you wrote' 'we wrote' 'you wrote'
eg gi' en giZ eg giiaj en giiaj
.l
did not write' .you did not write' .we did not write, .you did not write,
The Ingrian pattern here, drawing into servicea participial form, seemsclearly an innovation. The same is true with the treatment of mood in languageswith the Ingrian pattern: mood is shown in the lexicalverb for the conditional,by using rne stemofthe conditional(identicalto the third personsingular),ascanbeseenfrom the comparison of positive kuttojzin 'I wottld weave', ,(uttolsf ,you would weave.,with negative en kuttojz, ed kuttojz.lnMai, on the other hand, which tends overall to expressverb categoriesin the auxiliary, mood is expressedon the negative auxiliary, as can be seenfrom the following desiderative forms (sumx -re): uz_re-m .I want to see', ut-re-t 'you want to see', j-ne-m ur.I do not want to see', t_re_l uZ.you co not want to see'.The most extremeconcentrationof verb categoriesin the auxiliary is found in Nenets,wherethe variousnonlinite lorms havecorrespondingforms ofthe
3. Unlic languages
3.4 Syntax
r34
negativeauxiliary,and in somedialectsevenaspectis sometimesexpressedin the auxiliary rather than in the lexicalverb. In the generallinguisticliterature,the negativeauxiliaryin Uralic languageshas often attractedinterestas possibleevidencein favour of analysingnegationas a higher predicate.The complexitiesof the distribution of verb categoriesacross maketh€mratherpoorevidence auxiliaryand lexicalverbin most Uralic languages for thishypothesis,andifsuchevidenceis sought,it shouldratherbefrom languages areshown like theTungusiclanguageEvenki,whereundernegationverbcategories consistentlyonly in the negativeauxiliary e-. we may turn to As the final syntacticpoint in this discussionof Uralic languages, the distribution offrnite subordinateclausesand variousnon6niteconstruclionsin the variouslanguages.ln the more easterlylanguages(Samoyedic,Ob'-Ugric, to a the usualconstruction somewhatlesserextentthe Permicand Volgaic languages), type hereis nonfinite,and finite subordinateclauseshavedevelopedonly recently, especially mostcommonlyunderRussianinfluence.Inthemorewesterlylanguages' Balto-Finnic and also, in this respect,Hungarian, finit€ subordinateclausesare muchmorenormal,althoughnon6niteconstructionsdo survive,mostfrequentlyin in morearchaicor learnedstyles.Wemay illustratetheuseofnonfiniteconstructions (45)translatinga timeclauseand (46)translatinga Vakh Khanty with two examples,
\4't)
mu sdber iitle-s, et ta vend tule -b va$ti tagasj my friend say PAST-3SGthat his brother come 3SCsoon back
(48)
mu sdber title-s oma venna varsti tagasi tule -vat own brother-GEN come PRES-PART 'my friend said that his brother would soon com€ back'
The secondtwo pairs, again from Estonian,illustrate relativeclauses,the fiIst relativisingon a subject,the secondon a direct object: \49)
vanake silmitse-s kaua inimest. old-manobservePAST-3SGfor-along-timc pcrsonPARTIT kes sammu-s ijle 6ue elumaja who go PAST-3SGacrosscourtyard-GEN residential poole building-lLL
(5o)
vanakesilmitse-skaua iile 6ue elumajapoole sammu-vat go PRES-PART inimes-t personPARTIT 'for a long time the old man observedthepersonwho wasgoingacross the courtyard to the residentialbuilding'
(5r)
luuletus,mille poeet ise ette kandi -s, poem which-cEN poet selfforth lecite PAST-3SG meeldi-s kdigi-le pleasePAST-3SGall ALL
(52)
poeedi enese ettekan -tud luuletusmedis kdisile poet-GENself-cEN recite-forthpAST-pART 'the poemwhich the poet recitedforth himselfpleascdeveryone,
relativeclause: (45)
-il -n5, mii 15Y-nii tiiyd werin-6 i5 fire make INFIN begin PAST-PART 3PL LOC I thev COMIT -tr PTCL -.m jdlil-yel go PASTINDEF-REM ISG 'whenthey beganto makethe fire (literally:at their beginningto make the nre). I went with them'
(46)
-iil le4ki tu -ta epi -m kiiam weLm INFIN take kill PAST-PART squirrel father rSG recently 3SG -es mdnJim go INTEND PAST-DEF-REC 'my fatherintendedgoingto takesomesquirrelshe had recentlykilled'
To illustratethe interplayoffinite andnonfiniteconstructionsin Balto-Finnic,we essentiallysy[onymous, where the one has a finite shall cite pairs of sentences, subordinate clause (the usual method of expressingsubordination in these languages),the seconda nonfinite construction The frrst pair from Estonian 'say': illustratesan objectclauseafter the verb
r35
Note that the subjectof a nonfiniteclausestandsin the genitive. Onediferencebetweenthe more easterlyand the more westerlylanguagesis, as already noted, the relative weight given to finite versusnonfinite subordinate constructions.Another diflerenceis in th€ range of applicability of nonfinite constructions,thisrangebeingmuchwiderin theeast.In Vakh Khanty, forinstance, the nonfinite relative clause construction illustrated in (46) can be used fo! relativisingon virtually any constituentofa clause;in the Balto-FiDniclanguagcs, however,theparallelconstructionsasillustratedin (50)and(52)canonly b€usedfor
3. Unlic languages
86
relativisingonsubjectanddirectobject.A third ditrerenceis that thepossibilitiesfor declining verbal nouns, etc., in the more easterly languagesare usually fully productive,whereasin the morewesterlylaoguagesit is moretypical for only a few fossilisedcasesto survive, often with idiosyncraticmeaning: in Estonian, for (in des, instance,theinfinitivein -da survivesonly in thenominativeandtheinessive cf- lugedes i\ (2r)).
TEXTS IN U RALIC LANGUAGES ESTONIAN TEXT (IN CURRENT ORTHOGRAPHY)
-d -si pdrutuse-d bk Ukse-le koputamine kesti -s, door-ALL knocking continuePAST shaking PL becomePAST 3PL -d -.1(s kdik. Siltam?ie-d tdu-si ikka tugeva-ma all PAST PL rise 3PL alwaysstrong COMPAR TRANSL Sillamde -d ruttu. Aadu ia Anu aja -si Mitla iietu-s Milla dress PAST quickly Aadu and Anu throw PAST 3PL veel, kes vammuse -d selg -a. Vana-mees kisi's who PAST again top-clothesPL back ILL old man ask ning kummarda-t ukse seal on,ja ava 's PAST bow and PAST door-GEN open is and th€re -i - Kiie -d iltes! kariul ta-Lle vastu Era -isiku -d hand PL up shoutPASS PAST he ALL towardsprivate personPL -d -d sisse vana-d tdst -si ja politseiniku-d karga -si old PL raisc PAST 3PL and policeman PL spring PAST 3PL in -s' -d -si -d viirise 4e -d. vaju varsti nee kde INESS INFIN-II hand PL soon thesePL lower PAST 3PL tremble -d s6rme4 ol-i Ka Mi a Pisti. also Milla-GEN finger PL be PAST 3PL sticking-up rabandav, Sillamde AaduJe Seestindmtis ol-i shocking be PAST Sillamiie Aadu ALL this event vdidu proletaarlaseJe, kesjookse-b HaitikuJe ordinary ALL proletarian ALL who run 3SG victory-CEN -ol-nud ja kes enda-st ei hooli, p niilja -ga hunger COMIT and who self ELAT not care NEG be PAST-PART siiiirase-d tuhnimise-d ei alandava -d ega uudise -ks. such PL search PL not humiliating PL nor novelty TRANSL
3. Texts
r3:.
-meistri -le Kuid abi ol-i see renk. but assistantforemanALL be PAST this hard 'Kulalise-d' -d h ppa-si ja p?iri-si _d: Milla etta guest PL jump PAST 3PL Mitla.GEN in-front and ask PAST 3pL .-Kas ole-te Milla Aadu tiitar Sillamile? Q be 2PL Milla Aadu-GEN daughterSillamde -Mis siis? what then -Siin on order. hereis warrant -ma p -ole kortei -percmees. I NEG be apartm€nt owner (Adaptedfrom a text by J. Madarik.)
Notes The tmnslativecase('becomingX') is usedfor certain predicativecomplements, esp€ciallyafter'become'. For the useof the genitiveukse 'door' as direct object,seepp. l2g-9. vdise-de-s:the inessiveof the so-calledsecondinfinitive indicatesa subsidiarv action contemporaneous with that of the main verb. p-ol-nud, p-ole: in addition to the regularnegativesei o,le(present),ei olnud (past),Estonianalso hasfor this one verb the specialforms with prefixedp-.
FREE TRANSLATION
Theknockingcontinuedat thedoor,theshakingsbecamestronger andstronger.The Sillamiiesall gol up. Milla dressedquickly. Aadu and Anu threw their top clothes onto thefubacks.The old man askedagainwho wasthcre,and openedthe door and bowed. -Hands up! someoneshoutedtowardshirn. Civiliansand policespmng in. Thc old peopleraisedtheirhands.Soonthey(sc.theirhands)droppcd,trembling.Milla,s fingerswerealso stickingup. This eventwas shockingto Aadu Sillamiie. To an ordinary proletarian,who runs with hungerfor victory and who doesnot carefor himself,such searches were neitherhumiliatingnor a novelty. But to the assistantforeman this was hard. The 'guests'jumpedin front of Milla and asked: Are you Milla, daughterof Aadu,Sillamae?
3. Llralib languages
r38
-What if I am? -He re is a warrant. -l am not the apartment-owner.
KHANTY TEXT (YAKH DIALECT)
-dl jdyStki wet Sjliind api -m ki{em wel-m once father ISG recentlykill PAST-PART 3SG t€en five piini kd sas - qen oyte| uri-Ja cepas lii\ki squirrel approximatelyand two ermine DU Okhteuri ALL -m -5s. mli e;i min-ldm tu -u ISG take INFIN go INTEND PAST-DEF-RECI elder-brother -ne -m -na wSriiytiydn. epi m,lii MIRON api J Miron father 3SG COMIT go INFIN strive 3SG father ISG LOC -t, I(tk -n; -1 kii -a mdttd jok 6nt5'td
sayinghomestayIMPER-2SGway LOC not take PASSPRES-3SG -m -pd -en. iTki -e0, pit kif -w IiiyStt -5Y difficult TRANSL becomeCOND stay NONPAST 2SG mother rSG TOo jis -e. -al: iil k6c-pd k6c at -w I6y-ii however cry IMPER-2SG he ALL PTCL say NONPAST 3SC NEG-IMPER -ti, -,i1 -ii epi -m etilndm mdn-'s. Jrs -m cry PAST-PART 3SC ALL PTCL lather ISG alone go PAST-DEF-REM 'm nemin fai -e -i, -i efi Idy min-m ISG truly well-then PTCL mother he go PAST-PART 3SC ALL -iil pine, -m jis jis -dkdt5 -s. koy cry tNCH PAST-DEF-REM long-timecry PAST-PART 3SG after Sjllind Ljy -5s. at-laststopPAST-DEF-REM (Extractedfrom N. I. Tereskin,OCerkidialektovxantyjskogojazyka' t, Vaxovskij dra,le&t,Moscow Leningrad, 196I.)
3. Texts
rl9
FREE TRA NSL ATION
One day my father intendedgoing to take about nfteensquirrels and two ermrnethat he had recentlykilled to Okhreuri.Myelder brolher Miron tried to go wirh hislather. He wasn't taken by father, saying, Stay home. on the way things may get dillicult, stay'. My mother too told him,.Don.t cry'. While he cried. my father went alone. When he went, well,my elderbrother truly begiLnto cry. A fter he had cried lor a long time, at last he stopped.
S E I - K U PT E X1 ' in
-kota
-niqiqi
ili -npti
-qi.
iixi ija - ti ep_pa. live NARR 1DU two son 3 be NARR -n -iqi. qot oici_si son DU 3 go INFIN INCH INDEF i n w i n r e r ski INSTR 3DU -lii tipil -qi. qan-pi ukkir kanak_ti ep-pa. old-man old-woman AND tja -qi -t qan-qo Jam
hunl-squirrel GER go NARR 3DU one dog 3 be NARR -qi. kon -qpri -qit lijt Litjt -qi. :itmti-mpi kanak-rr
lravelNARR IDU forestLOC ar_evening sit NARR 3DU dog j \retto-mn -ti tuoqjni muti_qo -lan _na. -u kanak_tiAk way PROL tDU back bark INFIN INCH INDEF dog mouth 3 l iantd temni-sli sdrei-mpA -ti. lii _n1 -ti siri -sa togetherrope INSTR bind NARR IDU fire ACC 3 snow INSTR -pa -ti, tak onti inni_n _ti miial_pa -ti, extinguishNARR 3DU rhemselves bowACC a grab NARR 3DU tolci-m Ji tokka]i-npa -ti, !.tt -ti -qi. ntisol_pi ski ACC 3 pufon NARR 3 lofestALL ski NARR 3DU -nnin -ti. rniti ti wrr comeINFER 3SG (From:E. D. Prokof'eva,Sel.kupskijjazyk.in JazykinarodovSSSR, III, Moscow. r966.)
Notes For the useof the participleto translaterelativeand adverbialclauses,seep I34' althottEhthe past definite recenttenseand third personsingular wSriiyt-iydn'. subjectare usuallyzeromorphemesin the activei[definite-objectconjugation'for the combilation of th€s€two categoriesthe sumx -ifa, is required' epr'm-te:the locativeis usedfor the agentin passiveconstructrons'
The suflixes-gi' -ri' grossed as '3DU' on verbs,are for intransitive and transitive verbsrespectively. qanqolamnriqi,mutiqolamna: theseincho{live forms are contractionsot.the sequence infinitivefollowedby the finiteverb oltn_ .begin,.
3. Uralic languages
r40
FREE TRA NSLATION
sons Theit sons set off ln There lived an old man and an old woman They had two wintertheywenttohuntsquirrelonskis.Theyhadadog.Theyjourneyed.Theysatin theeveningintheforest.Theirdogbegantobarkbackalongtheway.Theybound the fire with snow' thev their dog's mouth together with rope' They extinguished to the forest War was grabbed their bows, they put on their skis, they skied aPParentlYcoming.
FURTHER READINC ThereareseveralgoodintroductionstoUraliccomparativelinguistics'inc|udingdiscussionof I969);and a recentslandard irr" inJi"ia."r rtig*gesi D6csy(I965)l coliinder (t960; I965; to Uralic studies'notrestrictedto Jo"i"t *o.t, OfUf, it974-6). A moregeneralintroduction of For the sociolinguistics f""g""g", ttS6li' alsoavaitablein an fnglish translation " "ta,f tunguages'Haatmann(t9?4) shor.lldbeconsultedGrammaticalsketchesof it ltl ( 1966)Tauli ( r 963)deals ii""-ni.ino-Ug.i" i"Ji"ia""'f r""g""g"i of the U.S.SR constituteJaNsssR morphologicaltypology' particular in languag€s' ori.".lrv *i,lt ttr-etipotogy of Uralic languages' Uralic various in expressed includingthe rangeoicategories nol restrictedto language'by For the Samoyediclanguages'thereIs a usefulintroduction' grammatrcal source an important rcmains German' (issa), in -for H"iiil itri3l. io.tren few ofthe are available.for in so far as rec€ntmonographdescriptions aescription,especiatty rn sentenc€ simple the of synlax the with (19?3) deals question. TereSdenko lansuaeesin subordinateconstructions' nonfinite Jrti"r!ll. f""g*g*'tince thistermincludesthevarious thtsrsinfact a fairly samo,yedic. and sincennitJsuborainateclausesareatyprcalof rrudjtio naI bv. Teres'enko Nenets o[ syntax. There is a monograph descrrPrion ;;;;;;*" ( t 966) Terel6€nko D6csy in in English disciiption sketch ( and a i"llip.i","o lt ,v"rns r965), For sclkup' the only reasonablycomprehensrve iiqig) i. u a"ulr"a .otogiaph on Nganasan (r935). accountis Prokof'ev --ii"",y in G€rman. r i.a"*rlU"a, rriii emphasison rheCentralOb'dialect,by Steinitz( 950) rhereare ln English, bc consulted. (196r) should Tercskin dialecr, vakh eo.ii" ( Gulya and I966) R6dei by "u"r."nt stetchesofttre NorthernandEasterndialect;inthechrestomathies (r973)' Rombandeeva of Mansiis descriprion comprehensiv€ tne most itriii *"c,i*tt. (r965)' grammarin Engtishin the chrestomathyby Kdlmnn o*fine -provides irilf"ift"r" ''-i"i"it"".il* it "n (lq6:) an intioductron to the comparativesludy of lhe Permic anddevelopmentFor ofmorphologicalreconstruction f""g""g"., *itft a.Lif"a consideration grammarsJoreacho[the ( standard are There r952) is Lytkin work oi;Pe;m;, thestandard f".guages:for Komi (-Zy ryan, sKom|a (1955-64):for Komi-Permvak *".g"ir"J-.a*t Oga'' GSrJdmJasPP(r9?o)' and (rqezi and for udmurt diuanta al. ;;;;; " GSUdmJaSSP(r974) the Mordva languagesln Serebrennikov(t967) provides a comparabletreatment of to be thefirst'r'olumeofastandardgrammar' p"..p*ii"" 'whtleGMo a 0;62\is *.p"t",i". sketches Uvf.f:adenkov (I959) on syntax ln addition'therearegrammalical (1865)'both in-German'For ".lnpi"rn*r"a oi tr,io.auuln rfre*oit s by Paasonen(t9j3) and wiedemann r960),.SMarJaM( r96r ), and cruzov( grammar: standard of the *r.mes irr. n_l"ri,,n1* and Ingemann( 196I) "." by Sebeok in English Titnofeeva(196t). in addition 1o an accounl (1971)' by Kert dcscribed is Lapp of Kola dialect The Kildin ofFinnish and Estonian' foittt" sutro-ninni" Iunguagei.thereare numerousdescriptions
3. Fu
hfr rcading
t4l
aremuch lessin evidence'descriptions grammarsof rhesmallerlanguages but comprehensive iorming rather part of the specialistliteratureon dial€ctology Sincethe of theseianguages altquiteclosetoFinnish,refelenc€canconveniently mor€northerlyBalto-Finniclanguagesare and be madeto d;scriptionsof Finnish,suchas Hakulinen( t978),alsoavailablein English and by Raun field to the general introduction a rhere is Estonian. For Germantranslations. ( I965),in additionto descriptivegrammarsin Cerman(Lavotha r9?3)andin English Saareste work Thereis also a lTauli r97j),-the lartcr beingthe first volumeonly of a multi_volume desctiptionofvot comprehensive briel but p"augogi"iig.u.-ut in Engiishby Oinas(1967)A works' in German'by earlier to must be made reference For Liv. t968f ,"tit," i ot"lru-ur"u'v t Sjiigren(r 861)and Kettunen(1938).
4.2 Balto-Slavoniclanguages
4 Indo-Europeanlanguages
t43
Table 4.r. Branchesof the Indo-European family (moden Ianguages)
Slttonic I I
^ ^. DatIo StJvontc
Ir)d o- h a n ia n : I nd ic (I ndo-Aryan ) Iranian
family in the U.S.S.R. The Indo-European Over 8o7uof the inhabitantsof the U.S.S.R.have as their native Moreover,ofthe ninebranchesinto languageoneofthe Indo-Europeanlanguages. which the living Indo-Europeanlanguagesare divided(or eight,ifone takesBaltoSlavonicas a singlebranch),only one branch, Celtic, is not representedin the languages thus play a major role in the U.S.S.R.(Table4.r). Indo-European we shallnot givea detailed the In this chapter, linguisticcomposition of U.S.S.R. accountof the Indo-Europeanlanguagesin general,sincemost Indo-European on those languagcs are not languages of the U.S.S.R.,but will ratherconcentrate languages ofthe U.S.S.R. thatareprimarilyor exclusively branches andlanguages Two of the branchesof the lndo-Europeanfamily which consist of a single ofthe language each,namelyGreekandAlbanian,arenot,by definition,languages of there.Thereare336,869 Greeksin theU.S.S.R., U.S.S.R.andhavefewspeakers whom only 39.3%haveGreek as their nativelanguage:in fact, more Greekshave Russianastheir nativelanguagethan haveGreek.For the most part, the Greeksin the U.S.S.R. are descendantsof refugeesfrom uprisingsagainst the Ottoman ofGreeksin theU.S.S.R.is to the occupation ofGreece;thehighestconcentration ofthe Ukraine.In theU.S.S.R.thereare northofthe SeaofAzov,in thesouth-east language; themajor 4,4o2Albanians, 56.7%ofwhomspeakAlbanianastheirnative moved Ukraine, where they is nearMelitopol'in the south-eastern concentration gave5,258Albanians, ofwhom statistics in r 86r.The I959census from Bessarabia judging the native language; from the large difference, Albanian as their spoke 79% r959 figuremay includea numberof Albaniansfrom Albania temporarilyin the U.S.S.R.,who wouldnaturallyhaveAlbanianas theirnativelanguage. 4.r
languages 4.2 Balto-Slavonic playa majorrolein thelinguisticcomposition The Slavoniclanguages language, but alsoin that in sofarasRussian is a Slavonic oftheU.S.S.R., especially languagcs oftheU.S.S.R., UkrainianandBelorussian, thesecond andfourthlargest LilhuanianandLatvian,havelar Whilethetwo BalticIanguages, arealsoSlavonic.
Hellenic (Creek) Gernanic CelIic
fewer speakers,they are both languagesofUnion Republics, with over 2;and almost Ij million native speakersin the U.S.S.R.respectively. The question of whether Balto-Slavonic representsa single branch of IndoEuropean,or whctherthe undoubtedsimilaritiesbetweenBaltic and Slavonicarethe resultofareal diffusion,haslong beena vexedproblem in the study oftheselanguage groups. For present purposes, we will merely draw attention to one remarkable similarity between the Baltic and Slavonic groups, which provides one of the strongest piecesofevidence in favour ofa single Balto-Slavonic branch. The majority of Slavonic languages and both Baltic languages lack a definite article
those
Slavoniclanguages.suchas Bulgarian,Macedonian,and someRussiandialects,that have developeda definite article have done so recently
but in both groups of
languagesit is possible to indicate thedillerence betweendefinite and indefinite noun phrasesthat contain an adjective, by marking the adjective. Moreover, th€ means of marking is the samein both groups:the appropriateform ofthe demonstrative!t-is sulixed to the adjective, again in the approp ate form (i.e. agreei,rgwith the head noun in gender,number, and case),e.g. Lithuanian baltd l€npa'a white lamp', balto-ji lempa'the white lamp'. As can be seen ftom this pair ofexamples, certain morphophonemic changes take place when the demonstrative is sumxed to the article, and with the longer adjective endings of some of the oblique casesther€ rs contraction in the definite adjective, e.g. instrumental plval baltomis limpomis 'with white lamps', 'with the white lamps'. The distinction baltdsiomis limpomr'.s between indefinite and definite adjective is found in both Lithuanian and Latvian, but wilhin Slavonicit surviveswith this lunction only in Serbo-Croatand Slovene. Thc other SlavonicIanguageshavegeneralised eitherthe indefiniteform (Bulgarian, Muccdonian) or the dennile form (rll the other languages,except Russian). In
4. Indo-European languages
144
survivein attributiveuse,but both formsarestill Russian,only thedenniteadjectives position,with complexsemantic,pragmatic,and stylistic possiblein predicative diferencesbetweenthem. Although some other branches of Indo-European have distinctions e.g. the strongand weak approximatingto this distinctionin Balto-Slavonic. in Germanicor the useoftherelativepronounin olderIrannn adjectivedeclensions languages(seep. 168),nowhereelsedo we find suchcloseparallelismas between BalticandSlavonic,whichevenextendsto certainspecificusesofthe two forms.For instance,in Lithuanianthe definiteadjectiveis used,irrespectiveofthe definiteness of the noun phrase.wherethe adjectiveis usedto definea species,e.g.juod;ists 'a gaid.as 'black stork (Ciconianigra)',asopposedtojtodas gafidras blackstork' the samedistinctionis found in (i.e.a stork that happensto be black).Precisely 'white onion', meaning Serbo-Croat,e.g. bili luk (definite adjective),literally 'garlic', cf. b ,luk (indefiniteadjective)'an onion that happensto be white'. unity is that of the as the questionof Balto-Slavonic At ieastas problematical West andEastBaltic. main subgroups, intemalunityofBaltic,whichfallsinto two The surviving languages,Lithuanian and Latvian, are East Baltic, and the best attestedWestBaltic languageis Old Prussian.Onewidespreadcurrent view is that Balto-Slavonicasa wholeshouldbe regardedasa unit, which fallsinto three,rather than two, subgroups:WestBaltic,EastBaltic,and Slavonic.In the remainderofthis chapter,especiallyas we shall not be dealingwith West Baltic languages,we shall retainthe traditionaltermsBalticand Slavonic.
4.2.r Slavoniclanguages The Slavonic group of languagesitself falls into three main subdivisions:SouthSlavonic(Bulgarian,Macedonian,Serbo-Croat,Slovene,and the earliestattestedSlavoniclanguage,Old Church Slavonic);west Slavonic(czech, Slovak, Polish, Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, and the extinct Polabian):East Slavonic (Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian).The South and West Slavonic of the U-S,S.R.,thoughsomeofthem havequite large languagesare not languages numbersof speakersin the U.S.S.R.,e.g. Bulgarianwith 256,646speakers,and especiallyPolish;thereare alsosizablecompactSlovakpopulationsin the pa s of Transcarpathiacededto the U.S.S.R.afterthe SecondWorld War. The largePolish between populationin theU.S,S.R. is largelya resultofthefrequentborderchanges in Lithuania and thispopulationis concentrated Polandand Russia/the U.S.S.R., (whereethnic Polesconstitute1.7% of the total population),Belorussia,and the Ukraine, although many €thnic Poleswere repatriatedfrom Belorussiaand the but only is I,380,282, UkraineafterI945.ThenumberofethnicPolesin theU.S.S.R.
4.2 Balto-Slavonic
languages
r45
32.5'2"ofthesegavePolishastheir nativelanguageiri the r9?ocensus,a substantial drop from 45.2%in 1959. The threeEast Slavoniclanguagesare very closeto one anoth€r,with very high rates of mutual intelligibility, thus crcating a massivepreponderanceof East Slavonic withintheU.S.S.R.: over76%ofthe totalpopulationhasan EastSlavonic languageas a native language.The separation of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussianas distinct languagesis relativelyrecent.At the timg of the earliest attestedwriting in EastSlavonic,aroundthebeginningof ourmillennium,themajor dialectdivisionwithin EastSlavonicwasbetweenthe northernpart ofthis areaand the southernpart, the dividing isoglossesrunning roughly through present-day Moscow.However.theweakness and internaldivisionsofthe variousEastSlavonic principalitiesled to their dominationby differentoutsidepowers,with present-day Russiaunder Tatar suzeraintyfrom the mid-thirteenthcentury, and the more westerlyareas,present-day UkraineandBelorussia, underPolishand/or Lithuanian domination.It wasduring this periodthat many ofthe differences amongthe three languages arose,especiallybetweenRussianand Ukrainian,thetwo mostdivergent languages. Sincethe eas(ernUkraine wasnot reunitedwith Russiaproperuntil the sevent€enth century,and the westernUkraine until the partition ofPoland in 1772, the period ofseparationspansseveralcenturies.Thus someof the innovationsof Ukrainian did not spreadto Russian,suchas the shift of lengthenedo to i, e.g. contrast Ukrainian yiw 'ox', Russian vo,l. Likewise,many innovationswithin Russiandid not spreadto Ukrainian,e.g.thereductionofunstressedvowels(called akan'e,sinceoneofits mostcharacteristic featuresis thereductionofunstressedo to an a-like vowel [,r], cf. the pronunciationof voda'water' as [v^da]); aka, e is a typically SouthernRussianfeature,though now encompassing also the standard languagebasedon the Centraldialectsof the Moscow region,but it is completely absentfiom Ukrainian, the most southerlyof the East Slavoniclanguages. After thereunificationolthe Ukrainewith Russia,theTsadstgovernmentdid not encouragethe developmentof Ukrainian as a separatelanguage.Indeed, the autho tiesevenplayeddown theexistence ofthe Ukraineasa separateculturalarea by referringto it as'Little Russia'(Malorossija), iDcontrastto'Creat Russia',i.e. Russiaproper;during this period the languagewasreferredto as'Little Russian', and wasdeemedto bea dialectofRussian.In the nineteenthcenturypublicationin Ukrainian was forbidden,and only in r9o5, as part of the reforms following the uprisingof that year,wasits useallowedagain.Widespreaduseol Ukrainian as a written Ianguageand in educationdatesonly frogr after the Revolution,especially with theestablishment ofthe UkrainianS.S.R.Ukrainian,incidentally, hasalways usedtheCyrillicalphabet, thoughwith certainlettersabs€ntfrom Russian(e.9.the dottedi. d roppedfromtheR ussiit n alphabet in r9 | 8 - in Russian it waspreviously a
4. Indo-European Iang|ages
r46
mereorthographicvariant,usedbeforevowels),and with differcntphoneticvalues for a few letters. ln the U.S.S.R., Ukrainian has always, and perhapsinevitably, developed somewhatin the shadowof Russian:many Ukrainiansin fact speaka mixture of Ukrainian and Russian,findingit difficultto keepthe two languagesapart,and it is rateishigh for Ukrainiansliving interestingto notethatwhilethelanguage-retention (9r.4%), in the U.S.S.R.it is muchlower for thoselivingelsewbere in the Ukraine (48.4'%),i.e.whileUkrainiansstill declaretheirseparateethnic status,theirlanguage loyalty is muchlower.A certainnumberoismallchangeshavebeenintroducedinto for instance makingit slightlymoresimilarto Russian, Ukrainianin the U.S.S.R., word for'ninety', deujatdeiet, by the neologism the replacement of the earlier deujanosto,i.e.basedsimplyon Russiandeujanosto,originallya Northern dialect but perhapsmeaningsomething like'nonalhundred'. form ofunclearetymology, Outsidethe U.S.S.R.,the largestand most compactUkrainiancommunityis in Canada. Belorussianhas developedeven more in the shadow of Russian than has incidentally, means'WhiteRussian',but this Ukrainian.The term Belorussian, ethnicterm is not to be confusedwith'White Russian'in the politicalsense (opponentsof the Soviet government).In the Middle Ages, an early form of Belorussianenjoyeda brief period as omcial written languageof the Lithuanian state,most ofwhose citizenswereat that time Belorussian;this languageis usually called the West Russian chancellerylanguage.With the reincorporation of Belorussiainto Russia,Belorussiancontinued only as an amalgam of spoken whenit was withoutanydeveloped writtenform,untilaftertheRevolution, dialects, recognised asa separatewritt€n andspokenlanguage.Its developmentcontinuedto behinderedby uncertainties overthemostappropriatedialectto chooseasthe basis ofthe standardlanguage,and it wasnot until the I95osthat this questionwasfinally decided,necessitatingrevision of the grammarsthat had appearedpreviously. Languageretentionin Belorussiaitself is somewhatlower than in the Ukraine (9o.1%),and the problemof peoplespeaking and a mixtureof the locallanguage living elsewhere in the U.S-S.R, havea still Russianis evenmoreacute.Belorussians lower rate of languageretention:40.87o.
4.2.2 Ballic languages Only two Baltic languagessurviveto the presentday, Lithuanian and Latvian (Lettish),eachspokenby a sizableand compactpopulationgroup clearly thoughespecially differentiatedfrom its neighbours.Eachofthe modernlanguages, by a markeddegreeof dialectdiversity,probably Lithuanian,is characterised
4.2 BaI to-Slavonic languages
r47
reflectingthe fact that thepopulationwasuntil recentlyagrarianand immobileand that both languagesdevelopedas written languagesvery recently,for Latvian not until the nineteenthcentury. The present-dayBaltic languagesare only a small remnantofa group oflanguagesthat oncecovereda muchlargerarea:for instance, the areaasfar south-eastas Moscowwas,on the basisoftoponymic evidence, once inhabitedby speakersof Baltic languages, and Baltic languageshavealso receded beforethe eastwardexpansionofthe Germans:the original Prussianswerea Baltic people.Only againstthe Balto-Finnic languageshave the Baltic languagesmade someinroads:to a largeextent,present-dayLatvianscanbe viewedaslinguistically assimilated Balto-Finnicspeakers, and thisprocess continues ro thisday,with the Latvianisation of the lastremainingspeakers of Liv. BothLithuanianandLatvianbelongto theEastBalticbranch,whichalsoincluoes the extinctlanguages Curonian(with someWest Baltic features,especially in vocabulary), Selonian, (Semigallian). andZemgalian all threeverysparsely attested. The other branchof Baltic.WestBaltic.containsone language attestedin some breadth,namelyOld Prussian. for whichwe havea smallnumberofreligioustexts from thefifteenthcentury,justbeforethe languagefinallydiedout and wasreplaced by German.In viewofthemarkeddiatectdiversity, ptacear thisis alsoa convenient whichto mentionthemaindialects ofthesurvivinglanguages. Thetwo maindialect areas of Lithuanian are Aukshtayt (High Lithuanian)and Zhemayt (Low Lithuanian,alsocalledSamogitian); althoughtheearliestLithuaniantextsare in Zhemayt,the currentstandardis basedon an Aukshtaytdialect.Zhemaytis spoken in thewestofLithuania.Themaindialects of LatvianaretheCentraldialects. which includethe capitalRigaand on whichthe currentstandardis based,and Upper (High)Latvian,spokento theeast;otherdialectgroupsaresom€times recognised, e.g.thedialectspokenby Liv who havebeenassimilated to theLatvians.but whose language showsconsiderable Liv influence (for instance, in the lossof the gender distinction). Onedialectof High Latvian,Latgal,hasbeenusedconsiderably asa written language,but its useis discouragedin SovietLatvia, whereonly the one standardwritten languageis used. Thedevelopment ofbothLithuanianandLatvian,andalsotheculturally, burnot genetically,relatedlanguageEstonian,took placeverylateby Europeanstandards, startingessentiallyin the seventeenth centuryfor Lithuanianand in the nineteenth centuryfor Latvian,and reachingfull developmentonly during the inter-Warycars when the Baltic stateswereindependentcountries,eachusingits own languagcas omciallanguage. Thewestern orientation oftheserepublics is seennot only in their traditionalCatholicor Lulheranreligion,but alsoin theadoptionandretentionof the Latinalphabet. modiliedby diacrirics. BothLithuanianand Latvianshowhigh rrtes oi languageretcDtionin thc U.S.S.R.\9.7.g,h, nnd95.2%respectively); as fl
4. Indo-European
languages
r48
resultofthe checkeredpoliticalhistoryofthe Baltic area,therearelargenumbersof Lithuanian and Latvian 6migr6sin other Europeancountries,Notth America, and I,429,844 sothatin additionto 2,664,g44Lithranians Australia,andelsewhere, ofeither million members probably up to halfa are U.S.S.R., there in the Latvians Republics: languages of Union Both are the U.S.S.R. ethnic group outside Lithuaniansare numericallypredominantin their own republic(8o.I% of the population),althoughthe capital,Vilnyus (Lithuanian:Vilnius),is somewhat atypicalin this respect,havinga combinedRussianand Polishpopulationslightly outnumberingthe Lithuanians;in Latvia,Latviansarein a smallmajority (56 8%)' hasfallensincer959(62%),and thecapital,Riga,actually althoughtheirpercentage hasmore Russiansthan Latviansin its presentpopulatlon. The initial interestamong linguistsin the Baltic languages,and especiallyin Lithuanian,resultedfrom the realisationthat Lithuanianis extremelyarchaicasan Indo-Europeanlanguage,especiallyin its nominalmorphology,havinginflections that areoftenasarihaic orevenmorearchaicthanthosefoundin theearliestattested ftom two anda halfmill€nniaago.Apart from thearchaic Indo-Europeanlanguages below, and somepeculiaritiesofphonology to be discussed system, morphological their languages in European like other the present-dayBaltic languagesare very literary languages ofthe syntax,andalsoingenemlstyle,giventhat thedevelopment Theyare took placeunderstronginfluencefrom other Europeanliterarylanguages. as order, though word verb-object a basic subject in having languages like Slavonic informational possible express different to permutations are in Slavoniclanguages structurewithout changingthe cognitivemeaninglthis is guaranteedby the welldevelopedcase-markingsystem,so that Latvian mrle (NOM) gaidamasu (ACC) 'motheris waitingfor sister'canbeexpressedequally asmasugaidanrte, with only a is waitingfor her'),while ('as it is motherwho for sister, slightdifferencein emphasis 'sisteris waiting for mother'would haveto be mesa(NOM) gaidamati (ACC), or adjectivesprecedetheir any permutationofthesewords.As in Slavoniclanguages, 'a headnoun,e.g.Latvian ba.llssuns whitedog', but th€ orderof genitiveand head nounis differentbetweenBaliic andSlavonic:both LithuanianandLatvianplacethe genitivebeforethe headnoun, e.g.Lithuanian fdto (CEN) nAmas,Latviarr tEva (GEN) rrryb 'father'shouse',cf. Russiandom olca (CEN) However,the partitive genitivefollows its head noun, thus indicating the differentnature of thesetwo constructions,andevengivingriseto minimalpairslike LithuanianmaiSascikraus 'sugar bag'. In the following (GEN) 'bag of sugar', cdkraus (GEN) matras paragraphs,someof the peculiaritiesof Lithuanianand Latvian will be examined especiallySlavonic that setthemapart from the generalrun ofEuropeanlanguages, languages. aspectofLithuanianand Latvianis In termsofphonology,themostinteresting
4.2 BaIrc-Slavoniclanguages
r49
theexistence ofphonemictone.In bothlanguages, syllablenucleiconsisting oftwo moras(i.e.a longvowelora diphthong, whichlatterincludes sequences ofvowelplus m, r, 1, r aswell asdiphthongsendingin w and y, orthographicallyu and i) may show a distinction betweendifferentdistributionsof pitch acrossthe two moras; wherethe syllablenucleushasjust a singlemora,i.e.ifit is a shortvowel,then there can be no pitch distinction.Beyondthis generalcharacterisation,Lithuanianand Latvian differ considerablyfrom one anotherin both the phoneticsof tone and its lunction, and th€reare alsoconsiderable differences b€tweenindividual dialectsof either language.The major differencebetweenthe two languagesis that in Lithuanian the tone oppositioncan be realisedphoneticallyonly on the stressed syllable,and is neutralisedin unstressed syllables;differentmorphologicalformsof the sameword can,incidentally,be stressedon differentsyllables.ln Latvian, the stressalwaysfalls on the initial syllable(this is an innovation), and any syllable nucleusconsistingoftwo moraswill showa distinctiv€tone.Wemay now turn to the phoneticsand morphophonemicsof tone. In Lithuanian,the standardlanguagehasa two-waytone oppositionon stressed syllableswith two moras,betweenrising pitch (symbolised? or lzf) and falling pitch (symbolisedV or ,l'V1.The rising pitch is often calledcircumflex,and rhe falling pitch acute:the dialectson which standardLithuanian is based,and which havethesystemjustoutlined,havehistoricallyundergonea processofswitchingthe pitch valuesofthe two tones,whichis why theso-calledcircumflex,symbolised7, is rising,whereasin the discussionof most Indo-Europea[ languageswith tong the circumflexis a falling tone.lfthe stressfallson a syllablewith a shortvowel,this can be symbolised V (grave).There are numerousminimal pairs for the difference betweenacuteand circumflextones,e.g. ;iuJli'to grow cold', ai.fti'to dawn'.The easiestplace to observetheinteractionoftone andstresschangeis in thedeclension of the noun. For prosodicpurposes,Lithuanian nounsare divided into four classes. ClassesI and 2 havethe stressbasicallyon thestem,whileclasses 3 and 4 havestress basicallyon the inflectionalending,though individualcase-formsmay diverge,as indicatedbelow.Classes z and4belongtogetherin havinga circumflexor gravetone on the last syllableof thestem,whenthe stemis stressed; all other stemtypesare in classI or 3. Certaininflectionalendingstendto draw thestressonto themselves: thus the lirst declensionlocativesingular-e drawsthe st.€ssonto itselffrom a preceding circumflexor grave syllable,as does the seconddeclensionnominative singular ending-a. Conversely, certainendingstendto throwthestress backonto thestem, for instancethe first declensionnominativesingular ending -as, or the second declensionnominativeplural ending-os. Yet other endingshave no ellecton the stress, suchasfirstdeclension nominativeplural-ai, or seconddeclension genitive singuhr-or. Thescalternations are illustraledin the noun formsin Table4.2.
4.2 Balto-Slavonic languages
r50
4. Indo-European languages Table 4.2. Stressand tone in Lithuanian declension
First declensionl classI:'man' class2: 'key' class3: 'mountain' class4: 'time'
NOM SG viras rektas kelnas laikas
LOC SG vire raktd kalnd laikd
NOM PL vj'ral raktai kalnai laikai
Seconddeclension: classI: 'crow' class2: 'hand' class3: 'head' class4: 'beard'
NOM SG verna rankd galvi barzda
CEN SG varnos rafrkos galv6s barzdOs
NOM PL vernos rafrkos gelvos baizdos
To see that the forms in Table 4.2 illustrate the generalisationsabove, the following poirlts shouldbe noted.Classr nouns invariablyhave the stresson the and endingsthat attract stressneverattract stem:they are basicallystem-stressed, stressfrom a stemthat doesnot havea final circumflexor gravetone.Class2 nouns as can be seenfrom forms like nominativeplural are also basicallystem-stressed, .a-kfai,g€nitivesingularraikos, sincetheseareendingsthat do not alter the stress; however,in the locativesingularofthe first declensionand thc nominativesingular ofthe seconddeclensionthe stressis attractedfrom the circumflexor graveofthe on the ending note the stemonto the ending.Classes3 and 4 are basicallystressed plural kalnai, laikai, or genitive endingslike nominative formswith stress-neutral theytakean endingthatrejectsstress,the singularga./vds,barzdds,However,when stresswill in factbeon thestem,e.g.nominativesingularkti,lllas,laikas,nominative plval gilvos, baizdos:the existenceof suchforms providesthe evidencethat the stemshave no final circumflex(nominative singular kdlnas, nominative pluml g.i/vos)ordo havea finalcircumnex(nominativesingularla.ftas,nominativeplural baizdos).ll should be noted moreoverthat each inflectionalending also has an inherenttoneifit consistsoftwo or moremoras:nominativeplural -aiand genitive singularandnominativeplural -dshavecircumflextone,but thedativeplural ending 'mountains(DAT)', galv'ms'heads (DAT)'. This has acutetone, as in kahems themorphophonemicnatureofLithuanian tone:inorderto establishthe emphasises tone(and inherentstress,ifthere is morethan onesyllable)ofa stem,onemust look to ascertainthe inherenttone of an for an inflectionalform that is stem-stressed; Although the whefe the endingis stressed. ending,one must look for a noun form 'young nation' arephoneticallyidentical,their differing diphthongsofjaur.i taulri morphophonemicnaturecan be seenfrom the correspondingplval jiunos tarttos 'young nations'(-/rutas 'young' is class taulri 'nation'class 4). 3,
r5r
The above characterisationof the Lithuanian tone system is essentially synchronic,and doesnot take accountof the complexhistoricalstressshifts that havegivenriseto thissystem, andalsoto somealtcrnations not discussed in detail here,for instancedifferenttoneson thesamesyllableinderivationallyrelatedworqs, e.g., uftftas'high', but aikitrs 'height',whercthecircumflexon theIatterrepresents a later stressretractionfrom the endjng. StandardLatvianhasa three-way tonedistinction on syllables oftwo moras.The lengthenedtone,symbolisedI, is leveljit usuallycorrespondsto Lithuanian y on thefirstsyllable(despitethedifferentsymbolisation), e.g.mite 'mother',saile 'sun', rr7s'b dge'(cf. Lithuanian m6te, sAute,fr'Ifas- in the last of these.Lithuanran indicatesthe acutetone by a graveaccent,because ofthe phoneticshortnessofthe vowel J).The brokentone,which involvescreakyvoicein the secondmora. rather liketheDanishst d, is symbolised?; it oftenrepresents a shiftofstressrelativeto Lithuanian(recallthat Latvian alwayshas initial stress),e.g. sfds 'heart',cf. Lithuanian lr.dr:e.The falling tone, symbolisedV, correspondsto the Lithuanran circumflex.Especiallysince Lithuanianhas stressshifts betweeninitial and noninitial syllable(e.g.the accusativesingularol Jridrbis lrrdl), one might expect Latvian to havecorrespondingalternationsin toneon the initial syllable,but in fact allsuchalternations havebeenlevelled out,sothatsynchronically thetonetypeona given syllableis constantthroughout the inflectionof that word. The lollowing sentenceillustratestheother main differencebetweenLatvianand Lithuaniantone. namelythat in Latvianall syllables oftwo moras,whetherstressed or not.havethe tonalopposition: (53)
, kapteinis /
repeat-PAST-3 'what is happiness? - Captain Klau repeated' SomeLithuanian dialects,incidentally,also havestressshifts from final syllables, giving riseto very complexsystemswith up to five distinct tones,includingronal oppositions on posttonicsyllables. As wasmentioned above,oneof thesalientcharacteristics of Lithuanianwithin Indo-Europeanis the conservatismof its declensionalsystem;Latvian is considerably lessconservative, asin manyotherrespects. Recently, therchasbeen somesimplification ofthe inflectional systemofLithuanian,however: thestandard languageno longerusesthe distinctdual formsin declension and conjugation, althoughtheystillsurvivcin dialects. Currently.someolthe longernominalendings
4. Indo-Eurcpean languages
t52
are being contractedin colloquial usage,so that lenbje 'board (LOC)' is being replacedby lentdj, staluose'tables(LOC)' by staluds, and dukterimi 'darghter (INSTR)'by dukrerlt. AlthoughLatvianstill hasa rich declensioral system,in ce ain respects it placesmore weighton prepositions than on inflections. Thus 'vtith Latvian usesthe instrumentalonly with the prepositionar, e.E.ar lepstu a withoutany prepositionin this spade',whereasLithuanianusesthe instrumental sense, e.g.peilrri'with a knife'.In Latvian,allprepositions in thepluralrequirethe dative-instrumental(thesetwo casesare not distinguishedin the plural), thus neutralisingcasedistinctionsfound in the singular,e.g. pr'ega,/da(GEN) 'at the table'.piegaldiem(DAT INSTR)'at thetables',pa celu(ACC)'along theroad', pa ceir'en(DAT INSTR) 'along the roads'. peculiarity Oneinteresting ofLatviansyntax,whichis sharedby someLithuanian, dialectsbut not standardLithuanian,is the useofthe nominativeasdirectobjectin certain constructions.In standard Latvian, the constructionin question is the debitive,expressing obligation.The verbtakestheprefixjar-,anddoesnot changefor personand number:the noun phrasereferringto the personwho is obligedto carry out thisactionisin thedativecase; thenounphrasereferringto thedirectobjectofthe verb, if there is one, standsin the nominative,although otherwiseLatvian has distinctnominativeandaccusativecases. Thisgives,for instance,mums(D AT\ jeiet 'we mustgo' with anintransitiveverb,and mums(DAT) jelasagrernala(NOM)'we must reada book'with a transitiveverb.An exceptionis madefor lirst and second personpronoun direct objects,which remainin the accusative:muns (DAT) tevi (ACC\ jelndz'we must begyou'. With more complexconstructions,for instance where the dircct object is dependenton an infinitive that is itself dependenton a debitive form, or where pronouns and nonpronouns are coordinated, native speakersoften allow variantswith nominativeor accusative.The reasonwhy this constructionhasbeendiscussed at somelengthhereis that it appearsto be an areal feature,encompassing not only Latvianand, to a lesserextent, Lithuanian,but also (see pp. perhaps the Balto-Finniclanguages Iz9-3o),and alsocertainNorth Russian dialects(Timberlaker9Z4).The constructionmay havearisenin Balto-Finnic(or €arlier in Proto-Uralic) and difused into the neighbouring Indo-European languages. AnotherinterestingfeatureofBaltic syntax,differentiatingthese two languages in many respectsfrom Slavoniclanguages, is the us9to which participlesand gerunds (verbaladverbs)are put. Both Baltic and Slavoniclanguageshavesuchnonfinite verbalforms,which, like participlesin English,can be usedinsteadofsubordinat€ clauses.An unusual featureof Lithuanian is the existenceof two setsof verbal adverbs,oneusedwherethesubjectofthe subordinatenonfiniteclauseis thesameas that ofthe main clause(pusdalyvis),the otherwherethey ared ifferent(padalyvis), givinga limitedswitch-relerence effectively system:
4. 2 Balto-Slavonic
languages
r53
(54.1
i{eidamas pamiigo mokinis knjga go-out-PUSDALYVISpupil-NOM forget-PAST-3book-ACC 'leaving,the pupil forgot his book'
\ l),
visiens tilint, vEl prabito pirmininkas all-DAT fall-silent-PADALYVISagainspeak-PAST-3 chairmanNOM 'everyonehaving fallen silent,the chairmanspokeagain'
With the switch-refercnce padalyvis,thesubjectofthe nonfiniteform standsin the dative.Both Lithuanianand Latvian usetheir activeparticiplesto form compound tenses,unlike most Slavoniclanguages(at leastsynchronically),e.g. Lithuanian buvai bedirb4s'I wasstartingto work', with the presentparticiple, esi dirbps,l have worked' (literally: 'l-am having-worked')with the past participle;compare Latlian esmugaidljis'l have waited' (literally: 'l-am having-waited'). Lithuaniancanalsouseits participlesasmainverbs.Thisoccursin indirectspeech, whereparticiplesreplacethe6niteverbsofthe originalstatement,andalsooutsideof direct speechwherethespeakerwishesnot to assumercsponsibilityfor the truth of what he is saying;this latter usageis alsocommonin fairy-tales.First, an example with direct and indirectspeech:if the teacher'sactualwords were: (56)
ti tingi mdkytis yoube-lazy-2SG study-INFIN 'you are lazyin studying'
with a finite form ol theverb t.rg€ti 'to belazy',thenwecould report this by saying: (57)
m'kytojas sAko,ked fi ngis m6kytis teacher-NoM say-3that you b€-tazy-PRES-PART study-INFIN 'the teacher saysthat you are lazy in studying'
with the presentparticiple t'rgis. As an independentsentence, one could say (58), withoutaccepting responsibility punctualdeparture forthe ofthetrain,by useofthe participle rieir4s; (58)
truukinis ilein4s llgiai septiit4 vdland4 tmin-NOM leave-PRES-PART prompt-ADVseventh-ACChourACC 'the train will leavepromptly at seveno'clock'
In Latvian. too, the activepastparticiplecan be usedto describea situationfor whoseauthenticily thesp€aker doesnot vouch,andassuchis particularly common in lliry-tales.as in (59).with prrriciplesEijis ^nd nonAcis:
4. Indo-Eurcpean languages (59)
r54
gdjis. ltdz Cejis young-SUPERL-NOMbrother-NOMwalk-PAST-PART until pie kadas nonacis Pils arrive-PAST-PARTat certain-GENcastle-GEN 'the youngestbrotherwalkedand walked,until he cameupon a castle' jaunakais
bralis
express doubt,it simplyremovesrcsponsibilityfor the This form doesnot necessarily authenticityofthe statementfrom the speaker'A separateform, with the sumx -ol (etymologicallya participialending,vr'hichis why it doesnot changefor personor uncertaintyabouttheveracityofastatement,asin (60)as number),is usedto express opposedto (6I): (60)
bagats vi!! esot he-NOMbe-PRESINFER ch-NOM 'he is supposedto be rich'
(6r)
bagats vi4! ir rich-NOM he-NOMbe-PRES-3 'he is rich'
4.j Indo-Iranian languages
4.3 Indo-Iranianlanguages ThecloserelationbetweentheIndic (or Indo-Aryan)languages and the Iranian languagesmeansthat thereis little doubt that they togetherform a single branchoflndo-European, with IndicandIranianastwo sub-branches. The precise dividinglinebetween IndicandIranianis moreproblematic, sincesomegroupsof languages(Dardic and Nuristani (or Kafiri)) form a transitionbetweenclearIndic andclearIraniari,but asthesetransitional languages arenot spokenin theU.S.S.R. (theyarespokenin theareawhereAfghanistan,pakistan,and India meet)theyneed not concern us further here. Indic languagesplay a small role in the linguislic composition ofthe U.S.S.R., but lranianIanguages aremuchmorecentral,in sofar as one Union Republiclanguage (Tadzhik)and a numberof languages of other autonomous areas, aswellasseveral languages ofsmallerpopulationgroups,belong to the Iranian subbranch;moreover,the U.S.S.R.encompasses a significant proportionof the Iranianlanguages spokentoday. Indic (lndo-Aryan) languages Onlytwo Indiclanguages arelanguages ofthe U.S.S.R., namelyparya and Romany,the greatmassof Indic languages beingspokenin northernIndia. Pakistan,BanglaDesh,Nepal,and Sri Lanka. In classifying the modernIndic languages itisnecessaryfirsttosplitofftwo groupsoflanguages which,asaresult ofa long period of separationfrom the other Indic languages,have developedrrrany peculiarities of their own, namelySinhalese-Maldivian (includingSinhalese, the language ofthemajorityofthepopulationofSriLanka(Ceylon), andMaldivian,the languageof the Maldives)and Romany (the languageof the Gypsies).The other Indic languages, spokenacrossthe north of the Indiansubcontinent, do not lend themselves very readily to classificatiou,sincedialectchainsrather than clear-cur language boundaries dominate thearea.In thepresent section, weshallbeconcerned only with Parya,oneof theseotherIndic languages, and Romany. Surprisingly, the discoveryof Paryaas an independent languageof the Indic subbranchdatesonly from the mid rg5os.The Paryaarecalledafgon (i.e.Afghan) by theirneighbours,reflectingthefact thar thehomeofthe Paryaimmediatelyprior to theirmoveto theirpresent areawasin Afghanistan, andthismisleading ethnonym servedto concealtheir presence.None of the generalworks on languagesof the U.S.S.R., including"/aNSSSR I (r966),mentionstheparya,andtheyarenot listed separately in anynationalityor language statistics. Theynumberabout r,ooo,and live in the Gissarvalleyand adjacentareas,stretchingfrom the suburbsof the TadzhikcapitalDushanbe westwards acrosstheborderinto Uzbekistan. All adult Parya.includingwomen,arebilingualin ParyaandTadzhik,someofthe menalso parya:knowledge speakUzbek,andall Paryachildrengrowup speaking ofRussian 43.r
This so-calledrelativemood in -ol is alsousedin indirectspeech,exceptwherethe personreporting the speechhas no doubts about the veracity of the statement ofspecialverbalformstocastdoubton theauthenticityof, or reported.Theexistence at least not take personal responsibilityfor the veracity of, statementslilks Lithuanian and Latvian typologicallywith Estonian and, more distantly, with severalTurkic languages(seepp. 'n and r25). SinceLithuanianand Latvianwereboth fully developedasstandardand written prior to the incorporationof theseareasinto the U.S.S.R.in I94o,the languages languageshavenot undergoneany radicalchanges,other than in vocabulary,asa resultoftheir integrationinto the Sovietsystem.Onedifferenc€that strikesanyone familiar with Lithuanian publicationsin Lithuania and abroad is that the former 'Chicago', spellforeignplacenamesphonetically,in Lithuanianform, e g. Crkag;i whereasthe latt€rusetheforeignspelling;in Latvian,useofthe phoneticprincipleis geneml.In theLatvianS.S.R.,thedigraphch hasbeenabolishedfrom thesp€llingof though words,beingreplacedby i: both occuronlyin loansfrom foreignlanguages, 'hymn, national anthem', (c)haoss someof theseare no longer rate, e.g. himna 'chaos'.In the U.S.S.R.the useof the letter for a palatalised r hasalsobeen f this reflects a variety of used instead; letter. b€ing abolished,the simple pronunciationwhere r and I are not distinguished.
r55
4. Indo-European languages
r56
4.3 Indo-lranian languages
r57
comesonly from the educationalsystem.Although the Parya are not distinct from their Tadzhik and Uzbek neighboursin appearanceor customs,they do maintain
language(usurlly that ofthe surroundingpopulation)with heavylexicalbor rowing from Romany - Romany vocabulary has been used to create secretlanguages,
their distinctness,often forming separate sections of settlements,and rarely marrying outsideofthe Paryacommunity. This is thereforea remarkablysuccessful
incomprehensible to the generalpopulation, by Gypsiesand alsocertainnon-Gypsy groups. For the U.S.S.R.,we have the omcialcensusstatisticsof r970.accordingto
instanceoflanguageretention,with completebilingualism,despitethe small sizeof the community.
which 7o.8'2, of the r75,335 Gypsies speak Romany as their native language. However, the censusstatislicsfor r959 indicated that only 59.3,1,ofthe r3z,or4
Linguistically,Parya is closestto the Central group of Indic languitgcs,which includes Hindi-Urdu, Gujarati, Punjabi, and Rajasthani as its best-known
Gypsiesregisteredin that censusspoke Romany as their native language.Such a large increascin the percentageof Romany speakersseemsunlikely, and it may be
members,althougl] Parya also has some featuresin common with the North-west group, including Sindhi and Lahnda. Its status as a languagedistinct from any of
that the Sovict authoritiesfind it no casierthan authorities in othcr countdes to eslablishrelillble statisticsconcerningtheir Gypsy population.
theseis clear,although the relativelysmall amount of work that has beendone on Indic languagesofAfghanistan doesnot makc it possibleto assigna preciseposition
Romany dividesinto threemain dirlects(or perhapsone shouldsaythreeRomany
to Parya within Central and North-West lndic as a whole. Some of the most distinctivelinguistic featuresof Parya, in relation to other Indic languages,are as follows. Phonetically,Parya has lost the so-calledvoicedaspirateseriesofplosives, replacingthem by unrspiratedplosives,voicelessinitially and linally. usuallyvoiced 'grass'.cf. Hindi g'aas,pabi 'elderbrother'swife'. cf Hindi intervocalically(e.g.*as aspjratesseemsto be an ongoing process, b?ab'it); lossofaspiration in the voiceless with
doublets for
many
lexical items. The
binary gender opposition
masculine/femininefound in the closely related languagesis retained,though in weakenedform, in Parya, in that there are many exceptionsto the traditional rules for genderagreement,preferencebeinggivento the masculineform; with predicative adjectives,non-agreeingmasculineforms with Icmininesubjectsare the rule.Pafyais one ofthe few modern Indic languages(along with Lahnda, Sindhi, and Punjabi)to 'his son" e.g. bela-so haveencliticpronouns.in Paryafor the third personpossessive, Like the other closelyrelatedlndic languages,Parya usesan ergativeconstruction with transitiveverbsin the perfectiveaspectonly, the subjecttaking the Postposition rlrl in Parya, however,the verb in this constructiondoes not agteewith the direct obiect, but remainsin the unmarked, masculinesingular,lorm, even though with intransitive verbs there is agreementin nulnber (and rarely in gender) with the subject. The fact that Romany, the languageofthe Gypsies,is an Indic languageis quite clear from the morphology and basiclexicolr,aLthoughthe precisepoint or points of origin of the Gypsies within India and the time of their migration(s) from there remain unclear. Equally diflicult to delermine is the total number of Romany speakersin the world. with estimatesvarying from halfa million to one million ln piut this is relatedto the similar problem ofdetermining the total number ofethnic Cypsies(estimatedat from one to two million), in part to thedilliculty in dcterrnrning the borderline bctween a speaker of Romany and a Gypsy speaking another
languages,sincethey are not mutually intelligible):Syrian (or Asiatic). Armenian (bo5a),and European. Mosr of the Cypsies in rhe U.S.S.R. are speakersof the Europeandialectgroup, especiallyas thc Armenian Gypsiesare iargelyassimilated linguisticallyto the surroundingArlneninn population.The Europetn dialecrgroup breaksdown further into a numbcr ol'subdivisions,corrcspondingin iargemeasure to the traditional area ofsettlement ofthe various Gypsy groups in Europe (Table 4.3).One chirfdcteristicofall EuropeanRomany is the presenceofa number ofloans from Greek, sinccCreece\{as a staging-postfor all the EuropeanGypsieson their journey from India.Theseincludelexicalloanssuchas rJrum.way.(Greek dromos ), and also thc numerals e,ri;i seven'. oxl.i .eight,. eri:i .ninc'. In addition. the nominative lblms of the definite article. masculineo, feminine e/j are borrowed from Greek, though nor rhe oblique lbrms. Eachofthe indivjdual Europeandialects is lurthcr characterisedby strong influence from the surrounding languagc, especiallyin lhe lexicon.though rlso in phonology, morphology. and syntax. For instance,thc Cnrpathiandialectsh:rvesuchloansfrom Hungarian as niaa .alreatiy', gondolin- 'to think' (Hungarian nrrir fmaar], gondol). The B:rltic dialects have borrowed a largenunrberof prehxes,and have vi.tually lost the definit€article.Thc Wallachian dialccts form sevcral noun plurals in -ur:r and its dialect variants, borrowed from Romanian -url. The Balkan dialects have replircedthe original future tenseby fl new lbrm usinga reducedform ofthe verb'to want'preposedto the main verb. c.g. Crimean kan-lieriv'l will do. cf. Modern Greek 0a na kij o. Bulgarian .sYeprirui, Romanian voi ftic.e[voj file], in allofwhich rhe nrsr word is a reducedforrn of lhe verb 'to want'_ As will be seenfrom Table 4.3, rhe dialecrsof Romany spokenin rhe U.S.S.R. do not form a homogcneousset,and are largelythe chanceresultof migration patterns and. especiitlly.frontier shifts.Most Ronlilny speakersin the U.S.S.R. are alsolluent in Russianor one of the other languitgcsof the surroundingco munity.Forthese reasons.JlonlilDy is nol uscd ils it wrillcn lanqulge or in cdLtcation.
4. Irldo- E uropea t langu ages -table
r58
4.3. European dialects of Rotnany
llaltic: Norlh Russian(rriskarom:i, xaladitkaroma) Latvian(lotfitkaromr): westernLatvia.Estonia CentralPolish(p6lSkafaldjikaromii) Laius(lajengerona): formerlyspokenin thevillageofLaius in easrernEstonia;all speakers of this dialectwerekilled by Nazi occupalionforcesduring the SecondWorld war Yugoslavia, Corman (sinli. sasitkaromi): Germany,France.Poland,Czechoslovakia, northcrn ltaly. Auslriai u few familiesin the U S.S.R (sSrvika romal): northernand easternSlovakia Crrpathian:Slovakian Hungafian(lngrikeromi): soulhernSlo!akia,norlhernHungary;therearesomespcakers aftcrtheSecondworld RomanyintheU.S-SR. asaresullof frontiershifts of Carpathian southernSerbia Balkan:jerlidcs:westernBulgaria.Macedonia. ursari:Romania.Moldavia romfo Crimetn(kcrernilika drindrrircentralBulgaria linduriri.zletiri. kckavjdri):Romania'Moldavia taae(subgroups: w.tllachidn: keLdardri: to mid-nineteenthcenturyon the Hungarian-Romanianlinguislicbordcr in the Austro-HungarianEmpire;nowwidespreadthroughoutEurope(includingUSSR)and alsoin Amcrica lovAri:lnanyEuropcancounlries(includingU S S.R.)and U.S.A. Bosna(Bosnia)and Hercegovina Yugosla!ia.especiaily €lurbeti: Ukrainian:Lcfl-BankUkrainian(sorvi):tJkrainceaslof the Dnieper,adjacentpart\ ol lhe R . SF. . SR . . voloxuja):Ukrainewcstof the Dnieper (plasttrnLrja, Right Bank-Ukrainian Fin'rish1finlikor6nma) kala) welsh (r'olscn6nge
43.2
Iranian languaEes
q.j
Indo-lranian
languages
r59
linguists,to the varietyofPersianspokenby a significantnurnber(up to
3j million) of Afghans.Also spokenin Tadzhikistanare Yagnob and the variouslanguagesofthe Pamir group: Shugn.Rushan,Bartang,Oroshor.yazgulyam, Ishkashim,and Vakh; ofthis group. Shugn.Rushan,Ishkashim,and Vakh are alsospokenin neighbouring areasof Afghanistan along the banks of the river pyandzh. In the centralarcas,alongthe long border betweenSovietTurkmenia and Iran and Afghanistan,Iranian languagesonly marginally encroachon Soviet territory. The exceptions are Kurdish. spoken by a small group ot Kurds in the region of Ashkhabad,and Beludzh,spokenby a small group ofsettlersin the neighbourhood of Mary. Both theseencroachmentsare ofcomparatively recentdate.Additionally representedin Turkmenia and in Uzbekistanare variousspeakersofpersian lrarner than Tadzhik) dialects. of which the fiost important are the so_calledlrani. descendants ofthe populatjon ol'ancicntMerv who were forcedto disperseafter the destructionof the city by the Emir of Bukhara at the end of the eighteenthcentury_ From a geneticpoint ofview. the Iranian languagesare traditionallydividedlnto a Westernand an Easterngroup, eachofwhich is further subdividedon a north south basis to give North-Western. South-Western.North-Eastern,and South_Eastern subgroups.The geographical significance ofthesenamesliesmore iD the distributron of forms of Old and Middle Iranian than in the actual location of the modern languages.For exampleOssete,which belongsto the North-Eastern subgroup,rs spoken in the Caucasus.which reprcsentsthe north-west of the present Irantan languagearea,and Beludzh.which belongsto the North-Westernsubgroup from a linguistic standpoint,is in lact located in the extremesouth-east. The two attestedfonns of OId Iranian are Old persian,in the inscriptionsofthe Achaemenian emperors of the sixth to the fourth centurjes 8.C.. and Avesran. representcdby the survivingportions ofthe Zoroastrian scriptures.From a dialect
Iranian Ianguagesare at presentspoken acrossa wide belt ofterritory stretching from eastern Turkey (Kurdish) to the Sinkiang province of China
pointofview, Old Persianiseasilylixedasthedialectofl-'ars,a southernprovinceof present-daylran, and belongs to the Soulh-Western subgroup. The lingursric
(Sarikoli) and the shoresof the Arabian Sea in westernPakistan (Beludzh) This terdtory consistsalmost entirely of uplands,and includesthe whole of the area of modern Iran. wherePersianand a !ariety ofother Iranian languagesare spokep,and
position of Avestan is more complex, but it is commoDly treated as trrnsjtional betweenthe Easternand Westerngroups.No pure form ofEarstIranian is avallable
ofmodern Afghanistan.wherethe officiallanguagesare Pashtoand Dari (a varietyof Persian). within the U.S.S.R.. lranian languagesare spoken in two maln areas the Caucasusin thewestand Tadzhikistanin theeast ln the Caucasus,the predominant Iranian languageis Ossete,though smallergroups speakTat, Talysh, and Kurdish The lattertwo languagesare alsospoken'and inthecase ofKurdish predominantly' oulside the U.S.S.R. Ir Tadzhikistan.the predominant languageis Tadzhik' with over 2 rnillion spcirkers The name Tadzhik is also applied' primarily by Soviet
to us liom the Old Iranian oeriod. The attestedforms ofMiddle Iranian (fourth/rhird cenruriesB.C. to eighrh/ninlh centuriesA.D.), on the other hand. are rather more diverse.To the North-Western subgroupbelonglanguagesspokenon the territory ofancient Media and parrnraro the south-eastofthe CaspianSea.Parthian is known from inscriptionsand ostraca found at the site of the ancient Parthian city of Nisa, in present-day Soviet Turkmenia. and from a few Manicheanmanuscripts.Median is known solelyfrorn loanwords and place-names.To the South-Westernsubgroup belongs Middle PersiiLn(Pehlevi), ir direct descendirnlof Old per.sianand the lirn,luaqeof the
4. Indo-Europeanlanguages
160
Sassanidemperorsofthe third to seventhcentu esA.D., againin the provinceof Fars. By contrastwith Median and Parthian,Middle Persianis exceptionallywell documented. Sogdian,whichwas For theNorth-Eastsubgrouptherearethreerepresentatives. spokenthroughout the extensiveSogdianempirecentredon Samarkand,is wellBuddhist,andChristiantextsofthe seventh Manichean, knownthroughnumerous in theterdtory occupiedby to theninth c€nturiesA.D., while Khwarezmian,located from thesecondto and inscriptions present-day Turkmenia,isattestedin documents the eighthcenturiesA.D., as well as in later Islamictextsfrom the eleventhto the fourteenth centuries.The languageof the Alan (Scythian) t bes, who once populatedan areaextendingfrom northernCentralAsia acrossthe northernshores of the Black Seaas far as the Danube,is, however,only sketchilydocumented. subgroupbelongSaka(Khotanese)and Bactrian,the Finally, to the South-Eastern former known throughtranslationsofSanskrit Buddhisttextsfound in present-day by Sinkianganddatedto thefifth to tenthcenturiesA.D., and thelatterrepresented second century A.D. and discovered dating from the first or an inscriptionofz5lines in excavationsat thesiteofthe greattempleofSurkh Kotal in northernAfghanistan. Returningto the Modern lranian period, which extendsftom the eighth/ninth centuriesA.D. up to the prcsentday, we find in certain casesa direct genetic relationshipbetweenthe modern Iranian languagesand the attestedforms of OId and Middle Iranian.PeNianand Tadzhik,for instance,areboth directdescendants of Old and Middle Persianfrom the South-Westernsubgroup,whilst within the North-EasternsubgroupOsseteis the sole survivalof the languageof the Pontic Scythianslrom the Black Seaarea,and Yagnob is ofparticular interestas a dir€ct twosubgroups, NorthTheremaining ofSogdian. continuation ofoneofthedialects Westernand South-Eastern,do not provide us with suchdirect rclationships. In full, th€ modern Iranian languagesgroup geneticallyas in Table 4.4 for It willbe theusualIranianistnameisgivenin parentheses. languages oftheU.S.S.R., ofall lour notedthat the U.S.S.R.is the only modernstatein which representatives subgroupsmay be found. The criteria distinguishingthe groupsare primarily phonological.For instance, West Iranian preservesthe Proto-lranianinitial voicedstops* b, *d, *g, whereas EastIranianhasthecorrespondingfricatives,e.g.Tadzhikbarodar,Yagnobviroot 'brother'. One of the characteristics of South-west lranian is the shift of initial prevocalicz to d, a.E.Kurdish zrin,'fadzhik don'to know'. A morphological the North-Easterngroup; the developmentof a regular innovation chamcterises 'foot', plulal poodoo-t, Ossetesrt 'head', -r, pluraf marker e.g. Yagnob pooda plural srr-re. of the We may now turn to a brief surveyof the individuallranianlanguages the order of Table following U.S.S.R., 4.4.
4,3 Indo-Innian
languages
16l
Table 4.4. Genetic classification of moden Iranian languages
North-WestIranian: Kurdish (Turkey, Iran. traq. Syria, U.S.S.R.) Tatysh(tati3i)(U.S.S.R., lran) Beludzh_ (baluai,balochi)(pakislaD,[ran, Afghanistan,U.S.S.R.,p€rsian culf) cilaki (Iran) Mazandarani(Iran) Paraci(Afghanisran) Ormuri (Afghanisran,pakisran) somedialectsof centralIran Soulh-WeslIranian: Persian(Iran, Afghanistan,U.S_S.R.) Tadzhik(to3iki)(u.s.s.R.) Tat (tati)(U.S.S.R.) Luri (Iran) Eaxriari(Iran) dialecrsof Fars (lran) North-EastIranian: (U.S.S.R.) Ossete Yagnob (iaynobi)(U-S.S.R.) South-EastIranian: Rushan(rolani)(U.S.S.R., Afghanistan) Bartang(barrangi) (U.S.S.R.) Oroshor (oroaori)(U.S.S.R.) Shugn(Juyni)(U.S.S.R.,Afghanistan) Yazgulyam(iazgutami) (U.S.S.R.) Ishkashim (iSkaSmi) (Afghanisran, U.S.S.R.) Sangleli(sangtiai)(Afghanistan) Zebaki (Afghanisran) vakh (waxi) (Afghanistan,U.S.S.R.,pakistan,China) Sarikoli (China) Munji (Afghanistan) Pashto(Afghanistan)
The number ofKurds living in the U. S.S,R. according to the r 97ocensusis 88,93o, of whom 87.6% consider Kurdish ro b€ their native language. This number is, however, only a minute proportion of the world,s total Kurdish population, €stimated at between 71and r 2 million by Kurdoev (r9?g: 2r). Acco.ding to Bakae., (r966t 25'7\,the distribution of this population outside the U.S.S.R. is-as foltows: Turkey (4 million), Iran (3i mi ion),Iraq'(2 million), syria (250,ooo).A basicdialect division exists between Kurmandzhi northem or nonh_western Kurdish spoken in Turkey, north-westernlran and the Iranian province ofKhorasan, northe;n Syria, and t he Mosu I disrrict ofrraq andsorani southern or centrar Kurdish, which itserf
4. Inclo-EurcPean languagcs
r62
4.-l Irtdo-lknirrl
ltnqurges
r63
dividesi!rlo two main variants:M ukri, centredon Mahabtd in Iran, and Sulaymani' centredon Sulaymaniyahin Iraq. The Kurdish spokenwithin the U S S R belongs
r 2,582accofding to the r 97o census,of whom a massive98.r '/u co nsider Beludzh their nativelanguage.The basicdialectdivision in Beludzhis betweenan Eastern(or
to the Kurm.rndzhi grouP.
Northern. North-Eastern) dialect and a Western (or Southern. Soulh-Western)
settled The Kurdish population ofthe U.S.S.R.itselffallsinto four main groups' and Azerbaydzhan' in Armcnia (and lhe Nakhichcvan A.S.S R )' Georgia' group The Kurds of Amenia 'rre the strongestand largest TurkmeDiarespeclively(37,486accordingto the lgToccnsus).and litcraturebasedon theArmenian variant
dialect.the dividing line beingthe strip occupiedby Brahuispeakersin Pakistan.'lhe
of Kurdish is publishedin Yerevan.The Kurds ofCeorgia live mostly in the environs area of of Tbilisi. whilst those of Azerbaydzhan occupy primarily the western Azerbaydzhanalong the border with Armenia Almosl all Kurds in Azerbaydzhan
written litnguagc.but this met wilh little success.Thc Beludzh population in the
know also speakAzerbaydzhan.even within the family. and many children do not are emigrants Ashkhabad' around mainly Kurdish. The Kurds ofTurkmcnia. living the from lran. probably sentii the sixteenthto eighteenthcenturiesto help defend and as northern bordersol the PersianEmpire All adults are bilingualin Turkmen' in Azerbaydzhanthe languageis not much usedby children ln the I93os'however' the Kurds ofTurkmenia used their own Latin scripl to publish mainly textbooks' Kurdish hasa long literaryhistory.datingback to the tenthand eleventhcenturies The original script was Arabic' which is still widely used(alongsidethe Latin script)
more archaic Westerndialect is the di lect of the Beludzh population in Iran rnd hencein the U.S.S.R. A modicum ofBeludzh literatureis publishedin Pakistanusing the Arabic scripl. In the U.S.S.R.,an atlempt was made in the r93osto introduce.l U . S . S . R . i s b i l i n g u a l i n ' l u r k m e n . w h i c h i s t h e l a n g u a g eo f e d u c a t i o na n d administration. In its widest sense.the term Persiancan be attachedto all the Ifanian dialects descendedfrom Pehlevi(Middle Persian) nd currently spokenfor the most prrl in Irirn (9 Io million), Afghirnistnn (perhaps 1j million). aDd Tadzhikistan (over z million). A prelirninarymain dialectdivisioncan be mnde betweena Westernand an Erstern group, with a boundrry near the centritldesertsof Iran: dillects ofeirstern Iran (Khurasan) arc thereforcto be classilicdtogetherwith AGhan Pcrsian(Dari) and Tadzhik. Westcrn Persiln (as opposed to Tadzhik) dialect sperkers are only sporadicallyrepreseniedin thc U.S.S.R..rnrLinlyin Uzbekistanand TLrrkmenrr:rl
$ s by Kurds outsidethc U.S.S R. Within the U.S.S R ' an Armenian-basedscript a 1945 by then in and by Latinisation in 1927 introduced in I92o. to be replaccd
I97o they nu'nbcred 2?.50r. ofwhom only 36.9"1,consideredPersiantheir natrvc language.F-orthe U.S.S.R..then, rvemay concentrateour discussionon Tadzlrik.
Cyrillic script.
Tadzhik is thc pledomindnl ldnguageol'thc Tadzhik S.S.R.,and ol'the 2, r 35.8113 Tadzhik in the U.S.S.R.98.5'X,haveTadzhik as their nrtive language.The Tadzhik
well as Talysh is spoken in the south-eastof thc Azerbaydzhan S S R ' as ( the contiguouslyin the lrlnian provinceofGilan According to Pirejko I966: 3o2)' and about 89'4oo' at in l93I estimated was S S-R. in the U total numberofspeilkers R also in Iran in I949 at 84.7oo.Thcmajorityof thcTalyshpopulation in the U S S in speaksAzerbaydzhan.which is the languageofschoolingand administration'and ethnic ccnsus statistics ethnic Talysh are not counted separately lrom lorm of Azerb{ydzhan.ln theearly I93osan attemptw:rsmadeto ilrtroducea written Talysh. but this attempt was soon abandoned the Beludzh is spoken predominantly in so-calledBaluchistan'which occupies southterritory ofpresenr-daysouth-westernPakistan(BaluchistanProvince)and easternIran. Outsidc this area,it is also spokenin Afghanistanalong the southern northborder with Pakisttrn.in the Pakistanprovincesof Punjab and Sind, in the in the and parts tndia of easternregionsof Iran (Khurasan and Slstan).as well as in coufltriesofthe PersianGulf Approximate numbers'as estimatedby Rastorgueva (r966: 323) are: Pnkistan(I million). Iran (600'000)'Afghanistan (2oo'ooo)'India (5o,ooo).tnd PersianGulf (to.ooo) Within lhe U S S R ' Beludzh is spoken by to havc settlersin lhe neighbourhoodof Mary in Turkmenia Theseare considered numbcr emigrlted fron north-easternIran around thc turn of lhc cenlury' and
S.S.R. also has substantial Uzbek (23'1,) and Russian (rL9'1,,,)minorities, and although bilingualisrris not widesprcadoutsidcthe mirin towns,it is possibleto find milny bilingual iLndeventlilingual Tadzl,iks. The inllucnceof Uzbek on the literary hngu:rgeand many dialectsis lilirly strong:see,for instance.the discussionofvcrbal forms and conslnrclions on pp. I77 8. ]'he Tadzhik of Tadzhikistln represent 76.1'2,ofthe tolal Tadzhik population of the U.S.S.R..mosl ofthe remainderliving in Uzbckistan(2 t 'rl,ofthe total).Tadzhik is alsothe nativeliLnguagcofcertain othcr smrll ethnic groups of Cent.al Asia, including the Centrrl Asian Gypsiesand the JewsofSaDrarkandand Bukhara in Uzbekistan.Il is lhe secondlanguageofspeakers of Yagnob and the va ous Pilmir languages.as well ns of many Uzbek. peoplesthe classicalliterature of Thc Tadzhik share with all Persian-speaking poclssuchas Rudlki(tenth ccntury),Firdousi(tenth elcventhcenturies).and Saadi (thirteenth century). as well as a host of later works. The divergerrceof modeln dialcctsfrom tirisclassicalstandardhas.however.asin ] riln. led to the need[or a ncw stlndilrd more suitcd to the cultural irnd economic needs of a newly lireriLte population. In lNdzhikistan. thc oulcomc ol'long discussionwas a linguistic cor)lcrcncchcld in Stalinabad(norv Dushrnbc). $hich cstlblishcd thc new norm tn
4. Indo-EuroPean languages
rb4
rg]o. An outstanding figure in this processwas the author and lexicographer SadriddinAjni(I878 t954) from Bukhara' and it is indeedon the northetn dialects ofsanarkand and Bukhara - the oldestcentresofTadzhik culture, though now ilr Uzbekistan - that the Tadzhik standard written languageis essentiallybased At present there ilre syslematicradio and televisionbroadcastsin Tadzhik in both journals The Tadzhikistan and Uzbekistan.as well as dozensol newspapersand cultural' and of technical, stream publishinghousesof Dushanbc producea steady educationalworks. anclthereis alsoa theatrewhich performsexclusivelyin Tadzhik The nameTat is sornetimesappliedgenerallyto communitiesspeakingan Iranian language in both Soviet and lranian Azerbaydzhan, which are predominantly
^
Turkic-speaking,butwillherebereservedforthelanguageoftheTatoftheUSSR' fi om the inhabitantsof ancientmilitary coloniesfrom southwho are
1.3 Indo-Iranian languages
r65
Dushanbe; some villages in the valley, however, are Tadzhik-speaking.In this century,however,therehasbeena continuousmovementofpeople from the yagnob valley into the more amenableVarzob and Gissar valleys, and into the capitirl Dushanbe.Accot ding to Xromov ( r 972:6). therewer.ea total ofabout r,5ooyagnob speakersin the Yagnob valleyitself,and about 9ooelsewhere.Due to the severityof the wintcr of r 97 r, however., allthc remainingspeakersofyagnob werecompelledto leavetheir horre valiey,and are only now gradually returning. Almost all yagnob speakersare bilingual in Tadzhik, which is the languageof schooling. The Pamir languagesare spokenprimarily along the valley ofthe river pyandzh and ils tributariesin thc Mountain-BadakhshanA_O. in Tadzhikistan.and also rn the neighbouringBadakhshanprovinceofAfghanistan. Only one pamir language, Sarikoli.is not spokenwithin the U.S.S.R.. speakersofthis languagehavingat some hme traversedthe Sarikol ridgc inro ChineseSinkiang. Another language,Old Vandzh (Vanji) wasformerly spokenin the Vanch valleywithin Tadzhikistan.but is now extinct, having been replacedalmost within living memory by a dialect of Tadzhik. Outsidc the Pamir area irself, Munji. which is spoken further south ir Afghanistan. is sometimesincluded within the group on linguistic rather thal1 geographicgrounds. Within the Pamir group. the Shugn-Rushansubgroupcomprisesfour languages: Rushan,Bartang.Oroshor.and Shugn.Rushan,with i1srelateddialect Khuf(xufi)is spoken along thc river Pyandzh on the Sovict side of the bordcr. and in the neighbouringareasofAfghanistan.Estimatednumbersofspeakersareabo ut I o,ooo in the U.S.S.R., plus about r,ooo r,5oo Khuf, and possibly about 3,ooo in Afghanistan,although this latterestimatedatesback to r 93 r and may be unreliable. Bartang is spoken along the river Bartang. a tributary oll the pyandzh bcated exclusivelywithin thc U.S.S.R., and has about z,3oospeakers.Oroshor is spokenin the Roshorv valleyat the sourceofthe river Bartangand its leederslthis is one ofthe leastaccessible regionsofthe Pamir. The number ofspeakersis estimatedat a little over 2!ooo.Shugn is spoken south of Rushan along the pyandzh. The estimareq number ol-speakersis aboul 2o,ooo in the U.S.S.R.. and across the boroer rn n lghanistan aboul r5.ooo 20.ooo. Ol the other Pamir languages.Yazgulyarn is spoken in the valley of the ri\,er Yazgulem,a tribu tary of the Pyandzh;the n umber ofspeakersis about r ,5oo 2,ooo. Ishkashim is spoken primarily in Afghanistan, where the number of speakersis
A O usedthe Georgianscript'but maintained.From I938to I954,the South-Ossete
about r,5oo. but has about 5oo speakersin the U.S.S.R.Relatedto Ishkashimare Zebakiand Sangleti( Sangliii).spokenlurther southand exclusivelyin Afghanistan.
then revertedto Cyrillic. The originzrlhome of the Yagnob is the isolatedupper valley ol'the river Yagnob' ()f' which runs betweenthc Zelavshanand Gissllrridgesitbout sixty lniles1othe north
I-'inally.Vrkh is spokeneasrof Ishkashimalong the pyandzh.Outsidethe U.S.S.R.. Vakh is spoken pfirllarily in Afgbanislan on thc opposite bnnk of thc pyandzh. thoush thcrc are also spclkers in the border.areas ol'all three ol Afghanlsran.
4. Indo-Euroqean languages
166
areto Pakistan,andChina.Overallnumbersareaboutzo,ooo,ofwhich 6,000-7,000 U.S.S.R. be found within the within the U.S S.R.,Tadzhikis the languageof For speakersof Pamirlanguages educationandadministration,andtheinfluenceofTadzhik,palticularlyin themore accessibleregions,is very strong. Tadzhik atso servesas the main languageof intercommunicationbetweenspeakersof distinct Pamir languagesHowever,the languagesofthe Shugn-Rushansubgroupare very closelyrelatedand speakersof theselanguagesreadilyunderstandone another.Shugn,which is the most widely asalanguageofintercommunication' alsoserves spokenofall the Pamirlanguages, Latin scriptfor Shugnin the rg3os The use a to introduce made and an attemptwas out. of this script has,howev€r,sincedied ofth€ U S S-R has Phonologically,themostmarkedshift in theIranianlanguages beenin the vowelsystem,whereold lranian opposedthreevowelqualities(i, u' a)' to oe' long and short,and two diphthongs(a/, aw), which lattermonophthongised than short more long (typically with vowel length oo in Middle Persian.Phonemic g the (e within languages lranian phonemes)is retainedin someof the smaller with Shugn-Rushangroup), but elsewherehasa strongtendencyto be lost, often qualitative redistribution,e.g. Persianneutralisesri and ee to i while lowering Middle Persiani to e, whereasmany Tadzhik dialectsmergelong and short i In some languagesthe length distinction has been replacedby one betweenstable vowels(articulat€dperipherallyto the oral cavity, with little allophonicvariation) and unstable vowels (articulated more centrally, subject to wide allophonic variation, and even loss in unstr€ssedsyllables);such an opposition is found in Kurdish,Talysh,Tat, Ossete,Yazgulyam,and Ishkashim'Onefrequert typological characteristicof lranian languagesof the U.S.S.R is the bunching of vowel phonemesin thehighbackroundedarea:thusTadzhik,for instance'distinguishesu (from Middle Persianu, uu), d (from oo), and o (from aa)' An unusualphoneme d in the KurdishofArme a' e g' distinctionis that betweenplainandpharyngalised 6Ar'sea' (cf. Sorani bal(i)r) versus6ii'front'. For consonants,againit is usefulto discussthe main innovationsrelativeto Old Iranian. with Persian,Tadzhik' and Tat occupyinga pa icularly conservatlve positionhere,apart from somephoncmesborrowedalongwith loansfrom Arabic: 'intelligence'The all dialectsofTadzhik, for instance,haveassimilatedq, e g' ag' of all EastIranian of thedentalaffricatesc, t is a definingcharacteristic development languages.Ishkashimand Vakh have developeda seriesof retroflexconsonants a frequentsourcebeingclusterswith r' givingrise distinctfrom thepalato-alveolarc' to oppositionslike Jot'supp€r', tor'avalanche'.Languagesofthe Shugn'Rushan group, together with Vakh, have dental fricatives, while these together with lshkashimdistinguishvelar from uvular fricatives(most Iranian languageshave
4.3 Indo-Iranian languages
16.l
only u!l]lars). Mare language-restricted developmentsare those of pholemic aspirationofplosivesin Kurdish (Kurmandzhidialects),ofdistinctivelabialisation of velarsanduvularsin Yazgulyam,andof phonemicallydistinctiveejectiveplosiv€s inOssete:in Ossete,manyoftheseoccurin wordsofCaucasianorigin,e.g.k'ere'flat loaf'from Georgian,ft'umal'malt beer'from Chechen,but also in nativelranian words, e.g. ent'oxun'to throw', and as equivalentsto the unaspiratedvoiceless plosivesin loansfrom Russian,e.g. p'ap'iros 'cigarette', The categodesfor which nouns may ioflect in the Iranian languagesof the U.S.S.R.areicase,number,gender,anddefiniteness or indefinit€ness. However,not all the languages exhibit inflectionfor all thesecategories. As in the mod€rnlranian languagesas a whole, there is little that remainsof the o ginal full declensional system of Old lranian, which involves eight cases(nominative, accusative, instrumental,dative, ablative, genitive, locative, and vocative),three numbers (singular,dual, and plural), and threegende$(masculine,feminine,and neuter). Instead of the old declensions,we generallyfind more analytic forms such as postpositionsor prepositions,and wherenominalinflectiondoesexist,it is asoften asnotaninnovation,resultingfrom theagglutinationofpostpositions, prepositions, andotherparticlesto thenounstheyaccompany.Theextentto whichthissecondary agglutinationhastaken placevariesconsiderablyfrom languageto language. Within the West Iranian group, the most analytic forms are found in Persian, Tadzhik,andTat, whichhavepreserved non€of theOld Iraniandeclensionsystemthis includeslossof grammaticalgender- apart from a relict plural marker used solclyfor a limited numberof animatenouns.This marker(Persian-rir, Tadzhik -or, Tat -ur) derivesfrom the Old Persiangenitivemarker -aanaam,whichit the early Middle Persianperiod, in the shape -aan, formed the regular plural of all nouns.ln themodernIanguages, however,it hasbeenoustedalmostcompletelybya differentsumx (Persian-iri Tadzhik -bo,'lat -(h)d), whoseorigin is probablythe collectivisingsuffix -dwa,the samesuffixwhich givesthe characteristic-t pluralsof North-East Iranian (seep. 160).Theseplural suffixesare the only true nominal inflectionsinthe threelanguages, attachingastheydo to thestemofthc noun.Other nominal sumxesattachto the rightmostelementof a nominal group, whetherthis elementis the headnoun or not, and arc thgreforemore akin to postpositions_ One suchpostpositionis thc so-called'ezafe',which automaticallyfollows any nominalgroupwhichis itselfmodifiedby anadjectivalornominalgroup. ln Persian andTadzhik,theezafe(-eand -/ respectiv€ly) is mostextensively usedin theliterary languages:alternativeconstructionsexistin colloquial speechand dialects.When used,however,(withexamplesfrom literaryTadzhik),it followsa noun modifiedby an adjective,e.E. xona-i surx'red house',or by an ordinal numeral,e.g. xoira-r patjdrr 'fifth house',or by anothernoun in a possessive construction,e,g. xona-i
4. Indo-EurcNan languages
168
padat 'father's house,or by another noun in an appositionalconstruction,e g' {ahri-duganbe'thecityofDushanbe'.Further modifierscanbe addedto a complex formed in this way, leading to a chain of ezafes, e.E. RESPUBLIKA-i '-fadzhikSovietSocialistRepublic'.EtymolSOVIETi-i SOCIALIST|-| to1ikiston ogically,theezafederivesfrom theOld lranian relativepronoun(Old Persian,iaa)' type ofconstruction. In Tat, it is restrictedto the possessive Thefirst (Persian and indefiniteness. Two furtherpostposiiionsmark definiteness -(r)A) -rA,Tadzhik -ro, Tat is rest ctedto d€finitedirect objects'and is alwaysthe 'the red hous€ final elementin any nominal group, e g. Tadzhik xona-i surx-ro (ACC)'. More accurately,this postpositionmarksa referentiallyprominent,rather than strictlydefinite,directobject(Comri€ I978):thus,in th€ Tadzhik text on page curtain (ACC)'is explicitlymarkedas l9I, the ooun phraseparda-e-ro'a calrtair. indefinite(-e, seebclow), and the suffix -ro impliesthat the referentof this noun in the discourse.This postpositionderivesflom the phrasewill recursubsequ€ntly Old Persianpostpositionraadl, indicatinggoal or direction,and is us€din some dialectsto mark indirectobjects.In somedialectsofTadzhik andin Tat, it is usedasa constructiol, alternativeto the ezafedescribed genitivemarker in a possessive above,and parallelingthat of Turkic languages(p. 78), e.g. Tat pijii|e xunii-ji 'father'shouse',literally'father-GEN house-3SC'. The secondpostposition(Tadzhik -e, Persian -i) simultaneouslymarks both 'ladzhik xona-i ofsyntacticfunction,e.g and singularity,regardless indefiniteness 'a red house'.ln Tat, it is replacedby the more analyticcombinationof the surx-e 'one' with a following invariantnoun 0e *itdb 'a book'), an alternative numeral.yt? that is also availablein Persianand Tadzhik, e.g.'fadzhik jak xona-i surx'a ted house'.Etymologically,the indefinitesingularmarkerderivesfrom theOld Iranian 'one'. numeral aYYa Within the Eastlranian group,the most analyticnominalformsare found in the nounsinflectfornumber,and in a limited group.In theselanguages, Shugn-Rushan -een in Rushan,Bartang,and Shugn,and way alsofor gender.The plural endings, -r?finOroshor,aregeneralis€d from the g€nitiveand dative/ablativeplural endings minine distinction, which is the masculine/fe and resp€ctively, of Old Iranian gender by internal vowel nouns of natural manifestedin a limit€d number of 'hen'),derivesfrom alternations(e.g.Rushankud'dog', krd'bitch', Cux'cock',Cax arenow by a processofumlaut triggeredbyendingswhich theOld Iraniandeclension revealed only be may butthis other, onegenderorthe lact belongto in lost.Allnouns andverbs.As far ascaseis adjectives, by patternsofaglgementwith d€monstmtives, concerned,nouns in all four languagesare invariant apart from a specialending -olaa which occursin a possessive constructionsimilar to that found in Tat and is and thc possessed is suffixedto the possessor, Tadzhik diat€cts.The ending -(.1)aa
4,3 Indo-Iranian languages
r69
precededby a demonstrativepronoun in obliquecaseagreeingwith the possessor. This pronoun replacesthe clitic sumx of the Tat and Tadzhik constructions,e.g. RushanpriC-aawaj dod (falher-GBN his house)'father'shouse'.Like the ezafe construction,which is not found in the Shugn-Rushan group,this constructioncan puc-aa be iterated, e.g. Rushat njiis-aa waj waj puc (president-GEN his son-GEN his son) 'the son of the son of the president'. Amongst the Pamir languages,Yazgulyamand Ishkashimare also to a large extentanalytic.Both languageslack genderdistinctions,but Yazgulyampossesses, in addition to the usualkind ofplural endings(-a0, -en, -elg,and -an), a special prefixl(e)-12(a)-whichmarksnounspreceded by thepreposition na'from',e.g.natwe6'from the box (ofcorn)'. This prefixarisesout ofthe agglutinationofa formcr preposition,with the samemeaningas na, to the following noun. Yazgulyamalso hastwo possessive constructions,one ofwhich is the ezafeconstructionbofiowed from Tadzhik. The secondinvolvesthe optional useofa genuinecaseending -ni -ai7aaofOld lranian,e.g.dod-lbi (smokederivedfrom thegenitivesingularending GEN smell)'the smellofsmoke'. The sameendingsurvivesin Ishkashim,but asan optional marker of direct objects,whetherdefiniteor indefinite.The only other nominal sufrxes in Ishkashimare the plural endings -o, tn, and -or, and the indefinitesingularmarker -ni, this latteridenticalin form to thedirectobjectsuffx, but deriving as in Tadzhik from the numeral 'one'. In possessive constructions, lshkashimusesthe postposition-noj'. gtok-nojavzuk (girl-CEN heart)'the girl's heart'. The remaininglanguages,whetherfroln the Westemor the Easterngroup, all make more extensiveuse of case distinctions.The distinction which is most widespreadand most typical of the lranian languagesis a distinctionbetweenan absolutecaseand an obliquecase,in which the absolutecasederivesfrom the Old Iranian nominative,whilst the oblique caseis generalisedfrom the Old lranian genitive,dative, ablative,or instrumental.In terms of function, the absoluteis characteristicallythe caseof predicatenominals,and the oblique is the caseof indirect and prepositionalor postpositionalobjects.The distribution of the two casesbetweenthemajorfunctionsofsubjectanddirectobjectmay,however,depend in a complexway on the type ofconstruction (ergativeor nominativc-accusative) and the categoryof denniteness and indefiniteness, as discussedbelow. From a morphologicalpoint of view, Talysh and Yaglob provide the most straightforward illustration of the absolute/obliquecase distinction. In both Ianguages, the obliquecaseendingis -r',both in singularand plural forms,although the ending is a reflexof the Old lranian genitivesingular -ahjaa. ln Yagnob, for example,we have &a/'house', kat-i 'house-OBl', kat-rt 'house-Pl-',and kat-t-i 'house-PL-OBL'. The absolutecaseis usedfor predicatenominals,subjectsand
+ Indo-Eutopeanlanguages
r70
indefinite objects in the nominative accusativeconstruction. and objects in the ergativeconstruction.whereasthe obliquecaseis usedfor indirectand prepositional 'Qosim's house'), construction( gosim-ika t in the possessive objects,for possessors for subjects in the crgative construction and for definite objects in the nominative-accusativeconstruction. The morphology of the absolute/obliquedistinction in Kurdish is rather more fusionalthan this, in particulargiventhe differentlorms for masculineand ferninine in thesingular.ln thesingular.the absolutecasehasno ending,while the obliquehas -i onasculine) or -rli(leminine) (the forms cited herc and below are from the dialect of Azelbaydzhan).This distinctionis seenmost clearlywhen the noun has the sumxed 'a merchant', oblique rbjr-dt-i, indefinite article -tk, e.g. absolute t'Jilr-dk a girl', oblique krCtk-i*-a. These suffixes derive from the Old Iranian genitive singular inflections -ai,r'aa(masculine a -stem) and -aa7aa(feminine
absolute kiClk-ri*
aa-stem),though the possibilityof separatingthis inllection from the stem by the indefinitearticleis an innovation.In the absenceofthe indefinitesuffix.the fernrnrnc oblique has the sane ending (e.9. kitTk-ii from kiClk), but for masculinesthe oblique is shown by umla uting the stem vowel, e.g. ltjlr
from t'rjrr; where the vowel
is not amenableto umlaut, absoluteand oblique caseshave the same form, e.g. si 'dog'. In the plural. thereis no genderdistinctionand the absolutecase hasthe ending -idri,e.g. sev-idii'applcs',although this is dropped where the number is expressed elsewhere,for instance in the verb, e.g- sev k'iit-lr:.'the apples fell', where -rt is the third person plural ending. The oblique plural ending is -rr. The distinction ol genderis maintainedin the Kurdish ezaleconstruction.The extent of usc of the ezafeconstruction varies ftom dialect to dialect. as does the preciseform itself.1'hedialectofAzerbaydzhan,for instance,doesnot usethe ezafe with adjectival modifiers. which simply follow the noun or nominal group they 'Sultan'slittle modify. e.g. kdt1k-c srtlt'enbul'uk (gi|l-EZAFE Sultan-OBl- little) girl'. In the dialect ofTurkmenia, on tire other hand, we find long chains ofezafes sinrilar to those found in Persian and Tad zhrk, e.g. hivcl-e nni cytl-i ind (frt'end'rny good cleverfriend'. The ezafeitselfagreesin EZAFE rrly-OBL-EZAFE good) number and gender with the precedingmodified noun, a reflex of its origin as a relativepronoun. In the Kurdish ofboth Azerbaydzhanand Turkmenia, the ezafe-t isusedwith femininesingularnouns.and the ezafes-e and -iareusedwith masculine singular nouns. Although the main casedistinction i11Kurdish is betweenthe absoluteand the oblique cases,the languagealso preservesthe remnants of a vocative case.The endingsare -o (masculinesingular), -e (fernininesingular),and -ao (plural), e.g. lrkk-o 'boyl', Zrnr,{-e'wife!',and kii'tk-no'girls!'. Many Kurdish scholarsalso treat as secondarycaseendingsthe three postpositions-rli (in Azerbaydzhandnd
4.3 Indo-Iranian
languages
r7l
Turkmenia -ic), -vd (in Azerbaydzhan-vd, in Turkmenia -vc), and -d;i (in AzerbaydzhanandTurkmenia -dr), whichareusedin conjurrctionwith th€ oblique case.Their mostcase-likefeatureis the factthat theyoccurnot only in isolation,but alsoin tandemwith a rangeolpr€positions.For instance,in thedialectofTurkmenia the prepositionsArc'to'combines with the postposition-ir, and thepreposition16 'in' with the postposition-dr, e.g.sdwaderwil-ic'to thedervish',,/t 1'ur-dr 'in the bag'.However,whenthenounis followedby modifiersin theezafeconstruction,the postpositionattachesto thefinalmodifer,e.g.wdmcLemrd) (in house-EZAFEmyOBL-LOC)'in my house'. Similarsecondarycaseendingshavealsoarisenin Vakh, for examplethe dative ending -ark and the ablativeending -er. Theseboth attach to the oblique stem, by thesuffix-rv in whichis thesameastheabsolute in thesingular, but distinguished 'to the woman', kpnd-er 'from the the plural, e.g. kerd'the woman', krrd-erk 'to thewomen',k end-ev-en'ftomlhe woman',kend-i!(t)' thewomen',krrd-rv-prk women'. Etymologically,the oblique ending -ev is probably derived from the dative/ablativeplural in Old I ranian,whereastheendings-r.k and -rr arisefrom the nominalmodifiersin agglutinationofpostpositionsto the precedingnoun. Because the nativeVakh coflstructionare preposedto the nouns they modify, the endings -erk and -er are, unlikein Kurdish, rarelydisplacedfrom the headnoun.The only exceptionsto this rule occur in the ezafeconstruction,which is borrowed from Tadzhikandrarelyused,andincoordinatenominalconstructions,whentheendings follow the linal noun only, e.g. ca diw-i safid-en(from spirit-EZAFE white-ABL) 'from the White Spirit', dilowar-atjaw nan-en (DilovtaFAND his mother-ABL) 'from Dilowar and his mother'. Vakh also possesses, in both singularand plural, the ending -r/-aj (from Old lratl'ian -ahjaa)as a definitedirect objectmarker;e.g. ftand-aj(singular)and kaad-av-aj(plural). The most innovativecasesystemis that ofOssete,which hasan agglutinative (eightinDigor),typologically muchmoresimilartothoseofthe system ofninecases neighbouringCaucasianlanguages.Table 4.5 givesthe appropriateforms for the Iron dialect. (The homophony of oblique and interiorlocative does not, predicate incidentally,applyto all paradigms.)The absolutecase is usedior subjects, apartfrom beingused nominals,and indefinitedirectobjects.whiletheobliquecase, with postpositions,alsomarksdefinitedirectobjectsand thepossessor in oneofthe e.g.madt ravdtd'mother's love'.The othergenitive two genitiveconstructions, construction uses the dative of the possessorand an oblique (i.e. possessive) pronoun,e.g. mad-enje revdtd. All thelanguageswithout exceptionpossess independentpersonalpronouns,and thesegenerally andenterintothesameconstructions showthesamecase distinctions .Lsfull nouns.Wherediscrepancies exist,thepronounsshowmoredistinctions than
4- Indo-European languages
4.3 Indo-Iranian languages
Tabla 4.5. Declensional fotms of .Ossete (Iron) ser 'head'
Singular Absolute Oblique Dative Directional Ablative lnterior-Locative E)(terior-Locativ€ Comparative Comitative
s5r ser-i sat-an s0r-me sor-0J S3T.I
ser-rl ser-aj ser-ime
ser-ta sar-l-r ser-t-tn s5f-to-m sar-t-eJ ser-t-r sar-t-rl sar-t-aj sar-t-ime
theflouns,asforexampleinthelanguages ofthe Shugn-Rushan subgroup,wherethe singularforms havean absolute/obliquecasedistinctionabsentin the nouns,e.g. Rushanaz'I-ABS'versusmu/mo'l-OBL', ru/ to 'you-ABS'versustaa'you-OBL'. Encliticpersonalpronounsmay be found in Beludzh,Tadzhik,Ossete,Yagnob, and marginallyin Kurdish. In function,theyareusedfirstlyaspossessive pronouns provide and an alternative construction to the one used for full nouns and independentpronouns. Compare, for example,the two Tadzhik constructions kitob-am and kitob-i man 'my book', the firstwith an encliticfirst-personpronoun -am and the secondwith the ezafeprecedingthe independentfirst-personpronoun mar. Secondarily,the encliticpronounsattach to verbsas verbalargumenK,and most typically as direct objects. In Tadzhik, again, we find the alternative constructionsdruam-al and.vaj-rodidam'I sawhim', thefirst with an encliticthirdpersonpronoun -a.land thesecondwith theindependentthird-personpronoun valr, markedasa definitedirectobjectwith the postposition-ro and pr€cediDg the vcrb. The smallestrangeof encliticpronounsoccursin Kurdish, which hasan isolated third-personsingularform-e usedasanindirectobject,andthewidestrangeis found in Ossete,whichhasencliticsfor allpersonsand all casesexcepttheabsoluteandthe comparatlve. The Iranian languages ofthe U.S:S,R.do not in generalpossess declinedrelative plonouns, using instcad constructionsinvolving invariant conjunctions. An exceptionis providedby Kurdish, which hasthe formsJb (masculinesingular),-1a (femininesingular),and Jbd (plural). The verb is without doubt morphologicallythe most complex of all lexical categoriesin thc modernIranian languages, includingthoscofthe U.S.S.R.Verbforms are basedprimarily on two stems,a presentstemand a past stem.However,
whereasthe pres€nt stem is a more or lessdiroct reflex oftho prescnt tenscin Old Iranian, the past stemderivesfrom a perfectparticiple ending in -ra (or augmentedfa-fta) rather than from any of the rcgular past tensesof Old Iranian. Much of the prescnt complexity in verbal morphology can be related to the fact that for intransitiveverbs,this padiciplehad an activeorientation,but for transitivev€rbs, the origntation waspassive.ln other words, the present-dayactiveforms oftransitive v€rbs in the tensesbasedon the perfect participl€ in -/a go back to passiveoriginals. As weshallsee,thisleadsto intriguingdistinctionsin theparadigmsoftransitiveand intransitiveverbs, Themostdirectleflexofthe originalsystemis foundinthe Kurmandzhidialectsof Kurdish (and hencein the Kurdish ofthe U.S.S.R.).The dialectwe shallillustrate hereis that ofAzerbaydzhan,in which thereare two classesofregular verb.In the first class,consistingexclusivelyoftransitiveverbs,the presentstemendsin -r?rand the past stem in -cnd, e.E. tris-in versustrs-rrd 'fall'; while in th€ secondclass,the presentstemendsin zeroandthepaststemin -i, 1b or -c.On theotherhand,thereis a sizableclass ofverbsfor which therelationb€twe€nthepr€sentaud paststcmsis not predictable, so easily for example*'ty (present)versus,khr (past) 'fall' and .{rt (prcsent)versusCr[d (past)'send'.The distributionof the two stemsis se€nmost clearlyin theindicative,wherethepresentstemisusedfor thepresentandfuture,and incidentally,ofaspectualdistinctions, thepaststemfor all pasttens€s irresp€ctive, perfect. suchas continuousor Someindicativeformsaretabulated,for thesingularonly, inTable4,6,anditwill iDmediatelybe notic€d that there are two distinct forms of conjugation.In the subjectiveconjugation,which is usedfor both transitiveand intransitiveverbsin tensesbasedon thepresentstem,but only forintransitiveverbsin tensesbasedon the paststem,theverbagreesin personandnumberwith thesubject.Theendings-rm, -i, and -A in the pres€ntale descendants of the regularperson-numberendingsof Old Iranian, whereasthe endings-(r)m and -6)i in the simplepast are in origin clitic forms ofthe yerb 'to be'. Simultaneouslyin th€ subjectiveconjugation,the subject assumes the absolutecase in both hansitiveand intransitivesentence types,and the direct objectis oblique.(The suffix -0)i which we seeattachedto the subjectin the pr€scntisnothing todowith the case-marking system,butis akind ofmood marker which helpsdifferentiatethe indicativeand subjunctivemoods.) In the objectivecoljugation, whichis usedfor transitiveverbsin the tensesbased on the past stem, the verb agreesin pe$on and number with the direct object. theabsolutecase, and thesubjectassumes Simultaneously, thedilect objectassumes the obliquecase,givingan ergativ€construction.It is this ergativeconstructionin which originatesfrom the reanalysisofthe passiveperfect transitivepastsentences participlein Old lranian as an activeconstructionin Kurdish. The copula in the
114
4. Indo-European languages Table 4.6- Indicative verb forms in Kurdish of Azerbaydzhan
(64)
-I -x weeta see-PERF2SC aSG 'you haveseen(him)'
A. Subjectiveconjugation I. Presenttense(intransitive) iiz-i dii-ltyll-m tfr-ji dii-hyr -i 6w-i dii-ltyil-ii 2. Presenttense(transitive) dz-i de-iin-rm ti-ji dii-lia-i ew-i de-lin-e 3. Simplepast tense(infansitive) iiz lryfili-m ti {rVili-ji iiw lryrlli B. Objectiveconjugation 4. Simple past tense(transitive) hndan liiz w\ tti icnd-i liiw lcnd
(65)
-j -x weeta see-PERF3SG 3SG 'he hasseen(him)'
'I work' 'you work' 'he wolks' 'I send' 'you send' 'he sends' 'I worked' 'you worked' 'he worked' 'he sentme' 'he sentyou' 'he senthim'
original passiveconstructionwould agreewith the subjectofthe passiveverb, and whenthis subjectwasreanalysedas a directobject,theorientationofagreementwas preselved.At the sametime, the original case-markingwas maintain€d,with the objectin theabsolutecase appropriateto its formerstatus,andthenewsubjectin the oblique (originallygenitive)caseof the passiveagent. Ergativeconstructionsin the transitivepast also oc{ur in Yagnob and Talysh. is not soexclusively However,in thesetwo languagesthepatternofverb-agreement orientedtowardsthe direct object.ln Yagnob, for instance,ageement with the directobjectis still maintainedin theperfectandplupefect, whicharetheonly forms from thepresert derivedfrom the -ta participle,thesimplepastbeingformed(rarely) in personandnumberderivesasin Kurdish from forms stem.This object-agreoment ofthe copula(in theexamplesbelow,thethird-personsingular-x). The subjectmay, in the verb by meansofclitic pronounsplacedbetween however,also beexpressed the stemand the obiect-marker:
(63)
43 Indo-Iranian languages
-m -x weeta see-PERFrSG 3SG 'I haveseen(him)'
rj5
These clitic pronouns, which might be treated as incipient subject-agreement marke$ on the basisof their boundedness to the verb stem,neve helessmust be omitted whenevera full lexicalsubjectis pr€sentin the sentence. Historically,they are a direct rellexof pronominalagentsin the original passiveconstruction. InTalysh,wepassonestagefurtherin theshift oforientationofverb-agreement in from objectto subject.The copulaisstill presentasa reflex, transitivepastsentenc.es bul in an invariant third-pelsonsilgular form which servesthereforesolelyas a tense-marker andnot asan object-agreementmarker. It hastheforms -e (simpleand past), (remote past), (past resultative be and baj subjunctive).The clitic pronouns are, however,further grammaticalised markers,in that they as subject-ageement can be usedwhen a full lexicalsubjectis present,and evenmove freelyabout th€ clause,being attachedto any preverbalmajor constituent.Sentence(66) below (6?){68) illustratethe second: illustratesthis fifft property,and sentences (66)
-d -e aj teme pas ekya he-OBL strike-PAsT 3SG SIMPLE-PAST my sheep-ABS 'he struck my sheep'
(67)
'em -e av vind he-ABSsee-PAST r SG SIMPLE-PAST 'I sawhim'
(68)
-em vind -e av he-ABS ISG see-PASTSIMPLE-PAST 'I sawhim'
particlesare also a typical feature of the Pamir Such moving subject-agreement groupoflanguages,wherenotonly thetransitiveforms(basedoriginallyon theclitic agentpronouns),but alsothe intransitiveforms(basedoriginally on clitic formsof thecopula)canoccurat a distancefrom theverb.In addition,in thelanguages ofthe Shugn-Rushansubgroup,the past stem (and the perfecrstem derived from it) preserves,in the caseof intransitive verbs only, a form of genderand number agreementwith the subject.An exampleof this agreementis providedby the verb srdoow'to go' in Rushan.The presentstemis invariant(saa(w)-or sa-),but in the
4. Indo-European languages
r76
paststemwe find two forms:sul and sat. The first oftheseis usedwhenthesubjectis masculinesingular,andderivesfrom themasculinesingularform ofthe Old Iranian participle*.lu-ta after the lossof the 6nal vowel.The form saf, on the other hand, derivesvia a processofumlaut from the feminineform *.lu-raa.This secondform is Turningthento theperfect stem,whichhasitsoriginin alsousedfor allplumlnouns. theaugmentedform of theOld Iranianparticiple(* -ta-ka), wefind threeforms: suJ (masculinesingular),s,3(femininesingular)and sal (plural).Weconcludeby noting like (69)below,verb-agreement with the subjectoccurs twice,once that in a sentence -ulr? (first-personsingular)and secondlyin the perfectstem in the moving particle (masculine singular)l (69)
az-um pa Xarar suj I rSG to Khoroggo-PERF-MASC-SG 'l (malespeaking)havegoneto Khorog'
Interestingastheseverb-agreement patternsare,it is probablytrue to saythat the greatesttypological interest of the Pamir languageslies in their case-marking systems,which have departed from the straightforward ergative pattern for transitive past sentences.In particular, Rushan shows fhe rare double-oblique system,in whichthedirectobjecttakesthesameobliquecaseasthetransitivesubject, whilstthe intransitive subjecttakesthe absolutecase: (70,
kitoob xeejt mu dum I-OBL this-OBL book read-PAST 'l read this book'
(7r)
jaa
pa Xarar sut he-ABSto Khorog go-PAST-MASC-SG 'he went to Khorog'
In Yazgulyamwe find theequallyraretripartitesystem,in which thedirect objectis marked distinctly from both the oblique caseof the transitive subjectand the absolutecaseof the intransitive subject: 02)
-tu wint mon ! I-OBL ACC you see-PAST 'I sawyou'
Oi
-em dari 6tr lod az I-ABS ISG into gorgego-PAST 'l went into the gorge'
4.3 Indo-Iranian languages
1't'l
In the remaininglanguages, with the lossofthe obliquecase-markingfor transitive subjects,the distinction betweentransitive and intransitive sentenc€types is essentially lost.In theUpperdialectofVakh, however,theobliquecasehasextended to intransitive past subjects, but only for the singular personal pronouns (LaSkarbekov I975): {74)
ma? taw-ej wind(a) I-OBL you ACC see PAST 'I sawyoul
(us)
maz rayd(-ej) I-OBL go PAST 'I w€nf
o6)
wuz fcc-em I-ABS go rSG 'I am going'
Otherwise,all subjectsarein the absolutecase,regardless of transitivityor tense.In Tadzhik(asin Persian),theergativemorphologicalsystemhasbeenlostcompletely, but thefirstpersonsingularpronoun mancontinues theoldobliquecase ratherthan the absolutecase. The most radical realignmentof the tense-aspect-mood systemis found in the northerndialectsofTadzhik (and,thus,in the standardlanguage).The impetusfor the semanticdistinctionsmade,and in someinstanceseventhe forms,stemsfrom strongUzbek influence.Theseinnovatoryforms are not found in other dialectsof Tadzhikor in Persian.Of the newnonfiniteverb forms,the most intercstingare the participlesin -agi, which have an Uzbek pedigree.When usedas attributes,they form part of a postposedrelativeclauseconstructionin which the agentcan be expressed €ither by meansof a full noun or by a clitic pronoun:
\'t7)
qaf xona ast kitob-i ahmad xa d-agi book EZAFE Ahmad buy PAST-PART in housebe-3SG 'the book bought by Ahmad is at home'
(78)
-am -ro maktub-i navilt-agi ba qutti-i ICttET EZAFE Writc PAST.PART ISG ACC iN bOX EZAFE -am PoCTA andoxt mail throw-PASTrSG '[ threw the letter I wrote into the mailbox'
Whenusedpredicatively,however,in conjunctionwith suffixedlorms ofthe copula, they form part of the presuppositional mood:
4. Indo-European languages \79)
r78
-omad-agi -and me DELEGAT-ho pagoh delegate PL tomorrow CONT come PRESUP 3PL 'the delegatesmust be coming tomonow'
As can be seenfrom this example,the closestequivalentforms in Englishinvolve epistemicmusr. The inferentialmood is likewisea featureofthe northerndialects,and is basedon perfectformsofthe verb,characteristically formedby suffixingthecopulato thepast geru[d. The perfectitself(navidt-a-am)canbelongeitherto the indicativeor to the inferentialmood.In function,the inferentialmood is usedwhenthe speakerwishes to indicatethat hehimselfhasno directevidencefor the assertionaboutto bemadel he haseitherheardsomeoneelseasse it or he has inferredit indirectly from the surroundingsituation: (8o)
-ast rahim dar xona kor kard-a istod-a bud-a Rahimin houseworkdo GERstandGER be GER 3SG 'Rahim, it seems,was working at home(at that time)'
The verbform in (8o)usestheauxiliaryverbsbud-a, 'to be'and r'stod-ar'tostand', as well as a typical compoundverb comprisinga noun (,kor'work') and a semanticallyweakverb( kard-ar 'to do'). Inferentialformsbasedon theperfectmay also be found in a numberof Pamir languages. With respectto voice,passiveverbformsin the Iranian languages ofthe U.S.S.R. are usually formed analytically by means of auxiliary verbs and participl€s. However,severallanguageshavean extensivesystemofmorphologicalcausatives, formedby suffixationor internalvowelmodifications.An exampleofthe former is thesuffix-(r)v(present)/-ovd (past)in Vakh, whichgivessuchpairsasCem-'enter', 'introduce'.Intemal vowelmodificationsrelatecausativeand Carm(i)vl Carmovdnoncausative lormsin thelanguages ofthe Shugn-Rushan subgroup.In Rushan,for instance,we find pairs like dud (masculinepast stem)/dad(femininepast stem) 'burned (intransitive)'versus0eewt(inva ant past stem)'burned(transitive)'. The basic word order of the Iranian languagep of the U.S.S.R. is subject-object-verb(SOV).However,this orderis rarelyrigid, and it is possibleto find complementclausesand definitedirect and indirect objectspostposedto t-he dght of the verb.Topicalisationof definitedirect and indirectobjectsto sentenceinitial position also occurs. Althoughthebasicword orderisSOV,theIranianlanguages ofthe U.S.S.R.arein While it is generallytrue that modifying many respectsnot typical SOV languages. expressionsprecedethe constituentsthey modify, this is not the cas€in those theezafeconstruction in nominal languages like Tadzhikand Kurdishwhichpossess
4.4 Armenian
r'19
groups-The patternthenis that only demonstrativ€s and numeralsprecedethehead noun, while all other adjectival and nominal modifiersfollow. Simultaneo.rsly, languageslike Tadzhik possessalmost exclusivelyprepositions rather than postpositions,and postposedrather than prepos€drelativeclauses.However,one also finds languageslike Ossete,which conform more to the norm, with a highly developedsystemof postpositions,or languageslike Vakh, which have a mixed systemof postpositionsand prepositions. 4.1 Armenian Armenian (nativename:laj '(an) Armenian') forms an independent branch of the Indo-Europeanfamily. When lndo-Europeanistsfirst approached Armenian in the nineteenthcentury,it was for many yearsconsideredan lranian language,but this erroneousimpressionstemmedsolelyfrom the largenumberof Iranian loans,reflectingclosecontactbetweenspeakersof Armenian and various Iranian languages. in addition to thelr The term Armenianrefersin fact to threecodifiedlanguages, numerousdialects.ClassicalArmenian(grabar)refersto theold language,for which a specialscriptwas,accordingto tradition, inventedby Mesropin the frfth century A.D.; this script still servesthe modern languages.Modem WesternArmenian developedinthosepartsoftraditional ArmeniathatarenowinTurkey, andrefersto the languageofArmenians in Turkey and of6migr6 communitiesin many Middle EasterncountriesandtheWest.Modern EasternArmenianisthelanguageofSoviet Armenia,and it is primarily with this standardlanguagethat we shallbeconcerned here. Thereare 3,559,r5rethnicArmeniansin the U.S.S.R.accordingto the I97o census,9 r.4'%ofwhom haveArmenianastheirnativelanguage,despitethefactthat ArmeniansarescatteredacrossseveralUnion Republics:only 6z7olive in Armenia, rz.77oin Georgia,and8.4%in the R.S.F.S.R. The with r3.6%in Azerbaydzhan, Armenian S.S.R.,however,is ethnicallythe most homogeneousUnion Republic, Armenian(Russians makeup only 2.7%). 88.6%ofits populationbeingethnically Within Armenia, 99.9% of ethnic Armenians have Armenian as their native language,making Armenia alsovery homogeneous linguistically,Armenianbeing literature thepredominantlanguagcofeducationand aswellasofdaily intercourse. In addition to the Armenian S.S.R.,ethnic Armeniansalso form a substantial majority (8o.5%) of the population ol the Mountain-KarabakhA.O. in Azerbaydzhan.The numberof Arm€niansoutsidethe U.S.S.R.is estimatedat r+ million,thoughnot all of thesespeakArmenian. As mentionedabove,the alphabetdevisedby Mesrop(with somemodifications introduced in thetwelfthcenturv)isstillusedfor bothvarieties ofmodernArmenian.
4. Indo-European
languages
r80
In the U.S.S.R..however,a slightorthographicreformwasinstitutedin theuseofthe letters transliteratede and ee, o and oo for ClassicalArmenian: exceptwordinitially, the membersof eachpair have mergedphonetically,and only thc c, ..) symbolsare usedin EasternArmenian;word-initially,original e, o becameje, vo, while original ee, oo becamee, o, and the four orthographicsymbolsmentioned abovenow representje, e, vo, and o, respectively, in word-initial position. The vowel systemof EasternArmenian has a, e, i, o, u, and a. The schwais largely predictable,servingto break up what would otherwisebe impermissible consonantclusters,although there are minimal pails, for instanceinvolving the suflixeddelinitearticle-a,e.g.grrk'book', grrk-e'thebook'. Stressis regularlyon the lastvoweloftheword,unless thisis schwa. Themainfeatureoftheconsonant system ofEasternArmenianis the three-wayopposition,for plosives(includingaflricates) betweenvoiced(e.g.b), voiceless ejective(e.g.p'), and voiceless aspirate(e.g.p). (ln WesternArmenian,onlya two-waydistinctionFp is madein manydialects, with 6 p', ard p to b and p.) The presenceof a correspondingto Classical/Eastern distinctive series ofejectives is unusualfor an Indo-European language, andit can hardly becoincidentalthat the Indo-Europeanlanguages with ejectives(Armenran and the Iranian lalguage Ossete)are spokenin the Caucasus,where Caucasian languageshavea distinctiveejectivesedes.Until recently,it wasassumedthat the ejectivesin Armenian are due to the influenceof Caucasianlanguages,but more recentlyit has beensuggestedthat there is some internal evidencein favour of reconstructinga distinctive ejective serieslor Proto-lndo-European.Another unusual phonemic distinction is that between two rhotics, symbolised t (approximant)and f (tap or trill): the latter derivesin most instancesfrom ProtoIndo-European*sr, also from *r before *n. In the modern languages,the two rhotics havea tendencyto merge. Oneofthe maintypologicaldifferences observablebetweenClassicalandModern Armenian lies in the declensionof nouns:ClassicalArmenian was still to a large extentfusional,whereasin the modernlanguagesthesegmentability ofnumber and casemarkingis transparent(though,undertheinfluenceoftradition, classicaliorms do sometimesfind their way into the modern languages).This can be seenby compa ng somecaseformsof ba, 'word, thing' in ClassicalArmenianand Modern EasternArmenian(Table4.7).In ClassicalArmenian,only the instrumentalplural could conceivablybe segmentedinto separatemarkersof caseand number.The modern languages,especiallyEasternAri'nenian,still have tracasof the different declensionalclassesthat Armenian inherltedlrom Proto-lndo-European,e.g. the genitive-dativeof ba, is bar-i, while that of mard'man' is mard-u. Armeniandoes not, however,retain genderdistinctions,nor do attributesagreewith their head. between nominative andaccusative for EasternArmenianhasanovertdistinction
r8r
4.4 Afmenlan 'lable
4J. Declensional forms of Armenian
ban 'word. thing'
Modern Eastern Singular Plural
Classical Singular Nominative GenitiveDative
ban
i ban-ee ban-iw i ban-i
Instrumental Locative
ban-k
i ban-ic ban-iw-k ban-s
ban ban-r
ban-um
ban-er
ban-er-ov ban-eFDm
personal pronouns only, although for definite human noun phrases the genitiveiative servesto expressthe direct object: otherwise,nominative and accusativeare identical:
(8r)
Jes
t esa
kayak-a
I-NOM see-AOR-rSG town DEF 'I saw the town' (82)
menk
lav
dasat'u-ner unenk
we-NOM good teacher PL have-IPL 'we have good teachers'
(83)
-n t'esa a:ak'ert'-i pupil CEN-DAT DEF I-NOM see-AOR-rSG 'l sawthe pupil'
jes
ergativity, namelytheuse Armenianhasa smallamountof morphological Classical genitive (rather for subjects in thecompound than the nominative) transitive ofthe perfect; both modern languagessimply use the nominative herc (but see the discussion belowfor the useofthe genitiveassubjectofa participlein theparticipial relative clause construction). Genitive and dative are not distinguished morphologicallyfor nouns.althoughonly in dativefunctioncan this form take the sumxeddennitearticle. A three-waydeictic systemhas survived from ClassicalArmenian, as in the sa 'this(nearme)',da 'that(nearyou)',,a 'that EasternArmeniandemonstratives (nearhim)'. In Classical Armenian,the sumxeddennitearticleshoweda similar 'the -s (nearme)',-d'the(nea.you)',-rl 'the(nearhim)',but in three-way distinction: possessrve asthecorresponding themodernlanguages thcschavcbeenreinterpreted
4. Indo-European languages
4.4 Armenian
r82
andasa girk-os'mybook'; -r/-e servesboth asa third petsonpossessive sumxes,e.g. generaldefinitearticle. The verbal systemof Eastern Armenian shows a considerableshift towards analyticforms(usinga nonfiniteform ofthe lexicalverb and th€ finite copulaasan auxiliary) relativeto ClassicalArmenian,and evenrelativeto WesternArmenian. in EasternArmenianis the aorist: greci'I The only simpleindicativetense-aspect 'he, 'you (SG) grec she,it wrote', grecDk '$/ewtote', grecik wrote', wrote', grecir 'you (PL) wrote', grecin 'they wrote'. The presentand impefect subjunctives (continuing,formally, the ClassicalArmenian indicatives)are alsosimple:present grem '[ maywrit€', g.es, gri, grenk,grek, gren; imperfectgrei'I may havewritten', greir, grer, greink, greik, grerr. The presentand imperfectindicative,howevet,use a nonlinite form in -ur, (etymologicallythe locativeofa verbalnoun) and the verb 'to be' asan auxiliary'.prcsentgrum em, es,e, enk, ek, en, impetfectgrum ei, er, is er, eink, eik, er-n.One of the waysof forming the future and future-in-the-past (etymologically genitive g.e1u infinitive), form th€ ofthe similar,usingthenonfinite e.g.grelu em'lwillwrite', grelue/'l would write', while theotherssimplyprefix k'o 'I 'l or pltt to the subjunctive,e.g.k'elp'it'i grem will write', .kb/p'rl'igrei would write'.The formswith p'il1 can also mean'must'.(ln WesternArmenian,the correspondingforms with g', express the present and imperf€ct indicative respectively, while thosewith bidr function as future and future-in-the-past.) The imperativeis anothersimple verb form, as in secondpersonsingular gl' 'writ€!'; otherimperativeformsarebofiowed from other paradigms,e.g.thesecond personplural from theaorist:g.ecek'write!'.Othernonfiniteformsarctheinfinitive, 'to read'; the past participle in -e,1,e.g. grel'havjlry e.E.grcl 'to write', k'ardal 'having rcad',the gerundgtelis,k'ardalis(formedby adding -rs w.tten', k'ardacel to the irfinitive), the pres€nt pafiiciple groy, k'ardacoy, and the resultative participlegrac', k'ardacac'.'fhe perfectand plupefect havethe forms grel ern 'I 'I have (apparently)written', Ire,l ei had (apparently)written'. The resultative -ac', participlehas the sumx and is usedto form a compoundtensewith strictly 'I resultative(stative)meaning,e.E.grac' em am in the state of having read'; in Modern EasternArmenian,for transitiveverbsthis constructionexistsonly in the passive (KozincevaI975),with thesumx-v aftertheroot,e.g.g.vac'e'it hasbeen written, it is written', grvac' er 'it had beenwritten, it was written'. The last-mentionedforms also show that Armenian has a synthetic, and productive,passivevoiceusingthesumx-v, e.g.ptesentgrvum e 'it is beingwdtten', aorist givec'it waswritten'. The syntheticcausative,with the suffix -cn, is formed particularly from intransitiveverbs,e.g. vazel'to r'ur]', vazgct€l'to causeto run', with theinflnitiveofthe lexicalverb whiletransitiveverbspreferananalyticcausative and the conjugatedauxiliary 1'a1'to give'.
183
In syntax,modernArmenianhasmanyofthe propertiesofa subject-object-verb language,though not rigidly so. Lest this be consid€reda remnantof the possible SOV natureofProto-Indo-European,it shouldbe notedthat modernArmenranrs actually more SOV-like than the classicallanguage,probably reflectirlgthe continuedsymbiosiswith Turkish. In finite clauses,basicword order fluctuates between subject-objectverb and subject verb object. The focus position (includingthat for interrogativepronouns,and for the negativeparticl€ C'not') is immediately beforc the finite verb. The copular auxiliary usually follows the nonfiniteverbform, asin the examplesgiv€nabove,butwill precedeit ifrequiredto follow a focusedconstituentimmediately,e.g. C-emgrum 'I do not write', rtC es grum 'what do you write?'.Demonstmtives,numerals,adjectives,and adnominal genitivespredominantlyprecedetheir headnoun.Although both prepositionsand postpositionsexist,the latteroutnumberthe former,which is a completereversalof the situation in ClassicalArmenian. Subordination can be expressedby means of both finite and nonfinit€ constructions,though the former predominate,and many frniteconstructionsare not replaceableby nonfinite equivalents.There are two equivalentsof the subordinatingconjunction'that', namely,/e and vo., thebasicdiflerencebeingthat vor is preferredfor factiveclauses(wherethe speakerpresupposes the truth ofthe propositionexpressed by theclause)(Abeghianr 936:r 44).This formaldistinctionis found otherwisein languagesof the Balkan area,cf. Serbo-Croatnonfactiveda versusfactive Cao. The variationbetweenliniteand nonfinitemeansofexpressingsubordinationcan be seenparticularlyclearlyin relativeclaus€s(Hewitt I978).The finite construction usesa clause-initialrelative pronoun, identical in form with the interrogativ€ pronoun,and this constructioncanbeusedfor relativisingon allconstituentsofth€ claus€;the relativeclausefollowsits head.The participialconstructionplec€desits and canbeused- in head.The participlein -ac'herehasrelativepasttime reference, its activeform evenwith transitiveverbs for relativisingon subjects,directobjects, and also certain adverbials,e.g. locatives.The following exampl€ illustrates relativisationon a dir€ct object: (84)
jes vayuc k'ardac-ac' gitk -a suren-i SurenGEN read PART book DEF I lone-time be-PRES-ISG k'adac-el lead PAST-PART 'it's a long time sinceI read(literally:haveread)the book that Suren read'
Note that the subjectof the participlestandsin the genitive.
4. Indo-European lanEuages 4.5
r64
Germanic languages Two Germanic languagesare spoken by sizablepopulations in the
4.5 Germanic languages
r85
a largenumber are ordinary words having no particularconnectionwith the Jewish 'advice'. Hebrew Aramaic words were taken into way of life, e.g. io hour'. dTie
U.S.S.R., German and Yiddish. The l97o census recorded I,846,3I7 ethnic Germans(which may concealsomeunder-reporting),meaningthat there are more
Yiddish in their Ashkcnazicpronunciation:in Israel,thc current pronunciationof
Germans in the U.S.S.R. than representativesof the following Union Republic
Middle Ages, so that the pronunciation of Hebrew Aramaic words is often rather
nationalitiesiTurkmen, Kirgiz, Latvian, Estonian.Languageretentionamong the
diflerent in Yiddish and Israeli Hebrew, e.g. Yiddish milx6mes,lsraeli Hebrew
SovietGermansis not particularlyhigh, the reportedfigurebeing66.8%,but this still
rlrlxanrtjIwars'. When nounsweretakerlinto Yiddish from Hebrew- Aramaic, they
leavesmore nativespeakefsofGerman than ofEstonian. Nearly all the Germansin
wereusuallytakcn alongwith theirdistilctively Hebrcw plural formations.so that in
the U.S.S-R. are thedescendantsofcolonists invited into the Russian Empire, first by from Saratov.Beforethe SecondWorld War. most SovietGermanscontinuedto live
modeln Yiddish such words have plural formations using suflixes or vowel alternations that are not found in German, e.g. guf body'. plural gifrr, tes 'miracle, plural al'sin- Hebrew Alamaic verb morphology has not had a similar
in this area, and they had their own autonomous republic, the Volga-German A.S.S.R., with its capitalat Engel's (named after Friedrich Engels). With th€ Nazi
eflecton Yiddish, sinceYiddish usesthe borrowedDoun with iri6n to have'or zaln 'to be, e.g. xlsenc h6bn to get married', literally mcans 'to have marriage'
invasionofthe U.S.S.R.in r94r and the imminent offensivein areasnear Engel's,it deport ethnic Germansto areaswhere they would be unlikely to have any contact
The other main forejgninfluencein the developmentofYiddish was from Slavonic languages.Ashkcn:rzicJews moved easlwards as pnrt of the general German expansionduring and ailer the Middle Ages,while further eastthe liberal policy on
with the invadingarmies.Ethnic Germanswere moved to Kazakhstan,for the most
religioustolerationpraclisedby the PolishRepublicencouragedmany Jewsto settle
part, wherethe vast majority of them remain to this day. Like the Crimean Tatars,
thcrc. In the areaspopulatedprimarily by speakcrsofSlavonic languages,Yiddish underwenl a strong Slavonic influence in vocabulary. and also in phonology,
Catherinethe Great in the r76os,to settlethe vacant steppearea acrossthe Volga
was decided for security reasonsto dismantle the Volga-German A.S.S.R. and
and unlike the otherethnicgroupsthat weredeportedfrom the Caucasusand nearby areasin theearly r94os.the SovietGermanshavenot beenallowedto resettlein their former home. In Kazakhstan there are many villageswhich are entirely or almost entirelypopulatedby Germans,and German is usedin the schoolsystem.As part of the rapprochement between the Federal Republic of Gennany and eastern Europeancountries,many Soviet Germanshave taken advantageof the increased possibilitiesfor emigration to the FederalRepublic. Yiddish is the traditional languageof the AshkenazicJews,i.e. thoseJewswho inhabited German-speaking arcas during the Middle Ages and their descendants, and who speaka languagederiving,in its basicstructureand vocabulary,fiom the Centraldialectsof Middle High German.In termsofthe subsequentdevelopmentof the native German component,Yiddish does not stand particularlyapart ftom the general mass of modern German dialects, and is indeed much closer to modern standardGerman than are, for instance,many dialectsofSwitzerland.Ho\'r'e!er,in terms ofthe influence ofother languagesYiddish is markedly diflerent from German, to the extentofbeing incomprehensible to speakersofGerman (or any ofitsdialecis). One of the main differences is that Yiddish has absorbed a large number of vocabularyitemsfrom Hebrew(or, more accurately,Aebrew and Aramaic, two very closelyrelatedScmiticlanguages),the religiouslanguageofthe Jewishcommunity. Although many of these are words dealing with aspectsof Jewish religion and custom, such as bar- micve'Bar-Mrlzv ah' (coming-of-age ceremony for Jewish boy),
Heb|ew is basicallythat ofthe SephardicJews,i.e.thosewho inhabitedSpainin the
morphology (especiailyderivational rrorphology) and synlax- Many everyday 'duck'. cf. Polish words are ol Slavonicorigin, includingconcretenouns (e.g-,t:iCke 'father', cl'. Czech lafa), verbs (e.g. kaczka lkatkal), kinship terms (e.g. lrite get lost', cf. Polish bladzit lbloniCl), and other parts ofspeech (e.9. xoi'although . cf. Polishc'hoi Ixoct]).The developmentofphonemicallydistinctive palatalisationis attributable to Slavonicinfluence,e.g. riarie'children'snurse' (cf. bl6nien'to
Polish nranra I iata ]). as is the existenceof affricates like j (cf b./tirjen above). In morphology, the Slavonic feminine sullix -ka (Yiddish -ke) tends to replacethe earliersuffix -r (cf. German -in), e.g. tnijder'Lallor' (of German origin, cf. Cerman Schneider), feminine .sn;!der*e (cf. German Schneiderin). ln Yiddish. general (yes no) questionsare lormed by prefixingci, cf. Polishczy I Cl], to the sentence, e.g. ci hot er gegesn has he eaten? (cl. German hat er gegessen?.Polish czy (on) pojadl?). Anothet syntactic idiosyncrasy of Yiddish that is attributable to Slavonic influenceis the useofthe reflexivepronoun zrx, originally third person(cf. Cerman sr'cfi). for all personsand numbers (cf. Polish srg, and likewise in all Slavonic ' langLLagcs). e.g. ixz,ezrx I seemyself (Gennan /clr sere m ich: Polish Aa) widzF sie\. Thc policy ofthc RussianEmpire wirsto forbid Jewsto settlethere.but with the p.lrtition o f Poland in r 772the Ernpirefound itselfwith a Jewishpopulation ofsome ninc nrillion. Anti-.lewishdiscriminliion was practisedwidely (e.g.\'ith regard to possiblcr-csirlcnce. ccluciltion.el11ploymerlt). itnd pogromswere at the very leastnot
4. Indo-European Ianguages
r86
preventedby the authorities.The Revolution promiseda fairer deal for Jews,as for other ethnic groups, and many Jews took an active part in the Revolution. The readjustmentof the Soviet Polish frontier by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. with western Ukraine and western Belorussia being ceded to Poland, substantially reducedthe number ofJews in the U.S.S.R.,but the Sovietexpansionfollowing the pact with Germany reversedthis. giving a Jewishpopulation in the non-aggression U.S.S.R. of some five million. During the Nazi occupation of large parts of the westernU.S.S.R.,Jewsin theseareassufferedthe samepersecutionas in other Nazi-
4.6 Romance languages
I8?
functioned.An orthographic reform was even introduced: previously,and still in Yiddish published outside the U.S.S.R., words of Hebrew-Aramaic origins were spelled according to Hebrew orthographic conventions (for instance, without indication of many vowels, and with distjnction of certain consonantsthat are pronounced alike in Yiddish). In the U.S.S.R., it was decided to spell Yiddish consistently according to its pronunciation: thus the word milx6mes -wats mentionedaboveis spelledphoneticallyin SovietYiddish, bul ivith the Hebrewletter
occupiedareas,and in the r970censusthe number ofJews in the U.S.S.R. was given
sequencem/xm wd elsewhere.The useof the Hebrew alphabet, written from right to left,was,however,retained.Sinceat leastthe early r94os,however,thereseemnot to
as 2,r5o.7o7.Although most of these (but excluding Jews in Central Asia, for
havebeenany Yiddish schools.Publicationin Yiddish resumedafter a long absence,
instance)are ihe descendants ol'Yiddish speakers,only r 7.7'2,of them gaveYiddish as their native languagein the I970 census.a very small ligure evenifone adjustsfor
but it is clearthat the audiencefor this literatureis small and diminishing.The fate of
under-reporting:more than four times as many Jewsgave Russianas their native languagc. The treatment of Jews has been one ol'lhe least successfulaspectso[ Soviet
Yiddish in the U.S.S.R.has not beenmhrkedly differentqualitativelyfrom its fate elsewhere:its associationwith ghetto culture has appealedneitfierto Zionists,who prefer Hebrew. nor to those who seek a role in their native country. who have prelerred to assimilatelinguisticallyeven if not in other respects.
nationalitiespolicy. by any account. Since tbe U.S.S.R. does not as a matter of generaiprinciple encourageemigration by any ethnic group. Zionism has always
4.6
been anathema, and only in recent years has the policy on Jewish emigratirrn
Romancelanguages The Romancelanguages,descendants of Latin, are the only surviving
softened.The Sovietattempt to set up a Jewishhomcland within the U.S.S.R.,the
memberso[the Italic branch oflndo-European. The only Romancelanguagethat is
JewishA.O. in the Far East,hasmet with minimalsuccess:in I970. only I r.452Jews
a languageofthe U.S.S.R.is Moldavian, the languageofthe Moldavian S.S.R.This
lived there.constitutingjustover 6'r, ofthe A.O. s population.The tradition ofanti-
Union Republiccorrespondscloselyto the area known traditionally as Bessarabia.
Semitism going well back in Russian history is often bolstered by security considerations (many Jews have relatives abroad) and by amrmative action
For a long time under Ottoman rule. Bessarabiawas cededto Russiain r8rz, our formed part ofRomania in the inter-War period.The areawasincorporatedinro rne
programmes:for instance,the percentageofJews with highereducationfar exceeds
U.S.S.R.in r94o as the Moldavian S.S.R.,although the effectofthis was not really felt until after the cessationofhostilitiesin the SecondWorld War. Moldavian is the
that for any other ethnic group (in the R.S.F.S.R.,46.8'/" ofJews in the workirg population have had highereducation,comparedto only 6.5'r, ol'Russians),so that it is easytojustify giving preferenceto other ethnic groups in order to maintain an
nativelanguageof 95,y,'of the 2,69j,994ethnicMoldaviansin the U.S.S.R.,85.4%of whom live in the Moldavian S.S.R., where rhey comprise 64.6% of the total
ethnic balance.The generalresultofall this seemsto be that thoseJewswho wlsh to
population.
insist on their Jewish identity try to emigrate to lsrael, while others prefer to
In terms of its structure and lexicon, Moldavian diflers only minimally from standard Romanian. Both languagessharethe samehistory, being descendantsof
assimilateto the surroundingpopulation,which probably accountsfor the declinein the reportedn umber of ethnicJewsbetweenr959 Q,26j,8r 4) and r 970 (2, r 50,7o7). regardsYiddish as being the languagethat cor[espondsto the ethnic group Jewish,
the Vulgar Latin spoken in or near the Balkans. The basic vocabulary and morphology are clearly Romance, although there has also be€n a massiveinflux of Ioans f'rom neighbouring languages,especially Slavonic (e.g. razboj 'war'), though
thus causingpotential terminologicalconfusionrthe omcial terrn for'Yiddish' in Russian is not rdl3, but rather evrejskij jazyk, literally Jewish language', even 'Ancient though with regard to Biblical titres dlevneevrejskij jazyk.literally Jewish
also fiom Greek (e.8. drum'way'), Hungarian (e.g. fagedui 'to promise'), and Turkish (e.g.dulip 'cupboard'),in addition to a number ofwords apparentlyfrom the pre-Romancelanguage(s)of the area (e.g. brinze'kitd of che€se'). ln addition,
language. refersto Ancient Hebrew:in Russian,Modern Hcbrew is called rvrir. the Modern Hebrew narnefor 'Hebrew'. During the eariy yearsof Sovietpower, there
therearea number offeaturesofthe Balkan sprachbund(which includes,in addition
was a considerablevolumc of publishingin Yiddish, and Yiddish-medium schools
posltloncddclinitc article (e.g-drr-ul'the man'. cf. om man'; this is found also in
The Yiddish language has also sulfered from this process.Soviet policy still
to Ronraniani Bulgarian.Macedonian,Albanian, and modern Greek), such as the
4. Indo-European
languages
r88
Albanian, Bulga an, and Macedonian,though not in Greek), and the tendencyto replace infinitive constructions by subordinate clauses(e.9. a }i,fepi t seploije'it has 'it-has begun that it-rain'; this feature is also found in begun to rain', literally Albanian, Bulgarian,and, in its most extreme form, modern Greek). The developmentof Moldavian as a literary languageis also inextricablybound
4. Texts
r89
TEXTS IN INDO-EUROPEAN LANCUAGES OF THE U . S .S .R .
LITHUANIAN
TEXT (IN
CURRENT ORTHOCRAPHY!
WITH
TONI
MARKS ADDED)
up with that of Romanian.The earliestt€xtsof Romanian Moldavian were written in the Cyrillic alphabet (Orthodoxy is the traditional religion of the area), but in the nineteenthcentury the riseofRomanian natiolralism,coupledwith the strong sense ofbeing speakersofa Romance languageand distinct from the surroundingSlavs, led to the adoption of the Latin alphabet,and also the widespreadreplacementof non-Romance vocabulary by words calqued on Romance languages of western 'noble' for earliet evgenik6s (aloan from Greek). The classicsof Europe, e.g. rdbr'] the nineteenth century are viewed as the precursors ofmodern standard Moldavian and Romanian alike. The separatedevelopmentof Moldavian really dateslrom the end ofthe Second World War. with the consolidationofthe national frontier betweenRomania and the U.S.S.R. in its present position. ln the Moldavian S.S.R., the orthography reverted to a Cyrillicbase. However, the current standard languageis extremely close to standard Romanian, apart from the diferences resulting from the diflerent orthographic systems.In the early yearsof the Moldavian S.S.R.,attempts were made to usespellingsthat capturedsomeof the phoneticpeculiaritiesof Moldavian dialects as opposed to standard Romanian (based primarily on dialects of Muntenia), for instance by representingorthographically the backing ofvowels after 'clear' rather than senin, zi'day' rather than zl, pucl, 'a little' sibilants, e.g. sarl, rather than pucrn. In 1957,however,this policy was abandoned,and the spellings transliterated as seri , zi, pucin adopted as oflicial, cf- Romanian senin, zi, putin Although the orthography of Moldavian is now essentially the same as that of Romanian, substitutingCyrillic for Latin, it remains unclear to what extent this affects pronunciation, since little work has been done on the question of Moldavian standard pronunciation. The main differencebetween Moldavian and Romanial at present, apart from the dif[erentalphabets.lies in the fact that Moldavian usesa number of Russianloans that are not usedin Romanian, includingstump-compoundsofthe type .a/dm (in full in Russian:njonnyj komitet'rcgional committee').The procedureof forming 'village stump-compounds is even transferred to native morphemes, e g. kotslit 'village'), 'correspondent', sar although the correspondent' (cf. korespondtttt (cf. Russian se./?or). native order with the modifier after the head is retained Although Moldavian is currently little dillerent from Romanian, it is likely that continued political separation will serve to increase these differences with time
-os Atmen -u - buv-ai dir jAun -as gimndzrj rememberrSC be PAST-ISGstill young NOM grammar-school CEN mokin-is. pupil NOM jan Nrjrs pavdsari-o siuli linksm-ai iindlo althoughalreadyspring GEN sun-NOMmerry ADV look PAST-3 -A, prd men-o ling nos or -i sproq ,o ti throughI GEN window ACC althoughair LOC blossomPAST-3and Zyd€j -o m€dii-ai, tatiai siddj-au sav -o blossomPAST-3tree NOM-PL howeversit PAST-tSG self GEN -s karnbar-j: rengi -ai egzamin -dms. BL)v-o room LOC preparePAST-rSG REFL examinationDAT-PL be PAST-3 -as. giedr-as, ram -is -rs. . . ii malon dt morning NOM clear NOM quiet NOM and pleasantNOM -dir -o min-o Stai at-si kafibari-o dir -ys,ii then REFL open 3l GEN room GEN door pL and u'dis-ps, sukait-ps, linksm-omis dig -an\i pant PAST-PARTsweat PAST-PARTmerry FEM-INSTR-pL burn pRES-onis ak -imis i -beE-a Rdk -us, mAn-o PART FEM-INSTR-PL €ye INSTR-PL in run 3 Rokus NOM I GEN druig -as. friend NOM -Ai Zin -ai
-A? - suJdk-o jis: - datuinirtk-ai k Q know 2SG what ACC shout PAST-3he worker PL-NOM streikitoj-a! stnke 3 K -ds, kui? - kldusi-u A!, patok-ps ii ikkg:"ps what NOM where ask rSG I jump PAST-PARTand open pASTak -is. PART eyeACC-PL &r*-ai, darbinifik-ai strcikioj-a!- r€ki -a, say PAST-rSGworkcr NOM-PL strike 3 shout 3
4. Indo-Europeat, langnges
'
diafidien Rdk -us. ' Ink rafik -omis mojto4amas shake PUSDALYVIS hand INSTR-PL Rokus NOM you-seetoday -ji! Pirm -o GeguiE-s May GEN First FEM-NOM DEF -ein-a -ji? -GeguZE-s streiktoj-a? - per Pim -6 GEN First FEM-NOM DEF strike May 3 through go 3 -a -4: -4 -is, pa'si 4dr pei gilv nulvieti mint $5t REFL make through headACC thought NOM illuminate 3 mind ACC -o lifiksm-a n6r -i-si il dliafrgsm-o ii lefigv-a; GEN want 3 REFL 3 merry NEUT and light NEUT ftomjoy -ti -s, ju6k ai. i? E6k if ii veikli, and cry INFIN and laugh INFIN REFL and danceINFIN (Extracted from J. Blliunas, Pimutinis streikas.)
Not€s at-si-dir-o, pa-si-ddr-o: when a verb form is prefixed, the reflexive afix qccurs betweenprefix and root, rather than finally, as in nonprefixedverb forms. ddrys 'door': in Lithuanian this is a plurale tantum. 'eye'is feminine,whence lifiksmomis, deganCiomi;akimis: in Lithuanian, a,krb the feminineadiectives.
4. Texts TADZHTK TEXT du suratkagdar uEtodi va sanzatkoi bo ham mudom two artist on skill arld artistry with each:othercontinually -kard -and. suntka!-i jakim surat -i bahs me jak argumentCONT do-PAST 3PL artist EZAFE first picture EZAFE one sar angrr -ro Eunon ustodona ka! -id, ki dar did-an az bunch grapesACC so skilfully paint PAST that on seeINFIN of anguf-l -bud. haqiqiheJ farq kun -ond -an mumkinna grapesEZAFEreal anydifferencemake CAUS lNFlNpossible NEG be-pAST -i vaqt-e ki sutatkag on surat -ro ba lox danxt-e picture time REL that artist that ACC on branch EZAFE tree INDEF-SG -a ovext mon -d, baazeparanda-ho angur -i haqiqi gumon hang-PASTGER leavePASTsome bird PL gmpesEZAFEreal thought -a, -a -zad -and. kard omad ba vaj ntl me do-PAST GER come-PASTcER to it beak CONT strike-PAsT 3pL -ro -a, sufalka{ in hol ba raqib-i xud nilon dod altist this situation ACC to lival EZAFE own sign give-PASTGER balandi -i sanTat-i xud-ro isbot kard. greatnessEZAFE art EZAFE own ACC Droofdo-PAST -i suratkad-i dujim baroi nilon dod-an san?at-ad artist EZAFE secondfor sign give INFIN EZAFE art 3SG jakim-ro suratkad-i ba xona -a! burd va parda -e artist EZAFE first ACC to house3SG take-PASTand curtain INDEF-SG -ro
FREE TRANSLATION
I remember- I wasstill a young grammar-schoolboy. Although the spring sun was already looking merrily through my window, althoughthe treeswereblossomingout and bloomingin the air, yet I wassittingin my room: I waspreparingfor exams.It wasmorning,clear,quiet,and pleasant. . . Thenthedoorofmy room opens,andin runsRokus,my friend,panting,sweating, and with merry, burning eyes. Do you know what?he sbouted,the worke$ are on strike! What, where?I ask,jumping up and openingmy eyes. -l said,theworkersareon stlike! Rokusshouts,shakinghisarms,You see,today is the First of May! -The First of May?On strike?the thoughtgoesthroughmy head,illuminatesmy mind; thingsbecomemerry and light; out ofjoy I want both to weep,and to laugh, and to dance.
nidon dod
-a
guft:
san.at-ho-i
man dar
ACC sign give-PASTGER say-PASTart PL EZAFE I in -a pult -i -and, -a hamin parda istod kudo-d back EZAFE this curtain stand-PASTGER be-3PLopen PAST GER -pisand-i jo ne. bin. ki me see-IMPERthat CONT like 2SG or not jakim dast burd -a -xost suratkad-i pafda me artist EZAFE first hand reach-PASTGER CONT want-PASTcurtarn -ro -a, bar -dor -ad, Iekin don -ist, ki on parda na -bud ACC apart hold 3Sc but realisePAST that that curtain NEG be-pAST GER -a -ast, parda -e sufat -i bud ki dar picture EZAFE curtain INDEF-SG be-PASTGER be-1SGthat on -a -a devor-i xona mohirona kal -id -ast. lud wall EZAFE houseskilfully paint PAST CER become-pASTGER be-rSG (From A. Dehoti, Latifahoi to,iki (Tadzhik anecdotes).)
4, Indo-Euopean languages Nofes Phonetic:x representsa voicelessuvular fiicalive. patda-e-ro: for the combination of indefnite singular suffix -e and so-called definitedircct objectsu6x -ro, seepage 168. Note thefrequentuseofcompoundverbswitha nounand auxillaryverb katd'an 'todo'or dod-ar 'to give',e.g.isbotkardan'to prove'(literally'to do/makeproof'), 'to nidondodan'to show' (literally give sign');suchcompoundscan b€ transitive, taking a direct object.
FREETRANSLATION
Two artistswerecontinuallyarguingwith eachother about skill and artistry. The firstartistpainteda pictureofa bunchofgrapessoskilfully that on sceingrealgrapes it wasimpossibleto makeanydifference.Whenthe artist left thepicturehangingon the branchof a tree,somebirds, thinking the Srapesto be real,cameto them and ofhis art. peckedthem.The artist showedthis to his rival and provedthe greatness The seconda ist, in orderto showoffhis art, took the fiIst artist to his houseand, indicatinga curtain,said,'My art standsbehindthiscurtain,openit andse€whether you lik€ them or not'. The first artist reachedwith his handand wasintendingto hold thecurtainopen, but realisedthatitwasnot acurtain,buta paintingofacurtainthat hadbeenskilfully paintedon the wall of the house.
ARMENIAN TEXT
'er -. -ac', mrrnac het'o us in3 k'arC' Zamanak'naje-c short period look AOR I-ACC be-surprisedRESULTthen shoulderPL 3SC jev glux-e gerk -i noric k'axe-c t'ank'usank-ov totove-c shrug AOR hesitation INSTR and head 3SG again hang AOR book GEN -u. ,st' vra, aianc a,Ievs vod mi xosk art'asane J, on without still not a word DronounceINFIN GEN fiom -cne J, -i -n jerevujt hask'a uz -um er appearanceGEN DEF want PRES COP-PAST-3SGunderstandCAUS INFIN vor hangist'towe-m iren iev heiana-m. ISC she-ACCand leavc ISC that Deac€ let nara arkv ei bajc jes hamaioren k'angn-ac' but I stubbomly stand RESULT COP-PAST-ISGshe-GENin-front-of -ov oera dit'e -l kv ak'ama hian -um ei, and willy-nilly admire PRES COP-PAST-ISGobserveINFIN INSTR she-GEN
4. Text' geyecik' glux-e dat' harust',papuk' jev pajlun maz-er -ov, beautifulhead 3SG very rich delicateand shiny hair PL INSTR voronk nor arev -i tek iaiagajt-neri t'ak' which-Pl new rise RESULT sun GEN oblique rav PL GEN under Dazmazan efang-neretn
various shadePL COP-PAST-3PLtake-on PRES - ajst'ey naje -cek - asa-c -i, t'esneJ here look IMPER-2PL sayAOR rSC see INFIN INSTR that -i glux -e t uz -um gerk -i baryrawaJ-ic head 3SG NEG COP-PAST-3SGwant PRES book GEN on ABL rise cne -1. CAUS INFIN naje -c. look AOR -i -s poy -i -n, t'ak'af-s dr hracan-i c'ajr-i brow rSG move-AORtSG gun GEN rSG muzzleGEN end GEN DEF vra. isk' vot'-s !nik'-i and foot ISC cock GEN on (Extractedfrom Nar-Dos, Sp'anvac'ayavnin.) Notgs aianc . . , art'asanelu;aiarc 'without' is one of the relativelyfew prepositionsin modernArmenian(cf.alsoest"from, accordingto' below);it takesthegenitivecase, hereof the infinitive art'asanel. tovem, heianamt theseforms are presentsubjunctive. dit'elov, t'esnelov:notethe useofthe instrum€ntalofthe infinitive to indicatea subordinateaction. FREE TRANSLATION
For a short period shelooked at me surprised,then sheshruggedher shoulders hesitantlyand again loweredher headinto her book, slill wjthout sayinga word. Apparentlyshewantedto givemeto und€rstandthat I shouldleaveher in peaceand go away. But I stoodstubbornlyin front ofher and willy-nilly admiredher, observingher b€autifulheadwith veryrich, delicate,and shinyhair,whichtook on variousshades und€r the oblique rays of the newly risensun. -Look here I said,seeingthat shedid not want to raiseh€r headfrom the book. Shelooked. I put my brow on the end of the muzzleof my gun, and my foot on the cock.
4. Indo-Eurcpean languages
t94
FURTHER READING Sincethis chapter is not concernedwith Indo'European languagesasa whole, we shall melely referthe readerto two introduciory works on Indo-Europeanby Lockwood (1969;l9?2)' as well as to the more formal introduction to Indo_Eu.opean comparative linguistics by ofthe U.S.S.R.(other (1970).SketchSrammarsofthe Indo-Europeanlanguages Szemer€nyi (1966). I than Parya) are provided in "/aNSSSR A volume on Slavonic languagesis currently in preparation for the Cambridge LanguaSe Survey series,and in the meantime we may rcfer the reade! to the brief survey by Jakobson by De Bray(1969) of Slavoniclanguages (r955)andtothecompendiumofoutlinedescriptions - noie that the account of Belorussian in the first edition of this work does not deal with the current standard language,There is a pedagogicalgrammar of Ukrainian in English by Luckyj textbookby Zhlutenkoet al. (I9?8)' and Rudny6kyj(1958),afld a more Soviet-olientated thereis an introductoryaccountby Fraenkel( I95o)'in additionto For the Balticlanguages, thestandardcomparativegrammarsby Stang( I966)and Endzelins( 1948)'thelatteralsoin an Englishtmnslation.Of the numeroussolid descriptionsof Lithuanian,that by Senn(195?)is readily available, and there is also a pedagogicalgammar in Englbh by Dambriiinas et al( r 972).The comprehensivegmmmar oflatvian by Endzel-ms( 1922)r€hains unsurpassed,and in that all tonesare matked. Gaters(197?)providesa detailed is esp€ciatlyadvantageous grammarby Budi0a introductionto comparativeLatviandialectstudies,whilethePedagogical Lazdiqa ( l 966)is one of the best volumesin th e Teach Yourselfteies. The standard rcferetce grammarfor Old Prussianis Endzelms(1943),also availablein Cerman' The most comprehensivework to date on Parya is Oranskij ( I 97?),although the grammatical sketch is necessarilyabbreviated in a work thal has other primary aims. There are also some b efremarksin Englishin O.anskij( I963b).A generalaclount,with bibliography,ofRomdoy on th€ North dialectstudiesis provided in laAA I (1976),while Ventcel'(1964)concentrates endthe Russia the dialects ofsouthem For on thes€ sowces. is based Russiandial€ct;Table4.3 Uk€ine, thercis Barannikov(1933),also alailable in an Englishversion, Two comprchensive suNeys of the Iranian languages are available in Cerman, CIP ( r 895-igo+)and HdO l, 4.I ( I958).Oranskij(I960) is an introductionto Iranian philologyin general,not rcstricted to larguage, while Oranskij (I963a), also availablein a Frcnch Oranskij(I9?5) isa surveyin Geman iranslation,is a surveyofthe vadouslranian languages; b€ingan extensiv€bibliography' volume the second the U.S.S.R., languages of ofthe Iranian Further bibliogaphic guidesand discussionare providedby MacK€nzi€(I98r) on lranian in general,Lszard( I97o)on Persianand Tadzhik(includinga detailedcomparison languages ofthe two), aod Redard (1970) orl other lranian languages.The two-vol!fie OnIUa (1975) discussesthe typological development of the phonology and morpholog of the lranian The discussionofergativity in the presentchapteris expandedin Payne(1979)' languages. For Kurdish, there is a rccent comparativegrammar by Kurdoev (19?8)' including comparisonof Kurmandzhi atd Sorani, while in English there is the dialect survey by MacKenzie ( I96 t -z). The standard descriPtionof the Kurdish of Azerbaydzhanis by Bakaev (1965),that ofTurkmenia by Bakaev(1962).For Talysh,we may referto Miller (!953) The form of Beludzhspokenin the U S.S.R is describedby Sokolov(1956)'{hile more general aocountsare availableby Frolova (1960)in Russianand Elfenbein(1966)in English' The sketch of Tadzhik grammar by Rastorgueva (1954) is also available in an English translation.For comparisonwith Persian,a usefulgrahmar of(modern literary) Persianin Englishis L.mbton (I96I). The most detaileddescriptionofTat is Grjunberg(1963)' There are numerous desffiptiotls of Osset€,esperially the Iron dialect, including an early grammar in German by Mille! ( t 9o3);a more recentaclount is Abaev ( r 959)' ako available in an Englishtranslation.Isaev(1966)is thecurrentstandardtrealmentofthe Dgo! dial€ct-For
4- Fudher rcading
r95
Yagnob, the only published grammar is Xromov ( 1972). For thePamir lanSuages, th€reis a gcneralguideby Paxalina(r969),aswellasthefollowing grammarsof individual languages:Rushan(Fajzov .r.966);Bartang(Karamxudoev1973); Oroshor(Kurbanovr976);Shugn(Karamsoev r963);Yazgulyam(Edel'manr966);Ishkashim (Paxalina 1959);Vakh (Paxalina 1975;Grjunberg and Steblin-Kamenskij1976).For the languages spokenoutsidethe U.S.S.R.,we havePaxalina(1966)for Sarikoli,and Grjunb€rg (1972)for Munji. In addition,therearediscussions ofsomeofthe Pamir languages in English and German by travellers who approachedthe areafrom the Afghan side;among these,wemay citethecompamtiveworksofGrierson(r9zo) and Morgenstierne(r938), and the grammarof Vakh by Lorimer (1958),basedon materialgatheredin the r93os. Standardd€scriptionsof ClassicalArmenian are availablein French (Meillet r9j6) and Cerman (Jensen1959),The rlrainfeaturesofthe Amenian dialectstreforeth€ diaspomare describedin Adjarian (r9o9), For WesternArmenian, there are pedagogicalgmmmarsin English (Fairbanks t958; Bardakjian and Thomson 1977)and in French (Feydit 1946). StandaldEasternArmenianis descriM by Abeghian(r936),and thereis alsoa pedagogical grammarin English(Fairbanksand Stevick1958). Beranek(I9J8) may b€ consultedfor a description,in German,of a variety of Yiddish (Lithuanian-Belorussian) reprcsentative ofthe U.S.S.R;forrrloregeneralbackground,thereis the surveyand grammarby Birnbaum(1979).For Moldavian,reference may be madeto the authoritativelwo-volume KLMLK (t9563\.
5.t The individual languages
5 Caucasianlanguages
The indivifud l8ngurgesrnd their subgrouping The greatmountainrangeofthe Caucasus,stretchingfor flvehundred milesfrom the Black Seato the Caspian,is the traditional frofltier betweenEurope and Asia. Sincethe lime of the ancientGreeks,the area has beenfamousfor its multiplicity of languages,being describedby an Arab geographerof the tenth spokenin the arcaare centuryasthe'mountainoftongues'.Many ofthe languages for theybelongeithertotheIndo-Eurolran or Caucasianonly in a geographicsense, Turkic families. In this chapter we shall be concernedexclusivelywith those languagesthat belong to what, for all practical purposes,may be describedas thc indig€nous languagcsof thc rcgion - in other words, with those languagcswhich, from a strictly linguistic point ofview, may bestyledCaucasian(or lbcro-Caucasian, wherethe term Iberian referssolely to the South CaucasiaDor Kartvclian group and does not imply any cooncction with any language spoken in western Europe's Iberian peniusula, specifically Basque). One Caucasianlanguagcis no longer spokenin the Caucasusand is virtually extinct in Turkey, wherethc entireUbykh peoplemigratedfollowing the Russian subjugationofthc north-wcsternCaucasusin I864,The presentw ter,onavisitto the Ubykh villageofHaci OsmanKdyii in r974,metonly fourelderlymalespeakers, one of ryhom, Fuat Ergiin, had sevenchildren, all of whom could speakonly Circassianand Turkish. But, as Dum6zil (r93t: xii) obscrvcd,evcn before th€ migatior, Ubykh waslosinggroundtoCircassian.Thetraditionalhomelandofthe Lai people,who speaka Kartvelianlanguage,is the southernshoreofthe BlackSea in present-dayTurkey, wherethercare tome 5o,ooospeakers;only a very few Laz speakersare to be found within the U.S.S.R. notably in the villageofSarpi on the Soviet-Turkishborder(Asatiani I974: 3-4). Otherwise,apart from various6mig* communitiespredominantlyin Turkcy and the Middle East, all the Caucasian which languagesareconfinedwithin the frontiersofthe U.S.S.R.The 38 languages after thusform the objectofthis suryeyarelistedin Table5.I; addedin parentheses language and the figures for the speakers ofthe eachlanguagearethelatestavailable gencrallocation whereeachis spokcn. 5.r
'fable
5-r. Genetic classification of the Cauc^ian languages
South Caucasian(Kadvelian) Georgian(CeorgianS.S.R.- 3,3ro,9r7) Svan(north-westernCeorgia- 43,ooo) Mingrelian (Megrcl) (Georgia - 360,000) Laz (Chan) (southern coast of Black Sea- 5o,ooo) North-West Caucasian Abkhaz (Abkhaz A.S.S.R.- 79,835) Abaza (Karachay-Cherkcs A.O. - 24,449) Adyge (WestCircassian)(Ady8eA.O. - 96,33r) Kabard-Cherkes(East Circassian)(Kabard-BalkarA.S.S.R.,Karachay-Ch€rkes A.O. 3r l,o?8) Ubykh (Haci Osman Kiiyii, Turkey - ?) North-CeDtralCaucasian(Nakh, Veynakh) Chechen(Chechen-Ingush A.S.S.R.- 604,655) Ingush(Chechen-Ingush A.S.S.R.- r53,483) Bats (nolthern Ceorgia - j,ooo) North-EastCaucasian(Dagcstanian) Avar-Andi-Dido Avar (nolth-westernzoneof Dagestanhighlands- 385,o43) Andi languages(to the westofthe Avar region) Andi (9,ooo) Botlikh (3,ooo) Codoberi (2,5oo) Karata (5,ooo) Akhvakh (5,ooo) Bagval (4,ooo) Tindi (S,ooo) Chamalal(4,ooo) (imm€diatelysouth ofAndi) Dido (Tsez)languages Dido (?,ooo) Khvarsh ( I ,ooo) Cinukh (2oo) Bezhti(Kapuch) (2,5oo) Gunzib (600) Lak-Dargva(c€ntralzoneofthe Dagestanhighlands) Lak (82,oro) Dargva (eastof Lak - 227,302) Lezgian(south-eastern zoneofthe Dagestanhighlands) Archi (betweenLak and Avar - r,ooo) Tabasaran(southernDagestan- 54,5?4) Agul (southernDagestan- 8,782) Rutul (soulhernDagestan- I r,933) Tsakhur (southernDagestan,northem Azerbaydzhan ro,?19) Budukh (northernAzerbaydzhan- r,ooo) Khinalug (northernAzerbaydzhan. l.ooo) Udi ([orthern Azerbaydzhan and the eastem Georgian village of Oktomberi - 4ooo) L€zgi (southernDagestan,northernAzerbaydzhan- 3o4,o87) Kryz (Kryts) (northernAzerbaydzhan- 6,000)
S. Caucasian languages
r98
in only a fewvillages-in somecases,in orle Asmanyoftheselanguagesarespoken vitlageonly - it is not possibleherc to presenta mor€ precisedemarcationof the localityofthe speakers.The statusofsome of the languageslistedis disputed- for instance,within theU.S.S.R.Lazand Mingrelianareregardedasdialectsofa single language,Zan. Also now viewedasdialectsofa singlelanguageareTindi and Bagval (Gudava I967: 35I), and possiblyalsoBotlikh and Codoberi (eikobava I974; 37). From a purelystructuralpoint ofvicw onewouldhaveto treatAbazaasa (divergent) ofthe in theverytitle ofLomtatidze'sdcscription dialectofAbkhaz,a viewenshrined 'The Tapantadialcctofthe Abkhazlanguage'.Kubachi main Abazadialect(I97?): is sometimesconsidereda dialectof Dargva, sometimesa separatelanguage.The precisegeneticamliationsof Archi and Khinalug are also not finally settled,some commentatorspreferringto considerthem as language'isolates. As regardsthcdivisioninto four mainarealgroups,it maybesaidthat,within each group, all the languagesare clearly related(with the exceptionof the two just mentioned),but the relationships,if any, existingbetweenthe groupsis far from clear. Whilst the majoriry of scholars insist on working with Nolth-C€ntral othersadmit Caucasianand North-EastCaucasianas separatelanguage-families, theinclusionofthe Nakh family into theNorth-EastCaucasia[group,sothat there would then be a Nakh subgroup of North-East Caucasianon a par with the Lak-Dargva, Avar Andi-Dido and Lezgiansubgroups,and we would then have only three Caucasianfamiliesof North-West Caucasian,North-East Caucasian, and SouthCaucasian.Although thereisa basisfor supposingaremotelinkbetween all the languagesof the northern Caucasus,there is as yet no sound evidencrfor assumingany geneticassociationbetweenSouth Caucasianand theseno hern groups.However,a numberofSoviet scholars,particularlyin Ceorgia,acceptthe commonorigin ofall the Caucasianlanguagesasan articleoffaith, which hasthus becomethe working hypothesisunderlyingtheir research. within the havethestatusofliterary languages Twelv€ofthe Caucasianlanguages '(a) Georyian'),Abkhaz, Abaza,Adyge' U.S.S.R.:Georgian(own name Ka veli Kabard-Cherkes,Chechen,Ingush,Avar, Lak, Dargva,Lezgi,and Tabasaran.Of these,only Ceorgianhasits own scriptof33 characters(Old Georgianhad 5 extra), the invention of which is ascribedto Mesrop in the early fifth century, who, in ofthe Armenianorthography,is addition to beingcreditedwith the establishment alsosaidto be the inventorofthe long defunctscriptofthe little known languageof theCaucasianAlbanians,whomay havebeenthelinSuisticancesto$ofthepresentThe currentformsof the letters,the so-calledcivil ( mxedruli),as day Udi speakers. opposedto religious(xucuri), alphabet,make no distinction betweenupper and lower case.Mesrop'sconsiderablelinguistictalentsare confirmedby the fact that, amongthe Caucasianorthographies,only that for Ceorgianis fully phon€mic,i.e
S.I The individual languages
r99
for both consonantsand vowels,Thus, whilst Georgiancnjoysthe distinctionof possessingan exceedinglyrich literary tradition spanningfifteen centuries,the heritageof the remainingelevenliteratutesreally began,apa from a few earlier att€mptsin the nineteenthcentury,only in the Sovict period. Perhapsthc oldest attestedexamplesof a Caucasianlanguageother than Georgianare the bilingual inscriptionsin Avar alld Ceorgianthat havebeendiscovcredin Dagestanard dated, in somecases,to asearly as the tenth-€leventhcenturies(seeGambaSidze1977). The present-day,post-Revolutionaryorthographi€sare all basedon Cyrillic. ExccptinAbkhaz,only oncnon-Cyrillicsignisemployed,andthisis capitall, which, dependingonthe languageconcerned,may siglify a glottalstop,glottalicinitiation, o!eitherpharyngalor uvulararticulation.As theCaucasian possess languages richer consonantal(and, generally,vocalic)inventoriesthan Russian,the result is that certainphonemeshaveto berepresentcd by meansofdigraphs, trigraphs,and,rn one mreinstance(the Kabard voiceless aspiratcdlabialiseduvularplosive)a tetragmph xxby.In diferent languages, moreovcr,thesamesignmay havediferentvalu€s:lor instanc€,the digraph(L in Abazais [k], but in Avar it is [kt']; and the samephonc mayberepresented by diferent signs.e.g.[q] is rul in Abazabut q!in Adyge.But this desireto endoweachliterarylanguagewith its own distinctiveorthographicidentity hasresultcdin thefollowingabsurdsituationobtainingin thc orthographiesofsuch closely related languagesas Adyge and Kabard: the palato-alveolarvoiceless fricative [S] in Adyge is u1and in Kabard ul, whilst u in Kabard representsthe alveolo-palatalvoic€lessfricative[3], which in Adygeis written rIIb.However,the strangestofthe newo hographiesincontrovertiblybelongsto Abkhaz.Apart from employing 14 charactersunknown in Cyrillic, it is amazinglyinconsistentin its marking of aspiratesand ejectives. For a languageto haveliterarystatusmeansthat newspapers,journals, andbooks are publishedin it, and that it is the mediumofinstruction in the specificallynonRussianschoolsup to atleastth€ageoften, whenlessons areconductedin RussiantheonecxceptionbeingGeorgian(asopposedto Russian)schoolsin Georgia,wherc on€'s entire educationto the end of a universitycoursemay be exclusivelyin Georgian(apartfrom Russianlanguagelessons). Thismeansthatchildrenborn into communitieswhoselanguageis nonliterarywill bebilingual(ifnot multilingual)by the age of ten - for example,Botlikh childrenare cducatedin Avar. The dialect sclectedto form thc basis of the literary languagcis usually the onc which is phonemicallysimplest- hencethechoiceofthe southernAbzhuydialectofAbkhaz, with its 58consonants,to replacethenorthern,Bzyp,dialect,whichwasin useprior to theRevolutioD,with its 67.In thecaseofAvar, the northerndialectofKhunzakh waslong establishedasa linguafrancain centralDagestan,sothat rhechoiceofthe litcrary dialect wasalreadysettled.
S. Caucasian languages 5.2
Phonology
A glanceat theGeorgianconsonantsystem(Table5.2)quicklygivesthe lie to the popular belief that all Caucasianlanguagesate characterisedby a large z8 consonantsApart stockofcomplex consonantphonemes:Georgianpossesses in westernEuropean no means unknown are by which velar fricatives, from the two the six ejectives find only would here languages,a native speakerof English uvular plosiveg, pres€rvedin Svan,has somewhatodd.The Old Georgianvoiceless velarfticative x. The consonantsystemsofthe remaining mergedwith the voiceless differ only minimally from that ofGeorgian: the basic languages SouthCaucasian diflerences arethat both MingrelianandLazhavetheglottalstop 2,andLazusesf in foreignwordscontainingthis sound.Ejectivesin Svanarepronouncedwith greater intensitythanin Georgian. What the foreigner does find unusual in South Caucasianare the massive consonantclusters.For Georgian, Vogt (1958) illustratesfour 6-term clusters, twenty-one5-term,anda hundredandforty-eight4-term.As an exampleofa6-term clusterwehavemc'vrt e,li'trainer',and,ifonecaresto imagineapersonifiedorange saying'he peelsus', we can producean 8-termcluster:gvprckvnis. Twenty-threeof the North-East Caucasianlanguageshave from 30 to 46 consonants,but three of the languagesexce€dthis number: Akhvakh with 49, Khinalugwith 76,and Archi, which,accordirgto Kibdk et al. (r9'l'7,1:223),has10' though earlier Mikailov (1967:20) had given 40, and xajdakov (1967:608) 49. Common to all the North-East and North-Central Caucasianlanguagesis an opposition betweennonintensiveand intensiveconsonants,though Kibrik et al. ( r 977,I: 239)excludethelatterfrom Archi, whilstthoseoflngush appearto belosing their phonologicalvalue(erelalvili 1975:I I I). Catford (1977:289)statesthat the in variousways:'Generallyin Lak, Dargva'andthe arerealised intensiveconsonants intensivestops. . . aretenseunaspimted,and,whenintervocalic, Lezgianlanguages geminate.The correspondingaffricates.. . arelikewisetenseandhavea lengthened stop portion and tenseunaspiratedaffrication. In Avar and most of the Andi languagesthe "intensive" stops arc strongly affricated,intensiveaflricateshave lengthenedaffrication and are unaspirated,and the intensive fricatives arc lengthenedandunaspirated.'Wemay,thus,examinetheconsonantsystemofAvar, wherethe intensives(sometimesalsodescribedas strongor geminateconsonants) aremarkedby a superscriptmacron(Table5.3).Note that thevelarfricativesy,x, t aredescribedasbackvelars,but that th€ir point olarticulation is still not identified with that of the uvular series,which most Georgian linguistscoofusinglyterm pharyngal.lt is interestingto observethat the Georgianfricativesy, x aresimilarly describedasbackvelars,but, whilstSanidze( I973; I5) decidesthat theyarebasically velars,Zgenti (r956: I78 ff.) concludesthat they are ratheruvulars.Indeed in such
5.2 Phonology Table 5.2. Consonant system ofGeotgian Bilabial Labio-dental Alveolar Palato-alveolar V€lar Uvular Laryngal/Clottal
b
pp'
d
tt'
v njcc'zslr
3Et',r't kk,
Yx
q'
Table 5.3. Corsorant sysrcmof Avar Bilabial Alveolar Palato-alveolar Lateral PalatalisedVelar Velar Uvular Pharyngal Laryngal/Glottal
bpmw dll'cac'a'zsSnr
s g 1{
a E a,E,z rr [r,
j I
x'
Is
1
k
I
k'[' Yxi rh h
casesitisperhapstruerto saythat therealisationofthe fricativerangesfrom thevelar to the uvular regionsaccordingto context. Table 5.3 also indicatesanotherfeaturethat is particularlycharacteristicof the Avar-Andi Dido subgroup,namelythewealthoflaterals.No Avar dialectcontains more than fiv€ laterals,but in Andi thereare six, as a resultof ths addition of the nonintensiveejectivelateralallricate kl'. Akhvakh, on the other haDd,attainsthe full setof sevenby includingthe nonintensiv€nonejectiveaffricatek{. Secondaryarticulations(labialisation,palatalisation,and pharyngalisation)are not unknown imongst the North-East Caucasianlanguages.We may illustrate pharyngalisation with datafrom theKubachidialectofDargva (A. A. Magometov Dersonalcommunication): buxij biq'i
'to become' 'to rip€n'
bulij bi"t'ij
'to quilt' 'to hush'
For labialisation,comparethe following Tabasaranoppositions: g"ar 'pitcher' naq"'grave'
gar 'egg-shell' rag"yesterday'
5.2 Phonology
S. Caucasian languages Table 5.4. Consonantsystemof Ubykh Bilabial plain Bilabial pharyngalised Labio-dentalplain Labio-dentalpharyngalised Alveolar plain Alveolar labiaiised Alveolo-palatalplain Alveolo-palatallabialised Palato-alveolar Palato-alveolarlabialised Retroflex Lateral Frontedvelar Labialis€dvelar Uvular Palatalis€duvular Labialiseduvular Pharyngaliseduvular Labialisedand phatyngaliseduvular Laryngal/Glottal
: b D
pp'wm pp'wr!' f
dtt'n 3CC',zs 36a',Li
3' 6' 3at'r.s 3' {q' l9{ ' ? q (c)
c"
Y
x
k' qq'rx qq't:i q' q"
a"
x'
99'UI q'' q'
v"
x'
(k)
ekt'
(k')
Avar, as we have seen,usespalatalisation: baxir
'crossing'
balin
'white'
Archi and Khinalug achievetheir impressiveinventoriesby extensiveuse of butit iswith theNodh-WestCaucasian labialisationandpalatalisationrespectively, articulations(and, thus, complex secondary use of widespread that languages associated consonantalsystems)is especially is thel€astwellendowedofall the with 48consonantphonemes, Kabard-Cherkes, ofits group.Ubykh (Table5 4), with 8ophonemes(83 ifone includesthe languages velartriad found only in wordsofforeign origin),wasfor many yearsthoughtto be by theworldrecord-holderin thisrespect,butit now appearsthat itmay besurpassed someAfrican languages,suchas the Chadic languageMargi Labialisationhas at leastthree differentrealisationsThe simplesttype is that velarsanduvulars,whichmaybetermedlip-rounding'by whichis accompanyingthe meantthat, while the backofthe tongueis forming the velar or uvular component, the lips take up the positionappropriatefor the pronunciationof w; this typealso characterisesthe palato-alveola$ The secondis rather labio-dentalisation:the of for v; for to the pronunciation lip positionis that appropriate accompanying
203
This varietyis Ubykh,Vogt (I963)suggests rathera bilabialfricativearticulation. bilabial closure foundwith the alveolo-palatals. The third kind involvescomplete existonly in and is restricted to the alveolarplosives. Labialised alveolarplosives Ubykh and Abkhaz(not in Abaza).Only Bzyp,the northerndialectof Abkhaz, shareswith Ubykh all ten membersof the two alveolo-palatalseries(plarn and labialised), literaryAbkhaz(Abzhuy)retainingonly the threelabialised aflricates. Circassianlanguagespossessat leasta triad of plain fricativesfrom the alveoloj, l, i', whosearticulation palatalseries isdescribed byCatford( r 977:29o)thus:'the tip of the tonguerestsagainstthe alveolesof the lower teeth. . . but the main articulatorychannelis at thebackofthe alveolarridge- . .' It seems to thepresent writer that the labialisedmembersof this seriesthat are attestedin Adygeare characterised by the'bi-labial'varietyoflabialisationratherthanby thelabio-d€ntal variety describedabove- this triad has developedto f, v, f in Kabard-Cherkes (and the presenceof such labio-dentalsis a diagnosticfor the East Circassian dialects). Bzypis alsoalonein sharingwith Ubykhthefeaturepharyngalisation, but it possesses only two pharyngalisedphonemes,namelyX, X'. Asregardsthelaterals,Circassianlanguages differfrom Ubykh in havinga voiced lateral fricative f and no simpleapproximant.Abkhaz hasthe approximantonly, whereasAbazashowsboth the approximantand thevoicedfricative,but employsa lateralallricate .k/ ir placeof th€ plain fricative L The labialised voicedpharyngalfricativeofAbaza e"is not attested in standard Abkhaz,whereit hasthereflexhil, henceforth symbolisedj'.And it is the[W]-type we find accompanying Abkhazll'. of labialisation A peculiarityof the Shapsug and Bzhedugdialectsof Adygeis the opposition plosives(includingaffricates)and fricatives. aspirated/unaspirated for the voiceless Theunaspirated memberis styledpferuptiveby Sovietscholars, andthisopposition is reminiscent ofthe intensive/nonintensive oppositiondiscussed abovefor NorthEastCaucasian andNorth-Central thatanaspirated/unaspirated Caucasian, except [or the€jectiv€s, whereaswehavealreadymet oppositionobviouslyhasno relevance intensiveand nonintensiveejectivesin Avar. Table 5.5, adaptedfrom Colarusso ( I977:90),givestheconsonant system ofBzhedug. Thisgivesa totalof68phonemes. glottalstop;apparently Noticeherethelabialised theAbdzakhdialectofAdygealso hasa slightly palatalisedone (Catford r9'ljt 289). Vowel systemspresentmuch lesshomogeneity acrossCaucasianlanguages. Georgianhasthe5-termsystema, e, l, o, u. LazandMingrelianaddto thisa schwa. in SouthCaucasian isattainedby theUpperBaldialect Butthemostcomplexsystem of Svan.Not only doesthisdialectmanifestthe schwa,but the featureof lengthis To thetwelvephonemes thusestablished the distinctive for allofthebasicsixvowels. followingsix mustbe addedr,i, 6, ti. iili. dd, tt. The conditionsmotivatingthis
5. Caucasian languages
204
Table S.S. Consonant system of the Bzhedug dialect of Adyge Labial Alveolar Alveolo-palatal . (labialised) Lateral Palato-alveolar Retroflex Velar Velar (labialised) Uvular Uvular (labialised) Pharyngal Laryngal/Glottal - (labialised)
p-p t't
b d 3
p'
k kk" q'q
3 3
205
Table 5.6. Vowel system (including diphthongs) of Lowlat d Chechen m n
t'
sz 323' 3'L rbl'
3'
s'9
5.2 Phonology
c'
5'
szj
9' k'
$' x'
sz
xu x' r'
aa e eii
z
aa je jee
u uu
ee 5ii 6tt
iiii
(4, ee
I tl
woo
wcii;
uu
Jee
hc h
process of umlautare setout in Sanidze(1957:325 6). Both e and r' may cause umlaut on the vowelofthe previoussyllable,but their umlautingpotentialis by no meansequal,sincee may causeonly the umlautof a, and this e mustitselfbeshort, whilst both long and short , producethe sameresulton all threeumlautingvowels. As regardsthevowelso and u, thesemaynot umlaut ifthey arepart ofaprenx. And as o is not found in suffixes,o is only actually possiblewithin roots; no such restrictionappliesto the umlautof a, so that d is the mostwidelyattestedumlauted vowel.As regardsthe phoneticrealisationof o and u, Sanidzeand Topuria ( r939: xx) observethat they are often pronounced[we] and [wi] respectively. A further phonetic transformation now usually occu$, with the result that the bilabial continuaDtis shiftedto standbehindthe followingconsonant,e.2. k'alp'et'w 'river bed'(Georgiank'a1ap'ot'i),C'abwigor C'abigw'lad'(GeorgiaD C'abuft'i);asisclear from the absenceof -i in theseexamples,syncopeis alsoa featureofSvan vocalism. Palatalisationis also a striking featureof the Nakh languages,wherenasalised monophthongsand diphthongsalso occur, although, regardingnasalisationin Ingush,Magomedov(r9'74t239\has this to say: 'Nasalisedvowelsin lngush are found only in the structureofmonosyllabicwords which historicallyendedin the sonantconsonantr. At theendofthe formsof,thegenitivecaseofnouns,adjectives, ofthe adverbandofthe infinitive,nasalityofthe voweldoes not appearasa signof phonologicalsignificancefor lngush,and it is so weaklypronouncedthat, for all practicalpurposes,it is possibleto talk of its non-existence.' Magomedov(I974: 9-I I) alsosetsout themost complexvowelsystemattestedin Nakh, namelythat of LowlandChechen, thattheinitialvowels asinTable5.6.It shouldalsoberemarked in Nakh arepreceded by whatis oftencalleda voicedpharyngalplosive- thisso-
called strong onset is also characteristicof some of the North-East Caucasian languages, e.g.AvarandAndi.Catford( r977:289)descdbes thissoundasinvolving 'tight closure of the ventricular bands (as well as the vocal cords) and some constrictionof the pharynx', which leadshim to define it as 'a (pharyngalised) ventricular+ glottal stop'. Nasalisedvowelsare also quite commonin North-EastCaucasian.Botlikh, for example,hasthe five basicvowelsa, e, i, o, u, plus the nasalisedcounterpartsof these;Bagvalcomplicatesthis somewhatby admittingdistinctivedegreesoflength, most frcquentlyfor aa (versusa) and ri (versusr'). Anothervocalicfeaturefoundin Dagestanis that ofpharyngalisation(alsofound in Ubykh). It is particularlyassociated with Dido andKhvalsh,aswellastheL€zgian languagesArchi, Tsakhur,Rutul, and Udi. Accordingto Ibragimov(r968:28,34), therearein Tsakhursixshortpharyngalised vowelsg, 9, U,j, y, 9, plusthetwo that are susceptibleto lengtheninga"a,qo. Commentingon this phenomenon,Catford (r977:294)statesthat 'pharyngalisationtakesthe form ofrctraction ofthe tongueroot, and it appearsto induce,asa side-effect, a certaindegreeof fronting of back vowels,particularlythe closervowelsu and o. The exactmechanismofthis is not clear, but the fact is that in Tsakhur and Udi the pharyngalised! and o have a distinctlycentralquality.'Udi possesses g, 9, 9, 9, j, as thefivepharyngalisedvowels well asthreeumlautedvowelsa, o, i: the systemis thencompletedby the simplea, e, i, o, u, r, and the two diphthongs ow and ej. For a recentdiscussionon pharyngalisation in theCaucasus, seeKibrik andKodzasov(r978:ror),whereit is treatedas a suprasegmental category. However,thebestknown,andmostdiscussed, question andthemostcontentious concerningCaucasianvocalismcentresaround the issueof the North-West Caucasian vowelsystems. For languages, like thoseof the North-WestCaucasian
S. Caucasian languages
20,6
family, with largeconsonantalinventories,it is easyto imaginehow someof the subtledifferences that dillerentiatecartainofthe consonantalarticulationsneedto be buttressedby the timbredifferences that theyimposeupon neighbouringvowels. Now, therangeofallophonesfor eachvowelphonemewillobviouslybequitelargein languagesendowedwith perhapsasmany as83 consonants- this is, ofcourse,the reasonwhy one perceivesso many vowelphoneswhenlisteningto theselanguages beingspoken.It thusfollowsthat, for thesystemto work smoothly,a relativelysmall numberof vowelswill achieveefficiencyof a high order. We shall, then,expcctto discoverminimalvowelsystemsin North-WestCaucasian,butjust how minimalare they?Herein lies the controversy. In I923the greatCaucasologist Jakovlevsetup the triad F - a - aa/ asthe vocalic systemfor Kabard. Trubetzkoy (1925),{einteryreting this triad, proposed the linear/verticalsystemof/e -e - a/, whereonly thedifferingdegrees ofaperture(high, mid, low, respectively)are relevantfor differentiatingthe phonemes.However,rn 1956,on the basisof his analysisof materialcollectedfrom an Abaza informant, Allen tentativelysuggested a monovocalicinteryretationfor this language, thesingle vowelbeing/a/. Genko(1955)workedwith two vowelphoncmcs/a - a/ in this same pap€r(r957: r99; quotedby Lomtatidzer97?:34)he language,but in a subs€quent maintained that ther€ were grounds for hypothesisingthc same monovocalic analysisasAllen;thiswasa conclusionreachedindependently ofAllen, forGenko's work wasactuallypreparedin the r93os. Thenin t 96oKuipersadvancedthepropositionthat Kabardis (phonologically)a totally vowellesslanguage.Having rejectedthe ideaofany distinctivedifferencein ap€rture existing betweenTrubetzkoy's /e/ and /a/, Kuipers is left with the opposition/a - a/. For theeliminationofschwaasa phonemehe usesthe arguments that, in initialand accentedsyllables,absellc€of/a/implies thepresence ofschwa.By classifyingconsonantsand consonantclustersaccordingto the particular system Kuipershimselfprescribes, the postaccentual occurrences ofschwacanbepredicted by simplc rules. This leavesthe question of schwa in noninitial prcaccentual positions.Suchschwasare analysedin termsofjuncture phenomena,and this, in Kuiper's view,satisfactorilydisposcsof'schwa' asa phoneme.He then arguesthat a be regardedmerelyas a consonantalfeaturcof openness,on a levelwith such lamiliar featuresaslabialisationandpalatalisation.This lineofargumentallowshim to postulatetheexistence ofKabard asa languagedevoidof(phonological)vowels. P€rhapsmore interestwasgenelatedin the North-WestCaucasianphonological systemsthan would otherwisehavebeenthe case(althoughno one would disput€ parallels theirintrinsicclaimfor thelinguist's attention)because oftheirtypological with the proposedreconstructionof Proto-Indo-European(without positing any geneticconnection)(Allen 1956:r72). Howeverthat may be, it was the necessary
5.3 Morphology Indo-EuropeanistSzemerCnyi who respondedto the viewsof both Kuipers and Allen with a violent critiquein r967.Allen's secondpaperappearedin r965,which wasfollowedby Kuiper'sapologia,publishedin r968.The generativcphonologist Halleenteredthe listsin r 9?owith an articlewhichrejectedin detailtheargumentsof Kuipers(r960).Partsof Halle'srefutationare alsoapplicableto Allen's analysisof Abaza,so that for both languageswe are left with the two vowelphonemes/a/ and As regardsUbykh, Dum6zil( r958)admitsonly the sametwo vowelsupon which Halle insistsfor the two sisterJanguages. However,Vogt (t963) furthersetsup the two long vowels lool ard laal, the form€r becauseof such an opposition as seq"emeabo'l shall play' (where oo can be shown to derive from 'aw): 'my game';the latter becausenot all instancesof phonetic aa are saqoemealaw analysableas a conjunctionoftwo instancesofshort a (e.9. bAada'all'). morerecent ly expressed theiropinionsonthis matter,andthe Threescholarshave evidencethey adduceleadsthemto concludethat the extremepositionsof Kuipers and Allen are not borneout by the facts.Kumaxov (r9?3) revertsto the three-way Ianguages. whilstallowinga binaryopposition contrast/a-e - a/ for Circassian /a a/ for Abkhaz and Ubykh. Lomtatidze(rgj'jt 3'l 49, restrictingherselfto a considerationof Abkhaz, agreeswith the conclusionof Kumaxov, though she naturally dealsin much greaterdetail with the Abkhaz data. Finally, Colarusso (r9?5) addresseshimself to all the languagesof the group and feelsjustified in positingonly the binaryopposition/a- a/ for themall. And so,perhapsthelastword on this matter hasyet to be uttered. We may closethis sectionon phonologywith a fleetingreferenceto the massive ( I965).An Englishsummaryoftheessential work of Gamkrelidze andMadavariani (1966). by Gamkrelidze TheProtoconclusions ofthismagnumopuswaspresented sound which these scholars reconstruct incorporates a binary Kartvelian system 'We ta/, voweloppositionof/ie mayenvisionan aboutwhichwe read( t 966:80): earlierstageof Common Kartvelian with no phonemiccontrastsbetweenvowels, assigningthe twg vowelsre and *a asallophonesto oneoriginalvowel.whichlater split into differentphonemicunitsaccordingto thecharacterofits allophones.'And so,Proto-Kartveliantoo hasa strongclaimto beincludedin anytypologicalstudies involvingProto-lndo-European and North-WestCaucasian. 5.3 Morphology Widespreadamong North-East Caucasianand North-Central generally is thedistributionofnounsintoclasses. The nounsthemselves Caucasian do not carryanymarkerto indicatetheirclass.thoughthereareinstances of nouns (e.9.Avar w-rc 'brother'.J-ac'sister'): possessing theirappropriate chss-indicator
5.3 Morphology
S. Caucasian languages
the categorymay thus be styledcovert.But the marken do appearin thosewords whichcontractaconcordrelationshipwith that lrounwhichstandsin theabsolutive case.ln Avar, for example,thereare the threeclasses(a) human male,(b) human female,(c) neither,whoseconcordmarkersare(a) w, (b) j, (c) 6, all correlatingwith the marker r (giving / in word-final position) when plural. And so we have the followingillustrationof concordrelationships: (85)
ki-w-e hit'ina-w w-as une-w w-uge-w going boy-ABS COP-PART whither little 'whereis the little boy going?'
(86)
ki-j-e hit'ina-j ias une-jj-ige-j 'whereis the little girl going?'
(87)
ki-b-e k'udija-b bac' une-bb-uge-b 'whereis the big wolf going?'
(88)
ki-r-e hit'ina-1limal une-lr-uge-l 'whereare the little childrengoing?'
in Lezgi, The numberofclassesin any givenlanguagevaries;thereare no classes Agul, andUdi; twoin nonliterary,northernTabasaran;threein Avar, sixofthe Andi languages, and Dargva;four in Dido, Ginukh, Bezhti,Lak, and six languages ofthe vary in this respect and Chamalal; Lezgiangroup;fivein Andi thoughthedialects sixin Khvarsh,Gunzib,Chechen,and Ingush;andeightin Bats.In thesingularthere is alwaysa distinctionbetweenhuman and nonhuman.The addeddivision in the languages is betweenmaleand femalewithin the bumanclass.The fourthree-class classlanguagestend to make a distinctionbetweenanimalsand other nonhuman objects,but this characterisationis not without exceptions.Whilst of the two fiveA ndi restrictsits classIll to animals,Chamalalin an apparcntly classrepresentatives arbitrary mannerallocatesboth animalsand other objectsto any ofclassesIll, IV, and V. The Nakh languagescarefullydistinguishhumanmalefrom humanfemale (though,uska1'bride'belongsto classIII in Chechenat least),but thereseemsto be Somelanguages no rationaledeterminingdistributionamongtheremainingclasses. 'child'and haveclasses containing onlyoneor two nouns,e.g.'child'inCunziband 'family' in Khvarsh. Diff€rentlanguagesalsoamalgamatetheir classesin different waysin the plural: Dido and Ginukh havemal€ human versusall others;Bezhti, Tsakhur, and Kryz have human versus nonhuman; Lak has animate ve$us inanimate:Budukh hasmale human,lemalehuman,and nonhuman;while Rutul, Archi, and Khinalug haveno classdistinctionsin the plural. Ianguages, ofclassdoesnot featurein theSouthCaucasian Thenominalcategory
209
althoughvariousattemptshavebeenmadeto find tracesof sucha system.Of the North-West Caucasianlamily, only Abkhaz-Abaza make any such distinctions, and thesearerestrictedto an oppositionhuman/nonhuman,whichis relevantto the numeralsyst€mand partially to both the pronominalsystemand the pronominal amxesthat appearin verbalcomplexes,in which lattercasea third personsingular afhx marking eithera transitivesubjector an indircct objectfudher distinguishes the second human male and human female,a distinctionwhich alsocharacterises personsingularafhxes.The independentpronouns,however,whilst preservingthis distinctionin thesecondpelsonsingular,haveonly two third personsingularforms, namelylari, human female,and yaci, human male and nonhuman. to the Any surveyof nominalcharacteristics will clearlyhaveto includereference categoryofcase.It is often statedthat casesdo not existin Abkhaz-Abaza.Sucha statementis too strong,for it neglectsthe predicative(adverbial)casein -s, e.g.
(8e)
-re -p*a16-jt' h"ezba-k'd-s te knife PL ADV 3PL-ABS 3PL-ERG regardFIN 'they regardthem as knives'
The postposition-da 'without', in associationwith singularnouns,may alsoappear to be interpretableas a case,but its true statusas a postpositionis revealedwhen construedwith plural nouns,cf. singularh"azbd-da'w\thout a knife' but plural rih"azba-k'a fi-da, literclly 'DEF-knife-PL they-WITHOUT', i.e. 'without the knives',where the sumx do€s not attach to the noun. The Circassianlanguages distinguish four casesinominative, oblique (whose functions include those of ergative,dative, etc.), instrumental,and tmnsformative(adverbial,which is the On theotherhand, thereisarich equivalent oftheAbkhazpredicative oradverbial). profusion of casesin North-Central Caucasianand North-East Caucasian(the maximumbeing53in onedialectofTabasaran)resultingfrom the largenumbersof ofwhat werconcenouns locativecases.whichno doubt derivefrom thecoalescence with postpositions(Maaavarianir970:r67).It is customaryto differentiatebetween basicor grammaticaland local cases,and we shall return to the latter later. As regardsthe grammaticalcases,all our languages,except Abkhaz-Abaza (wherethedistinctionis purelysyntactic),distinguishan ergativeand an absolutlvc. However,somelanguagesusetheir ergative€xclusivelyto repr€sentthe subjectof transitiveverbs,whereasin otherssomeadditionalfunctionis fullilled by this same case:in Avar and the Andi group ergativeand instrumentalfunctionscombine,in Lak ergativeand genitive,in Svan ergativeand adverbial,in someergativeand locative.Other grammaticalcasesalsoattestedare the comparativecaseof Nakh, and the affectivecase(pp. 223 4) in six of the Andi languagesand Tsakhur.
5. Caucasianlanguages
5.j Morphology
Table 5.'1.Locative cas* in the Kubachi dialect of Dargva Ablative I II III TV VI
'on' 'under' 'in front of' 'in' 'by, alongside' 'inside,completely€nvelopedby'
-gu -ae -Su -n(a)
-ti.whh -Eu-w/j/b -ta-Vj/b
-Zi-l -sul {a-l
4r-\N/)/O
-Cl-l
-3u-{j,/b -*u-l -na-w/Jlb -na-l
in Dageslan,in A featureof the inflectionofAvar, which is alsofound elsewhere North-CentralCaucasian,and, to a limited extent,in Svan,is the so-calleddoublerooteddecl€nsion,by whichis meantthat oneobliquecase-formactsasthe basefor This may beillustratedby the followingAvar pattern:from the otherobliquecases. theabsolutivesingular wac'brother' onecan form the ergativewad-ai,from which dative tvaa-as--e; compare in turn onecan form othercases,e.g.genitivewac-as:-u|, 'sister', eryativejaa-a{, Eeniti\e jaa-a{-ul , dative iad-a{-e. Jac theNorth-EastCaucasianandNorth-Central Asa typicalexampleofhowmostof createtheir impressivearray oflocatives,letusexaminethose Caucasianlanguages specifiesa ofthe DargvadialectKubachi.Therearesixseriesoflocatives.Eachseries gach seriestherearethreecases, the particularlocation('in','under', etc.),andwithin first expressing motion towardsthe locationconcerned(allative),the secondsimple stationaryposition(essive),the third movementawayfrom the location(ablative). with eachsedesand this actsasthe allative Thereis one basicexponentassociated component.From this allative the essiveis producedby adding the class-marker appropriateto the concord-determiningabsolutivenoun, whilst the ablative is This givesthepatternofTable 5.7- the derivedfrom theallativeby theadditionof -.1. the form, sometimesto the ergative.This absolutive endingssometimesattach to givesexampleslike kisa-n(a)'ir,to lhe pocket', br*'/r-ce'into the head', laq'uili-ta '(to) in lront ofthe cradle',laq'ujli-ta-b'in front ofthe cradle',1aq'uili-taJ'fromin front ofthe cradle'.Not all North-EastCaucasiallanguageshavesucha wealthof in 4as)-t'a, an Iocatives:Udi hasonly an ablativein -(ax)-o,an inessive/adessive 'postpositional' -(a)-/; -(a)-t', casesale a in its other and a superessive allativein comitativein -(ax)-ol-(an),artda causative(benefactive\in -(en)-k'ena lan-k'. to SouthCaucasian,whereGeorgian,for Udi, thus,bearsa greaterresemblance instance, has six basic cases (nominative-absolutiv€, vocative, genitive, instrumental,adverbial),plus elev€nsecondarycaseswhich are dative-accusative, bas€d on the genitive, dative, and, in two instances,nominative, though the instrumentaland adverbialeachalso serveas the basefor a singlepostpositional
2t r
(dative + -ze). inessive(dative + -t), adessive case.The casesare: superessive -tar), dative + equative I (dative/nominative+ -vlt), benelactive(genitive+ -tvr's),directive(genitive+ -k'cr), ablative(genitive+ -gar), temporal('assoonas') (genitive+ -tarav€), equative ll (genitive/nominative + -frn)e6r), elative (instrumental+ -dar), terminative(adverbial+ -Irlde). Commonto all Caucasian languages possessive, are personal, demonstrative, reflexive, interrogative, definite (e.g. 'each one', 'everyone'), and indefinite pronouns.Demonstratives fulfil theroleofthe personalpronounsofthe third person wher€ theselatter are absent.For the personalpronounsof the first and second personno distinctionis madebetween the absolutive and ergativein North-West Caucasian,South Caucasian,and ten North-East Caucasianlanguages.Svan, Avar, North-Central Caucasian,the Andi group, and about half the Lezgian languageshnve the opposition inclusive/exclusive in the first person plural; in Abkhaz,thisalsoappliesto thesecondpersonplural,thoughthedistinctionis not alwaysobservedforeitherfirstorsecondperson.Thereis a generalthree-waydeictic opposition'this (nearme)' 'that (nearyou,or visibleto or quitecloseto us both, 'that(nearhim,or invisible depending on language)', or moreremotefromusboth)'. But furtherdegrees ofdeixismaybeintroduced, asin Lak,where,in additionto the 'that(up above)'and ga'that(downbelow)'.Apart from CarC'u above,k'a signifies 'no-one'and seeC'!'nothing'in the Kubachidialectof Dargva,only in South Caucasian andin Bats(whichhasbeenheavilyinfluenced by SouthCaucasian)do we pronouns, find negative th€ North Caucasianequivalent expressionsbeing a combinationof indehnitepronoun and negatedverb. Only in South Caucasiando we find relativepronouns- seepp. 228,30for the syntaxof North Caucasianrelativeclauses- which differ only minimally from the interrogatives.In Old Georgianthreevarietiesofrelativepronoun arc attested:(a) pure equivalence with the interrogatives (e.g. romeli'which one'); (b) intcrrogative+ particle,which latter may b€ (i) a demonstrative(e.g. romeli-igi, where the demonstrativeis invariable)or (ii) the coordinating clitic 'and' (e.g. rcmeli-c(a));(c)interrogative+ both theseparticles(e.9.romer-ca-igr).In modern Georgianonly typ€(bii)occurs(thoughtheparticle-c is sometimesabsent,asin thc genitive).In Mingreliantypes(a) and (bi) are found (the Mingreliandemonstrative particlebeing -ri), whilst in Svan,thoughtypes(bi) and (bii) are not unknown,rne mostfrequentvarietyis (c) with thesuffixesin reverse,e.g.Upper Bal/?'who?'and jer-viiii-j'vtho Gelative)',wherei is th€coordinatingparticleand -va- a pronominal root. Attributiveadjectives sometimes do not alterat all whentheirheadnoundeclines (North-WestCaucasian. Mingrelian,Svan,Udi), sometimes theyagreewith the (Kubachi). nounin numbcr sometimes theymanifestan absolutive and an oblique
5. Caucasian languages
2t2
form (Nakh), whilst consonarit-stemadjectivesin Georgian (these being the majority) have one form for nominative,genitive,and instrumental,another for dativeand adverbial,and oneeachfor vocativeand ergative.Vowel-stemadjectives do notchangeatall. Substantivised adjectivesusuallysimplyb€haveasnouns,but in Nakh the absolutivesingularcarriesan extra marker (e.g.Chechen,lega-nlg'the high one', cf. leqa kert'hllh fence'):substantivisedparticiplesin Nakh also have their own markersfor the absolutivesingular. The comparativegrade may be formed analytically(e.g.with Ceorgian upro, AbkhazTafi;i'more'),synthetically(e.9.Chechendrka 'good', drka-x'better'- note that intensificationof themedialconsonant,drfa-x, intensifiesthemeaningto 'even better'),or it may not be expressed by any morphologicalexponent,bcingrathera function of the syntax:compareArdi ton'i wo{o'good boy' and (90)
jofi wolu-C'u Condi(i) girl-ABS boy ON good rs 'the girl is betterthan the boy'
This constructionexactlyparallelsthe alternativeGeorgianformationl (9I)
ama -ze gryelic'eflli this-oneON long letter 'a letter longer than this one'
Superlatives areusuallyformedperiphrastically,asin Chechen,whereugg'ar'most' precedesthe positive form, or in Georgian, where q'vela-ze'on (i.e. than) all' precedes eitherthe positiveor analyticcomparative,though Ceorgianalsohasthe circum6x u-. . .-esj,whichmay havecomparativeor superlativeforceasin uJamazesi 'more/mostbeautiful' from lamazi 'beattiful'. Adverbs may coincide with adjectives(Ava., Chechen,etc.), or derive from adjectivesby the addition of an adverbialending(South Caucasian,North-West Caucasian). The cardinal systemis vigesimallybased,exceptin Lak, Dargva, and Archi, thoughin somesubdialects ofAvar, particularlyDurangi,asystembasedon unitsof ten is alsorecorded(eikobava and Cercvadze1962.2o3), as alsoin the Lashkhand Upper Bal dialectsof Svan. The languages arealmostexclusively postpositional. Negationis by nomeanstreateduniformly.Adygesuffixes-(r):ip tothe positiveof its finite verbalforms,whilst rrfr- is placedb€forethe root ofnonfinite (including imperative)forms. In Abkhaz rn(r)- is similarly the only possibilityfor nonfinite forms, whereasfinite forms, although they useonly this sameexponent,placeit preradicallyor word-linally(or therewill be a final sequence-m-z-t') dependingon
5J Morphology
2t3
the tense.Kubachisimilarlyemploysprefixed,infixed,or suffixednegativeparticles dependingon the tenseofthe verb (Magometovr954:2o8).Avar hasonly sumxes and apportions them as follows: -ro (presentand future), {'o (aorist), -ge (imperative).lt is usualforthereto beat leastaspecialparticlefor prohibitions,asin Georgianhas Chechen,whererna is usedfor prohibitions,asagainstca elsewhere. devclopedthethree-foldopposition,ar for simplenegation,rlu for prohibitions,ver for negativecapability('cannot');this three-folddistinctionis alsoapplicableto the negativepronouns,adjectives,and adverbs. As finite subordinateclausesare virtually restrictedto SouthCaucasian,only in this group do we find subordinatingconjunctions. If the North-East Caucasianand North-Central Caucasianlanguagcsare generally endowed with rich noun declensions,their verbal complexesare correspondinglyrather simple. It is possibleto classifythe languagesinto four groupsdepending upontheirtypeofconjugation:(a)conjugationby nounclassonly (Chechen,Ingush,Avar-Andi Dido group,the majority ofthe Lezgiangroup);(b) conjugationby classandperson(Bats,Lak, Dargva,Tabasaran);(c) conjugationby persononly (Udi); (d) conjugationby neitherclassnor person(Agul, Lezgiitself). And so, the only type of exponentappea ng within the verbal complexesand common to all theselanguageswill be the varying setsof sumxeseachindividual languageemploysto build its own systemof tenses,moods,participles,gerunds, verbalnouns,and infinitives.Thus,whilethe overallsystemmay be quiteextensive, the structureof any givencomplexwill be relativelysimple. Given the impressivearraysoflocative caseswe haveseento becharacteristicof North-CentralCaucasianand North-EastCaucasianasa whole,it will comeasno surpriseto learnthat therearc languages in this area(suchasAvar, Lak, etc.)which make no accommodationin their verbal complexesfor either directional or orientationalpreverbs.However,it certainlyis surprisingnot merelyto find such preverbsattestedin theselanguagesat all, but to seetheir extent and the systems associated with them.In Tabasaran,directionalprcverbsrecapitulatenot only the 'behind', ymeaningofthe locativecasesbut also their forms (e.g.f- 'under', g'between',,t- 'against'.2-'in', i- 'around', /- 'on'). Dargvahasa systemofthe four oricntationalprcverbsas follows: la-batt'to give(downwards)',ha-balt'to give (upwards)',sa-6alt'to give(hither)', bid-batij'to Eive(thither)'.This is in addition to a full setof directionalpreverbs. As statedearlierin the discussionon nounclasses, whereexampleswill be found, theclassmarkerin verbstakingclassmarkers(andin thoselanguages whereclassis a featureofthe conjugationby no meansall verbsaccommodatethem)alwaysagrees inclasswith theabsolutive nounphrase. Whereaverbdoescontain a slotforaclass mrrker.sucha slotwill almostwithoutexception beprefixal.lf, on theotherhand,
S. Caucasian languages
2r4
the languagehasdevelopeda personalconjugation,then the personalendingswill agreewith theverb'ssubject,whichmaybein a varietyofcas€s(ergativefor transitivc verbs,absolutivefor intransitive,dative for verbsof feelingor perception).Not€, however,that thereare examplesfrom Tabasaranofverbs agreeingby personwith both subjectand direct object together(Magometov r965i 2oz ff-). The personal endingsof Bats,Udi, andTabasaranar€ quite clearlyderivedfrom the appropriate caseform of the relevantpersonalpronoun, as is seenin theseexamplesfrom Tabasaran:
O2)
tEu aldakura-zu I-ABS fall ISG 'I falf
(93)
uwu aldakura-wu you-SG-ABSfall 2SG 'you fall'
(94)
Eunja(-zuz) uzuz uwu I-DAT you-ABS love tSG 'I love you'
In Kubachi,thoughnot in Dargvaprop€ror Lak, thc pcrsonalendingsareidentical to the corrcspondingforms of the copula. Causativesareformedin someinstancesmorphologically,in othersanalytically; indeedboth syntheticand analyticcausativesmay exist in the samelanguage,for examplein Lezgi,wherethemorphologicaltypeis chieflyusedto producecausatives from basicallyintransitiyeroots, wh€reasthe analytic variety is the more usual meansif the embeddedverb is transitive(Topuria r959:83-5).Examplesof matrix v€rbsusedare'to do/make'(Avar,Nakh),'to allow'(Lezgi),and'to overcom€' (Kubachi). In comparisonwith the rclatively uncomplicatedstructuresof No h-Central Caucasianand North-EastCaucasian,the picturein SouthCaucasianis somewhat morc complcx.Deeters(r93o: 6) lists twelvemeaning-bearing elementsthat may appearina Kartvelianverbcomplex,althoughtheymaynotall appearaton€andth€ sametlme: I. Preverb(s) 2. Personalprefix(es)(subjectiveor objective) 3. Character-or version-vowel 4. Root 5. Pa$ive sufrx -€n/-d 6. Causativesumx(es)
5.3 Morphology
2r5
nou[) 7. Plural suffix(for nominative-absolutive 8. Presentstem-formant 9. lmperfectsuffix ro. Mood-vowel rr. Personal ending pluralsuffix lz. Subjective We noticeimmediatelythat SouthCaucasianhasa syntheticcausative; whiledouble practice they rare. With reference to the causativesare fcasible,in are extremely passive,of all Caucasianlanguagesonly South Caucasianpossess€s a fully developedpassivemorphology.For reasonsof space,considerationof the South verbmustbe restrictsdto itemsI,2,3, and ? above. Caucasian The preverbsmay be divided into those that signify direction and thos€ that indicateorientation.Of the former thereare sevcnin Georgian(more in Laz and Mingrelian,fewerinSvan),ofihe latterCeorgianhastwo:/ro-'hither', m.r'-'thither' (where'hither' is defin€das motion towardsfirst or secondperson).In Georgian, only mo- combinesassecondmemberwiththedirectionalpreverbs,forlack ofmoimplies'thither'-deixis.But this originalstateofalfairs ispreservedonly forverbsof motion, as exemplifiedby the verb 'to ca!ry': a-a-kv-s a-mo-a-kv-s ie-a-,(v-s k-mo-a-kv-s
'he carriesit 'he carriesit 'he carriesit 'he carriesit
up (a-) thither' up (a-) hith€r (mo-)' in (Ce-)thither' in (Ce-)hither (/ro-)'
However,the mostcommonfunctionofthe prcverbsin modernSouthCaucasianis to mark perfectiveaspect,so that the presentand imperfecttenscsof most verbs (other than thoseindicatingmotion) will be without preverbs,whereasthe preverb appropriateto the root in question.willappearin the aorist and future (perfective future in Svan,while Laz regularlyhasa differentfuture formation altogether),e.g. Svan(Lentekhdialecr\a-mar-e'he preparesit', an-a-mari 'he will prepareit', as againstthe imperfectivef\t\re a-mar-wn-l'he will be preparingit' (Topuria I96?: 245a).Anothcr function of the preverbsis to form new verbs,so that from the 'to lqosen',ga-.f/a'to spread',da-lla 'to Georgianroot 3(a/, wecan producea-3,1a 'to 'to dissolve',mo-.{Ia breakup', ,ie-}1a d€range',c'a-.{Ia'to erase'.As thepreverbs thecontextalonemustdeterminewhichmeaning arecxcludedfrom theimperfective, is appropriatein suchcases. mark subject, By meansoftheir personalprefixesthe SouthCaucasianlanguages indirect not mean that, direct objects,and objects,but this does if all thesethrce argumentsstandtog€therin a sentence, eachwillcorrelatewith its own amx within the verbalcomplex.Only one pronominalamx is permittedpreradicallyin the
S. Caucasian languages
thatrulesarerequiredstatingwhichamxwill appearfrom any modernlanguages,so particular sequence:for instance,for the combination'fiIst person singular subject+ secondpercon direct object', the firct person amx disappears,as in Oeorgiang-abruneb(for *v-g-abruneb)'lturn you', SvanJe-f'xe(for *xw-ia-t'xa) 'l turn you'. As the third persondirectobjectaffix is z€ro,it will be obviousthat th€ questionofaffix-reductionis somewhatsimplified.Shouldboth direct and indirect objectsbe first or secondpe$on, th€nCeorgiansolvesthis difrculty by turning the 'he problematicdirectobjectinto a third personform, asfollows: givesyou to me' is 'he givesyour headto me': rephrasedas (95)
-a3|ev-s m igi Eenstav -s he-NOM your headACC ISG-OBJ give 3SG-SU
Pronominalaffixesareonly foundin finiteverbalforms,andhereinliesan important differenc€in comparisonwith North-WestCaucasian. by Therearefour typesof'version'in SouthCaucasian,and they are represented placed the root. The four types are: immediatelybefore their appropriatevowel(s), (a)subjective, (b)objective,(c) superessivelocative, and(d)neutral,Type(a),whose vowelis i-, is usedin transitiveverbsto showthat the subjectis actingupon his own pelson,uponan articlehehappensto beweafing,or, generally,in hisown interest,as in (96) from Mingrelian, (97) from Georgian, (98) from Svan, and (99) from Georgianagain: i-bon -s
(96)
p'is
\9',7 )
p'irs i-ban -s face-ACC wash 3SG 'he washeshis face'
(98)
xw -i-qni
(99)
v -i-xnav ISG plough 'I plough it (for myself )'
Type (b) indicatesa specialr€lationshipbetweensubjectand indirect object for intransitive verbs, and betweendirect and indirect objects of tralsitives; the or it may be that the action is done in the relationshipmay be one of possession interestofthe indir€ctobjector in hisvicinity;example(Ioo)is from Svan,(Ior) from Georgian:
5.j Morphology
z16 (roo) (rot)
2L'7
x
-o-rdi
-(0)
(0)
-u-zrdi -s
raises3SG FOR-HIM 'he raiseshim for him' (In theselast examples,three differentparticipantsare involved.) versionservesto showthat the actionis suchasto place The superessive/locative thedirectobjectupontheindirect,or, in thecaseofintransitiveverbs,thesubjectwill be shown to be upon the indirect object;the vowel is a-, as in Georgian: (r02)
-v niaxur-i da mt'ad -s shashlikDAT celery ABS PREV ISG 'I cut the celeryover the shashlik'
-a-t'eri cut-AOR
The vowelforthe neutralversionis alsoa-, butlhereisnospecialfunctionthatcanbe (and, ther€fore,m€aningless) elementin the ascrib€dto it; it is merelya necessary structurc of some verbs as a generalrule, all denominalswill have it - as ln Georsian:
(r03)
v -a-tetreb rSG whiten 'I whiten it'
Cf. ter./'white'. Th€subjectiveversionalsohasa role to play in theformationofon€ is alsocrucialtotheformationofthethird typeofpassive,whilsttheobjectivevelsion (pefect) tense-group,but these are secondarydevelopm€ntsthat cannot be examinedhere. In OId Georgian, the plurality of a third person absolutive noun (either intransitive subject or transitive direct object) was indicated by means of a postradicalplural marker in verbs in the aorist tense.Modern Svan still has the facilityofindicatingsuchplurality.The absolutiveplural nominalmarkeris -al, and it is this elementwhich is used(iust as Old Georgianused-(eJn,its nominal plural markerbeing -r(l)). This gives,in the Upp€r Bal dialect,a-maa-r-e'hepreparesit', btt a-maar-ii2il-i'he preparesthem'. As Svan is like Ceorgian in having a dative accusativedirectobjectinthepresentseriesoftenses,wemayassumethatthis useof the suffix -a,/in verbshasbeenextendedto oth€r tensesfrom beinglimited originally to the aorist (where the verbal amx and the pluraliser on this affix's coreferentialnoun would havebeenformally identical),as was the corresponding suffixin OId Georgian.ModernGeorgianstill contrivesto observethisdistinctionin thoughthe meansaredifferent:apart from the few a numberofmarginal instances, verbalrootswhich havesuppletiveformsto mark plurality oftheir directobjects(if
j.3
2r6
S. Caucasian lanquages
usethe transitive)orsubjects(ifintransitive),severalverbs,in their perfectivetenses, preverb da- to indicatesuchplurality in placeof the preverbnormally associated with them. Any complexitythat mjght strike the readeras beingcharacteristicof the verb complexesof South Caucasianto judge by the evidenceof the presentationjust olTeredpalesinto insignificancewhen we turn to the complexesof North-West is such that virtuallythe entire wherethe extremepolypersonalism Caucasian, syntacticstructureofthe sentelceis recapitulatedin th€verb.Verbsaredividedinto stative and dynamic. Although the former malifest a number of differencesin ratheron the dynamicverbsin comparisonwith the latter,we shallconcentrate ' of thevariety in thespaceavailable attempting to conveyasclearan ideaaspossible ofall NorthSincethecomplexes thatmayappearintheverbcomplex. ofexponents pattern, weshall structural to virtually the same languages conform WestCaucasian concentrate on Abkhazbelow. Thereexistthreesetsor columnsof pronominalamxes,of which column I and transitivedirectobjects(i.e.absolutive), with intransitivesubjects correlates (i.e.ergative); in subjects column Ill with transitive with indirect objects. columnII only by for the major verbalarguments, of case-marking Abkhaz.in the absence roleanounphraseisplayingin wedetermine theprecis€ to theseamxescan reference In North-west Caucasianasa whole,theseaffixesindicatepersonand the sentencehumansfrom numberonly, but. as remarkeduponearlier,Abkhazdistinguishes fromfemale person male humans singular,and in columnI for thethird nonhumans personsingular andcolumnsIl andIII ofthethirdperson humansin boththesecond languages, see singular;for detailsof the actualformsin North-WestCaucasian not only to the Paris(r969).Eachseriesofaffixesis orderedcruciallywith respect the Preceding thatenterintothecomplex. otherseries butalsoto theotherexponents roots,ol a single like most North-WestCaucasian root, which usuallyconsists, elements, orderedthusl consonantor consonant+ vowel.thereare ten essential rzi4 - Relation ColumnI - Adverbial Conjunction/Question
Direction- Columnlll
Negation-
IO
Causative Root
2r9
thecolumnI positionbynotingthattherellexive affixc(a)-willoccupythispositionif il is functioningasdirectobject(if the reflexive is indirectobject.therewill be no reflexiveatix in the complex);in this caseit will be preceded by the appropriate possessive marker,andpossessive amxesareidenticaL to columnII alfixes. In Abaza this possessive allix is absentas a resultol Circassianinfluence,wherethe reflexive amxtakestheformz(J)-.Lackinganypossessive prefixbutalsopossible in placeofa 'something' columnI alfix are ak'ar-i ak'raand eg- (with negation)'nothing'. A columnII affix will alsoalwaysprecedewhat we havestyledabove'relation(al particles)', ofwhich therearefour mainones:a- 'addressing oneselfto.z(rr- 'for' 'to 'with'. (benelactive), i"(rthe detrimentof , c(r)Also possiblehcrc is the markerofunwillingness amxa-.ThecolumnIII aflixirrldallcolutnnI I amxes(except that accompanyingthe reflexive9Q)-) fiay be repiaced.under appropriatc conditions,by reciprocalmarkers(Hewitt: r979b).All pronominalamxes.once againunderappropriateconditions,may be replacedby a relativeafix; seepp. 229-30. Two adverbialelements. :UIa-and a!-. bothmeaning'again . mayoccupyslot2. Slot3 is takenby lbur elements thatfunctionasconjunctional particles. andtheir presence requires theverbto benonfinite:theyarear(rr- 'when'.s(aJ-'how , ai(r)'where',z(o)-'why'. By adding the particleb:t-, we obtain lhe corresponding interrogative forms,hencethe notationConjunction/Question. Thefifthslotbelongs preverbs: to four orientational aa-'hither',ra- 'thither',/a'downwards', 'upwards', j"athis beingthe sameorientational systemas earlier described for Dargva(p. 2I3). By far the mostcommonoftheseis aa-,whichcan convey a variety of oth€r nuancesdependingupon the root with which it is associated. Notethatiftheverbcomplexcontains prever a directional b at slot7,then preverbwillstandafterterm3,i.e.beforethesequence:column anyorientational II amx + relationalparticle.Thesepreverbsmayevenoccupythisslot in theabsence of a directionaloreverb: ( r 04)
-aa -sr -26 -m -k'a -jt' J HITHER rSG-COL-II POT NEG seizeFIN 3SG-INAN 'l
56789 Orientatjon ColumnIt
Morphology
couldr't get hold ofit'
Terrn 7 is representedby the dircctional preverbs 3nd also by the so-called determiners.which are nouns functioningas preverbs;ifdeterminer and directional prevetb co-occur,the detenninerstandsfirst. Both may govcrn an indirect objecr, column II aflix. so that in such circumstancesone rnight almost describethem as
This notation requiressome elucidation.What we have already said about the pronominal affixesmeansthat. regardingslots l. 6, and 8, we needonly elaborateon
inlraverbal postpositions.An interestingfeature of both types of clement is that Inany {)1-lhemhnve two lbrms. onc with a ilnd one withoul (sontetinleswith e).
-l 22o
5, Calcasian languages
5.3 Morphology
to themeaningdiferenceillative/ablative, of a corresponds Presence versusabsence as in the following examples: (roS)
da
-c'a
-16-aaP'
3SG-HUM-COLI (TO)-UNDER go INFER 'he apparentlYcrawledunder it' (106)
-c'e -c'e -A w 2SG-MALE-COLI 3SG-COL-II (FROM)-UNDER NEC come -n PROHIB 'don't come out flom under it'
;
stresses therepeatednatureoftheaction,and -Ja,the(generallynegative) intensifier. The nominal plural marker for nonhuman nouns, -koa. is also found here emphasisingthe plurality of any of the preradicalamxes(Hewitt: r 9?9c),although onewondersiforiginally it might not havebeenlimited to stressingthe plurality of intransitivesubjcctsor transitivedirect objects,aswas -(e)z in OId Georgian,and, indeed,as is the conespondingpluralisq -x for the third pcrson in the modem Circassianlanguages.At any rate, this suffx -ft"a may also indicatethe manifold natureof the verbalaction,just asmay the correspondingpluraliser-al in Svan,so that it almostparallelsthe meaningof the repetitivesufrx -1ain this function: (ro?)
The negativeparticle m(e)- occupiesslot 9 in all nonfinite forms,including the as imperative(andasubsidiaryword-final-t alsoappearsin suchprohibitiveforms),
je
-q'a
a'aJ6-n 3SGINAN-COLI PREVERB 3SG-FEM-COL-IU do -wa -n) ( *-!a ITER DYN IMPERF 'Sheusedto do it rcgularly'
well as in certainfinite complexes. The causativeformativeimmediatelyprecedesthe root. Double morphological causativesarc not p€rmitted in Abkhaz, although Abaza, under Circassian
(Io8)
influence,doesallow them. In practice the postradical structure of the complex is usually relatively straightforwardincomparisonwith the preradicalstructure.However,the number ofelementswhichin theorymay occurhereis extremelylarge(Saduri:1974).Let us addressours€lvesflrst to the questionof finite versusnonfiniteforms. All Northand WestCaucasianlanguagcsallow only onefiniteverbtoappearineachsentence, languages Caucasian All North-West forms. possess nonfrnit€ a varicty of so they concurin requiringthenegativ€particleoftheirnonfiniteformsto beprefixedbefore theroot no matt€rwhatits placein thecofespondingfiniteform. With theexception ofthis fundamentalchange,and a fewminor alterations,virtually all finiteforms in Ubykh and Circassianmay function as nonfinites- and this means,amongother andactasnouns.However,Abkhazdiverges thirgs, that theymay takecase-endings in this resp€ct.Eachtensehasits own finite ending'which from its sisterlanguages disappearswhen the nonfinite form is required, so that eachtensehasits own special flnite and nonfinitecorrelates.We shall say io more about tensesuffixes(be they finit€ or nonfinite)ormood sumxes,apart from underliningthatth€y standafterthe
This convenientlyintroducesthe element-wa, which appearsin the presentand irnperfecttenses.It is int€rpretedas the characteristicmarker of dynamic verbs. Kabard alsopreserves suchadynamicmarker,but in this languag€therelevalt amx appearspreradically. Following -wamay standthespecialquestionpaicles-da.who(m)?,,-zajI-zejI-j 'what?'.After the nonfinite marker -z comethc conjunctional,or perhapslather postpositional,elemetts-cep*a,a 'everytime that', -aan1a'vntil', -nac,e,aslong as',and JZteJ'since'.Mention shouldalsobemadcofthe conditionalparticle-r, to whichmaybeadded-c, therebyproducingapurposivcorpurposeclauseequivalcnt, Various other postradical componentscould be introduced into this discussion, but we may clos€by observingthat, where the finite markers -(lrt,, -w-p, occur, th€ only elementthat may follow them is thc clitic -ej, usedto indicate a sftong contrast
root, as in all other Caucasianlanguages. Immediatelyafter the root we may find one of two suffixes,-aa or -1a,which are obviously relatedto two of the odentationalpreverbsseenabove;thesesumxes requirea directionalprev€rbto standpreradically,and Ja will beusedifthepreverb is ih its a-grade, -aa with the zero-grade.Various adverbialsalso occupy this 'indeed', -1a,which position, suchas -x 'again' and someintensifierslike -i"ci?
je-q'a-k'a-k"6-n('-k'a-wa-n) PL 'she used to do it severaltimes'
or contradiction,or strongassertion. To summarise,then, one of the most siSnificantfeaturesof the North-West Caucasianlanguages is theextraordinarypolypersonalism oftheir verbcomplexes. Sinc€thereexistsa high degreeof uniformity in the structureof thesecomprexes betweenall the languagesol this group, although no-one would pretend that anythinglike a one-to-onecorrespondence obtains(andevenwhereth€ morphemes do closelycorrespond,theremay be no similarityofactual morphs),it wasdeemed advantageous to prescnta fairlyd€tailed,thoughby no meanscomplete,description
5.4 Syntax
5. CaucasianlanguageE ofthe verbcomplexinjust onememb€rof this languagefamily, Abkhaz lt is hoped that the readerwill now at least hav€ an accurateappleciation ofjust what is meant itis appliedto theselanguages'Sirceit shouldnow be bythe termpolypersonalismas theselanguagescanconveyin so smallan information clearwhat a vastamountof amount of phonic material (giventhe monoconsorantalnature of maDyof their itwould bedimcultto imaginehowlanguagescoulddiffermoresharply morphemes), of in respect the structure of their verb complexesthan those of No h-West Caucasian,on the one hand, and Lezgi and Agul on the other'
5.4 Syntax As a generalrule prefe ed sentenceword order is subject--object-v€rb' South although subject-verb-objectis by no means uncommon' especiallyin postpositional' Caucasian.As alreadyobserved,the languagesare predominantly Adjectives in South Caucasian, North-Centtal Caucasian, and North-East only those Caucasiannormally precedetheir nouns,but in North-WestCaucasian do so' may ordinals and signifying nationality, indefinite adjectives, a forming often adjective+ noun or noun + adjectivein North-West Caucasian and silglecompoundword. Adnominalgenitivesalsogenerallyprecedetheirnouns' indeed they must do so in North-West Caucasian The North-West Caucasian possessive constructiondiffers from that of the other Caucasianlanguagesand standin the genitive'whichis that ofTurkish: not only doesthepossessor resembles identicaltothedativeandergative(andweareheretalkingspecificallyofCircassian andUbykh, for thesecaseendilgs do not existin Abkhaz-Abaza)'butthepossessed A uniquefeatureof noun alsocarriestheappropriateplonominal possessiveprefix Adyge (together with the Besleneydialect of Kabard-Cherk€s) is thc distinction The inalienableset,which includes betweenalienableand inalienablepossession. 'father')(Rogaval9?4),is marked 'mother' and atd blood relatives(exceptfor a,td
223
Since,in a work ofthis natur€,a detail€dstudyofthesyntaxofsome38languages is out ofthe question,we shallnow concentrateon two main topics:ergativityand relativeclauseformation. It is well-known that thc Caucasusis the only region in Europe where large numbersofergativelanguagesarelocated.And it wasthe discoveryof€rgativity in the Caucasusthat first arousedthe interestofwesternscholarsin theselanguages. With thesoleexceptionof Mingrelian,ergativityis a phenomenonwhich is relevant to all Caucasianlanguages.The typical ergativelanguagewill havea specialcase (ergative)to mark thesubjectoftransitiveverbs,whilstdirectobjectsand subjectsof (absolutive).We canillustratethis with intransitiveverbswillstand in the samecase an Avar examole:
(rrr)
-ekana wae -as- lija b brother ERG bottle-ABSCLASSIII broke 'the brother broke the bottle'
(rr2)
dila b-ekana 'thc bottle broke'
Incidentally, we meet here in passinganother regular feature of North-East Caucasian,namelythat verbrootsmay beeithertransitiveor intransitivedepending upon the syntax of the sentence:in the presenceof an ergativesubjectthey are transitive,otherwiseintransitive;theseare the so-calledlabile verbs. However,thereis more to the questionof Caucasianergativitythan the simple presentationof such a canonicalergativestructure.First, we must mention that verbs of feeling or perception in No h-Central Caucasianand North-East Caucasianare frcquently treated completelydifferently.Some nine North-East Caucasianlanguages havea specialaffectivecase, whosefunctionis to representthe subjectof suchverbs,as in Andi:
by attachment of the simple personal prefix to the head noun: (I I3'
(r09)
e -nd I'e -m man GEN 3SG eye 'the man's eye'
personal For alienableobjects,a compoundpqefixis used,which consistsof the prefix plusi- as the marker of alienability: (r lo)
se -J-wena ISG hous€ 'my house'
-uson tmuwo woEi w father-AFF brother-ABSCLASSJ found 'father found (his) brother'
Languages not possessing a specialaffectivecase mayusethedativ€(Chechen,Lezgi, etc.),or, as happensin Avar, the dative for verbsof leelingbut one of the locative casesfor thoseof perc€ption.SouthCaucasianhasa-numberofso-calledinverted verbs requiring a dative subject,but the verbsof this type are not in one-to-one correspondence with the North-Centraland North-EastCaucasianverbsoffeeling and p€rception;the typical constructionfor the perfectseriesof tensesin South
j. Caucasianlanguages
224
Caucasian is also inverted, in as much as the subject stands in the dative with transitive verbs, the dir€ct object in the nominative-absolutive. The situationin South Caucasianis somewhatanomalous.Georgianand Svan restrict their ergative construction to the aorist series (indicative, subjunctivg and imperative). we have just observed what happens in the perf€ct series,and yet another construction applies to the prcsent series: subject in the nominative-absolutive, direct object in thc dative-accusative.Thereare two Yerbsin modern Georgian, both meaning'to know', which have an ergative subject (and directobject)in the presenttcnse,butthesearefossilisedsonominative-absolutive called permansives,which in OId Georgian (and somernodern mountain dialects) form an aspectual(habitual)derivativeof the aorist stem;hencathey requirethe typically ao st coNtruction. The probableprimary stateofaffairs prevailing in Svan and Georgianhas beendevelopedby Laz and Mingrelian, each in its own way: Mingrelian hasextendedthe range of the ergative caseso that it now d€signatesall subjectsofaoristverbs,tralrsitiveorintransitive,andthe resultis that theMingrelian so-calledergative casehasbecomea rcdundant aorist marker, and the languageno longerexhibitsanytrue ergativeconstruction Laz, on the otherhand,hasextend€d the rangeof the ergativeso that it marks all tlansitivesubjectsregardlessof tense (present,aolist, and noninvertedp€rfect).Wherev€rthe etgativeis used,the direct object standsin the absolutive.(It rnay beobservedat this point that in Udi the direct a fact objectis found not only in theabsolutivebut alsoin both of Udi's dativecases, case whichhasstimulateda debateaboutthepossibilityoftherebeingan accusative that, even note we should Caucasian, South with in connection in Udi.) Finally, outside Mingelian, casesof the ergative accompanying intransitive verbs ar€ not view (Klimov 19?6;Harris rare.This hasin turn givenriseto a recrntly expressed of ergative 1976)that South Caucasianshouldnot be regardedas representative as the be said that, it must However, active languages. rather of but languages, active all like with anything not found case is traditionally interpretedergative (agentive)verbs,little seemsto be gainedby this departure. An interesting,but severelylimited featureof Bats, is that a small number of intransitiveverbstake aD ergativefiIst or second(but not third) pe$on subject, where the subject deliberately effects the action, but an absolutive subject if the subjectis unintentionallyatrectedby the action:Des€riev(1953:226)lists six such verbs(e.g.'to be anxious/worry'). Despite its lack ofcase endings,we know that Abkhaz-Abaza is ergative because ofthe concord relationshipsestablishedbetweenthe vcrb argumentsand the seriesof pronominalamxesin theverbcomplex,thecolumnI aftx correlatingwithtransitive direct objectsand intransitivesubjects,the column III amx only with transitive subjects,We thusseethat the verb'to hit' is intransitive(taking an indirectobject):
5.4 Syntax
(tr+)
-b5 -s -we -jt' s ISG-COLJ 2SG-FEM-COL-II hit DYN FIN 'I hit you'
This may be comparedwith a regulartlansitivestructure: (I I5)
-b -b6.jf ( a'-ba-wa -jt) se rSG-COL-I zSG-FEM-COLJII seeDYN FIN 'you seeme'
Certain verbs in Circassian languagespermit both the regular ergative constructiol and the, as it were, reversedor so-calledantipassiveconfiguration exemplifiedin Abkhaz sentenc€(r r4), as in the following two Bzhedugsentences:
( rr 6 )
-j -d Xafid.-m g'as"e-r -Z% (0 boy OBL field ABS 3SG-COLJ 3SG-COL-III DYN plough 'the boy is ploughing the field'
( rr 7 )
-j -d -i"d i'abd-r 9'eg"e-m (0 boy ABS field OBL 3SC-COLJ 3SG-COLII DYN plough 'the boy is ploughing away at the field'
S€ntences oftype(r r 7)arerarer,andmoremarked,thanthoseoftype(r r6).Thereis also a significantdiference in meaningbetweenthe two: (r 16) means.the boy is ploughing/ploughs thefield',while(r r7) meansrather'theboy is ploughingawayat the field'. Type (r16) sentenc€s may be describedas efect-orientated,in that they indicatea bond betweenverb and object,whereastype(r r7) expressions focusour attentionon the subject(Catford r977:306;Colarussor977: r32);alterDatively,the ergativeconstruction may bedescribedas'aim-ful',irnplyingthe actor'sintentronto carrythe actionto completion,whereasthe secondconstrUctionis'aimless',in that the action is not necessarily completed,for we are merelyintelestedin the subject's activity ai the time ofdiscou$e. If this descriptionof the ergativeconstructionas effect-o entatedand,conversely,the interpretationof the antipassiveconstruction assubject-orientated is correct,thenwe are approachingan explanationof why the ergativeis oftenconfinedto past,perfectivetense-aspects (asin thecaseofGeorgian and Svan among the Caucasianlanguages);by definition, the action of a past perfectiveverbis completedand its effecthasbeenachieved,whereastheactionofa nonpastimperfectiveverbis,equallyby definition,incomplete,tellingusmoreabout the relationship betweensubject and verb than b€tweendirect object and verb. Abkhazdoesnot admitanychoicebetweenergativeandantipassiveconstructions ofthe sortwehavejustdescribedforCircassian, andno dataar€availablefor Ubykh. However,similar choicesdo occurin Dagestanlanguages, for instancein Dargva:
5. Caucasianlanguitges ( rr 8 )
-ut'ul-ra b Zuz nu-ni I ERG book-ABSCLASS-lll read tSG 'l readthe book'
(rr9)
-uC'ul'ra (0) 2uz -li nu I-ABS book ERG CLASS-Iread ISG 'l am readingthe book'
by Byxovskaja The semanticdistinctiot nondurativeversusdurative is suggested ( r9 3 8 ) . The situation in Avar is somewhatdiflerent, although the double absolutive in Avar is alsofoundin themajorityofthe Dagestan to be examined sentence-type construclion maychooselheetgativeor nonergative | One tKibriL 979). languages tenses participle and copula, present of only for the compoundtensesconsisting which are inherentlydurative,e.g.(S. Crisp personalcommunication): ( r 20)
(r2r)
5.4 Syntax
226
-ugo b ha-b-ule-b nux hez they-ERGroad-ABSmaking-CLASS-lllCLASS-ltl COP 'theyare buildingthe road' 'ule-l r'ugo ha-b nux hel COP CLASS-I-PL CLASS-Ill they-ABSroad-ABS 'theyareengaged the road' building on
It standsout immediatelythat the configurationpresentin ( I2I) is not exactly the reverse of that in ( I20), for. dlthough the subject is indeed absolutive, the object is also absolutiveand not ergative. The Nakh languagesare in fairly closeagreementwith Avar' we shall illustrate with Chechenexamples.The basictransitivestructure(with a noncompound verb)
'l am in thehabitofworking. occupation'. Theexiimple maybeglossed or.l usually work'.Notethat thegerundappears whereAvar employsthepresentparticiple, but thatit stillagrees withitsowndirectobjectby virtueofitsclassprenx.whilstthectassmarkeron the copulais in concordwith the sentential subject. The Chechenconstruction parallelto Avar (lzo) wouldbe: \124)
(r25)
(r23)
-u 'eg w b bolx .so I-ABS work-ABSCLASS-Vdoing-CERCLASS-l COP
it Jakovlev( I94o) stylesthis type ofstructure the generalisingconstructionsince the action . . as the usual occupationol'the subject'as his profcssional expresses
3livs,livobit
daalora
mat
tavisi
with-great-dimculty he-separated from-themhis-own s$e ]/,is gan dat'anjulma p'lat'on-ma brother-in-law-ABS him by tonnented Plato ERG 'with greatdifncultydid Plato, whohadhimselfbeen tormented by him (sc.his brother-inlaw),separate his brother-inlawfrom them'
'o b bolx ;rs I-ERG work-ABSCLASS-Vdo 'l do work'
(l2I) will be: A parallelfor the Avar sentence
-eJ bolx -u as b b work-ABSI-ERG CLASS-VdoingCLASS-VCOp
This structureis designatedthe processual constructionand is describedas 'the subject'sbeingin expressing process the of actingupon a deliniteindividual object,in sucha waythattheprocess ofactionoccupies not only thegiven,concrete moment,but alsoa spanof timeup to andbeyondthepresent moment'.Wemaythus 'l am involvedin (a particular)piece translater ofwork'. Observe thepeculiarword orderassociated with thisIattertypeofstructure. WhileAvar andChechen manifest quitecloseformalparallelisms, from a senanticviewpointthereare considerable differences, in particularthe Avar double-absolutive construction with compound verbseems to correlilte withtheChechen ergative construction withcompoundverb, ralherthanwith its lormalnear-equivalent. Thesevariations on theergative theme serveto demonstrate that ergativityis by no meansa unifiedphenomenon in Caucasian languages. Relativeclauseformationin SouthCaucasian is straightforward, as it basically followsthe normal Indo-European patternof relativepronounplus finite vero, togetherwith variantsinvolvingparticipialphrases,which, as with adjeclives generally, will precede theirheadnouns.Thefollowingisan exampleofa participial relativefrom Georsian:
may be exemplifiedby the simple sentence: (t 22)
22'7
The lastthreewordsmay beexpressed. moreexpansively, by a full relativeclause: (t 26)
. p'lat'onma, vin-c who REL
misgan dat'anjuliq'o he-had-been-tormented
Mingrelian, however, exhibits sone interesting features.as in the followrng exon]ple(Hewitt 1977):
u2't)
so
rc ti
bogi namusu -tu
5.4 Syntax
228
5. Caucasian languaEes c'iEni
rnepti
(I3I]
girl-ABS
whereis that boy to-whom REL book-ABS I-gave-it-to-him 'whereis the boy to whom I gavethe book?' wehaveanordinaryfiniteverbin theaorist,andtheonly clause In thissimplerelative is therelativepronoun.However'we mayadd to theverba mark ofsubordination pronoun particle-r( i). Wemaynowdo awaywiththerelative subordinatingenclitic and move what remainsof the subordinateclauseinto the position precedingthe of and naturalMingrelianequivalent headnoun.The resultis themostacceptable
'the
clarifythis: (r29)
-ura'w 'w rvas ha ebela{ boy-ABS CLASS-I mother-ERchaving-madeCLASS-I 'the boy whom the motherbore'
(rlo)
-ura-j ebel washa-w CLASS-ll mother-ABS CLASS-l 'the motherwho borelhe boy'
ura-b
CLASS-ll
fuq'
CLASS-lllhouse-ABS
housewhere the mother borc the girl'
In Chechen.theparticiplesdo not end in aclass-marker,but agreewith their head nouns, at least to the extent of distinguishingan absolutive lrom an oblique. Otherwisethe construction for relativesfollows the Avar pattern: (r32)
2iite
bolx
b
-wolina
-tu
early-in-the-morningwork-ABS CLASS-V having-begunOBL -to KOLXOZxo
c'igni mepti-ni ti boli so re
asa positionandvirtuallyfunctioning isin thispreposed Oncethesubordinateclause encliticmay be omitted,so that the only the subordinating participialexpression, mepCt is itspositionin frontoftheheadnoun' c 'gti of status subordinate signofthe possiblemeansol producingrelative only is the The participialconstruction which clausesin all the North Caucasianlanguages'but therearemany differences force us to tteat North-WestCaucasianseparately.tn North-EastCaucasianand mustprecedetheheadnoun All North CentralCaucasianthe participialexpression would haveshownin the full they cases as the same argumentsofthe verbremainin the in thisrespect corresponds; clauseto whichtherelativeparticipialconstruction ives participia I relat participialconstructionsof North Caucasiandiffersharplyfrom abovecrucially illustrated thepeculiarMingrelianconstruction in SouthCaucasian, ofthe to thecases the absenceofcharlge which correlateswith itsfiniteverb, retaining all ln Avar' that language in verbal argumentsin such relative expressions of theclass by in a classmarker,andthismarkerisalwaysdetermined participialsend the headnoun. However,it will be recalledthat verbscontainingclassmarkersasa rule accommodatethem prefixally,so that many participleswill contain two class will agreewith anyabsolutlve thefirst class-markdr markers.In suchcircumstanc€s, noun that may appea.within the actualrelativeclause.The followingexirmples
ha-j
In theseexamples, was is classI, ebe,/and yas classII, and .uq' classIII.
above: the Enslishsentence (r 28)
ebela{jas
229
collective-larmerERG 'the collective-farmer who
began work early in the morning'
In Lezgi, of course, the participle neither agreeswith any argument within the relativeconstruction(asa resultofthe absenceofany sort ofverbal concord)nor can it agreewith the following headnoun, evento the limited extentthat suchagreement is possiblein Nakh, sinceLezgi adnominal adjectivesdo not undergoany changesAnd so, a Lezgi relative expression is extremely simple:
(r33)
qel stxa rul eqet na girl-ABSwent-out brother-ABShaving-died 'the girl whosebrotherhaddiedwent out'
Comparethis with the following:
( r34)
vax q'eji stXa eqet'na sister-ABS boy-ABS 'the boy whosesisterhad died went out'
As regardsthe formation of relativeclausesin North-WestCaucasian,detailed studiesfor Abkhaz and Adyge are alreadyavailable(Hewitt, r979c;r979d);so we shallillustrate withexamples fromAdyge(Temirgoy dialect). It will beobviousfrom whathasalreadybeensaidthat nonfiniteverbformsareused;theyprecedetheirhead noun.Ifthe relativeclauseis in construction withthatnounwhosepronominalaffix in therelativeverbcomplexbelongsto columnI, thenno changetakesplaceto the amxalstructure ofthatcomplexin bothCircassian andUbykh(Abkhaz-Abaza here deviates from thesister-languages in replacing theappropriate nonrelative columnI affix by the specialrelativeform Jb-): note that in the presenttenseof nonstative (dynamic)verbsin Circassian the relativeparticipleis producedby suffixing-rJ, otherwise thc nonliniteform dillcrsonlv slishtlvfrom thc linite:
( r3 5 )
( r3 6 )
GEOR(jIAN
qd-k"'a-ra-r 'the onewho came'
i"aza -r
za
-wat'a-vi
l'? -r
woman DEF-ABS REL kill PASTman DEF-ABS 'the man who killed the woman' Compare this with the finite clause:
(r38)
e 'wet'o-Ii i"aza -r l'e -m man ERG womanDEF-ABShe kill PAST 'the man killedthe woman'
and Ubykh (but A verycommonvariantof thisbasicpatternin both Circassian not in Abkhaz)is for the headnoun to appearat the beginningof the relative participle to carry leavingtherelative andto standin theadverbialcase' construction main the within noun head of the function the the r€levantcasesumxconveying clause:
tr39)
23r
TEXTS IN CAUCASIAN LANG UAGES
-k"'i -u qit PREV come PAST 'he came'
In (r36), -r is the definiteabsolutivemarker. However,if the relativels ln by a columnII or columnIll amx withinthe with a nounrepresented construction relative complex. then a specialrelative affix replacesthe non-relativeamx; in thisis z(p)-,in Ubykh d(,)-l and Abzhaz-Abaza Circassian ( | 37)
5. Texts
23o
5. Caucasianlanguages
4'-law !' azet za-wct'a' v-a-r 'the man who killed the woman
In this example.-lw is the adverbialcaseending.and -t the suffixfor definite absolutive.Therc sccmsto be no semanticdifferenceassociatedwith the choice betweenthesetwo constructions. quite clearly This short surveyof North Caucasianrelativeconstructions just thisonetyDeoI roleplayedby theparticiplein the fundamental demonstrates are conjunctions earlierthat subordinating clause.It wasmentioned subordinate make languages North Caucasian The virtuallyconfinedto South Caucasian extensiveuse of participlesand other nonfinite verbal forms to express The role playedby suchnonliniteverb formsis one of the most subordination. of North C ucasiansyntax strikingfeatures
TEXT
p'lat'on-i k'idev did -xan -s i Plato NOM again long time DAT SU-VERSbe-AOR-3SG-NOM -guneb -o -d -jd-om -i u mart'o-d m NEC temperNEG ADV alone ADV ACT-PART sit THEM NOM -rs -li p'at'ara rgval magida-s lan, tail zal k'utxe guest-roomGEN corner-DAT IN small round table DAT AT tea INSTR c'in
da
jer k'idev ver
-e
da
.c'q'nar-eb
in-frontand as-yet not-POTPREV PLUP-3-ERGcalm THEM -tn -a gul -i. tav-is -i ra -ig -ad ar CAUS 3SC-ABSselfGEN ABS heartABS what way ADV not lanJy -av
-d
-a
da
a
-gin
-eb
-d
abuseTHEM IMPERF 3SC-NOMand VERS swear-at THEM IMPERF -a -ul tav-is tav-s, rom gada -r -e 3SC-NOMselfCEN selfACC that PREV mad THEM PAST-PART-PASS k'ac
-tan
mgzavr-ob-a
ar
-j
da
-lal
man-DAT WITH journeyABSTRACT-ABSnot PREV SU-VERSforbid 'a -siamovn-eb-a da am -den -i u da AOR-3SG-NOMand thusmuchABS NEG pleasureABSTRACT-ABSand ga
-c'val
-eb-a
ga
-mo
-t
-af
-4,,.
PREV tormentABSTRACT-ABSPREV PREV SU-VERSDassAOR-c'val -eb-a -c'val -eEa ga ga 3SG-NOM PREV tormentABSTRACT-ABSPREV torment ABSTRACT-ABS I
-q o,
nagfam
SU-VERSbe-AOR-3SC-NOM but -it -i -k'l -av h
lnas
upfo st
-fcxv
he-ACCmorcABSTRACT shame -d
-a,
ABSTRACT NOM 3-DO kill THEM IMPERF 3SG-NOMthis-OBL -ul -ma rom mtel sa -zog -ad -o c'q' -e damnTHEM PAST-PART-PASS ERC that wholeADJ someADV ADJ -eb-a -li c'a -mo -i -3ax -a ABSTRACT-DAT IN PREV PREV SU-VERS shoutAOR-rSG-NOM -i -a da mis ga sa-iduml -o and he-GENNOM N secretlyN-ABS PREV NEUTRAL-VERS -mzyavn-a. -k'virv -el ra -sa discloseAOR-3SG-NOMwhat FUT-PART surpriseFUT-PART
232
5. Ca casian languages 'od 'kn-eb i axla sa-masxto -d jest THEM COND N ADV SU-VERS be NOM be-3SG but N -t -ul -gd -eb -a am a -i
NOM th€se-OBL 3SG-NOMPREV throw THEM PAST-PART-PASS -i -dan -c -gan. romel-nl dil
youth PL CEN BY who NOM-PL REL morningINSTR FROM -r -I a sa-yam -o -mdis mxolod im-it it INSTR NEUTRAL-VERS be THEM N night N UNTIL only -ni, 'u! -fI -an rom sa- oxuaS-o, ga that N joke N NOM-PL 3PL-NOM PREV occupy PAST-PART-PASS -i mo ram aa sa-sacil-o da sa-masxto sagan N fun N and N jest -gon
-i
N subjectABS any either PREV -n
'o
an 3e
-a
SU-VERSthink-upAOR-SUBJ3PL-NOM or PREV LOC-VERS 'me -n -o vis antn -i noticeTHEM AOR-SUBJ3PL-NOM anyone-DATINDEF -a -k'l -av -d p'lat'on -ze I tav -s ama ACC Plato self IMPERF kill THEM this-DAT ON SU-VERS 3SC-NOM -dg -a, -ze -nair -i guneba da da im NOM and that-OBL KIND-OF mood-DAT ON PREv standAOR-3SG-NOM -e 'q.o xel -i a i rom mza -d hand ABS PREV PLUP-3that readyADV SU-VERSb€-AOR-3SG-NOM -ze' -a -znx 'v -is -y -o gan tav ERG raise3SG-ABSself GEN PREV intendTHEM INFIN-DAT ON -e
-t'ov
-a
-in
-eb
tav -$
-t
PREV PLUP-3-ERCabandonTHEM CAUS 3SG-ABSself CEN ABS -brun -eb -ve -c'am -s uk'an ga am sakme, this-OBL secondDAT EMPH back PREV return THEM business-ABS -di, uv -i -qo -t -ul saxl PAST-PART-PASSSU-vERS be-AOR-:SG house-DAT IN self ABS mt
233
-a,
q'mac'vil-eb -isa
mt
5. Texts
-e
-neb -eb
-in
-a
q'ovel
-i
PREV PLUP-3-ERG leaveTHEM CAUS 3SG-ABSeveryoneNOM -c -sa -ve u-nd-ais rc lvis da dae, EMPH GEN FOR and OPT-PTCLwhich REL must it-NOM -i -ar -xd mo -m PREV PAST-PART-ACT happen PAST-PART-ACT SU-VERS q-o. be-AOR-3SG-NOM (From D. K'ldialvill. Samanilvilisdedinacva./i, Tbilisi, r962.)
Nouns in the nominative absolutiveand dative accusative casesare glossedNOM or ABS, DAT or ACC, accordingto their syntacticfunction in the sentencein question.Likewise,verb agreementmarkersare often glossedNOM, ABS, ERG accordingto the systemby which they show agreement. Wherea noun is followedby a postpositionalsumx,the caseindicationfor the noun givesthe casethat the postpositiongoverns. In transitivepluperlectforms,the prefix after the preverbmay show the pcrson and,in the first person,numberofthe transitivesubject;in the examplesin the text (daec'q'narebina,aeyo, miet'ovebina,mienebebina),this is alwaysthird person singular.The formation of the intransitivepluperfectmomxdariq'o is diferent, consistingof a reducedform of the aorist of the copulawith the past participle. leantnion: the locativeversionprefix a- herecorrelateswith the third oerson indirect obj€ct. lav-: the literalmeaningis'head',but this form is alsousedas a reflexive and emphaticpronoun. Note the meaningsof the following polymorphemicwords, which are given morph-by-morphglossesin the text: sazogadoeba,company',sayamo,evening,, rasak'virvelia'of course'. FREE TR A NSLATION
Plato wasout ofsorts for a good while yet, sittingaloneby a smallround tablcin a cornerofthe guest-roomwith his tea beforehim; he had not yet beenableto calm himselfdown. In what way did he not abuseand swearat himselffor not having refused to travel with a mad man and for having gone through so much unpleasantness and harassment. . . Harassmentwasharassment, but he wasrather overcomewith shamethat this damnedman beforetheentirecompanyhadshouted out and disclosedhis secret.Ofcourse,he would now be madean objectoffun by theseyouthswho, from morningto evening,areconsumedonly with tryingeitherto think up or to discernin anyoneyou like any old subjectforjoking, for fun, forlesr. This wasthe matter over which Plato was tormentinghimself: his mood wassuch that hewasreadyto giveup whatheintended,to abandonhisbusiness, to retum back homeat once,to leavethemall to themselves, _ and to hell with the consequences! ABKHAZ TEXT
-ps -a aps-n5 a -be AbkhaziajSG-NONHUM-COL-tt sout3SG-NONHUM-COL-tIsee -ra (0 -ss6jra -w-p', we -g"5 ABSTRACT ISC-NONHUM-COL-t wonderfulSTAT zSG-MALE hearr
234
5. Caucasian languages -we
-pse Ja
-we
235
A VAR TEXT
-z
2SG-MALEsoul3SG-NONHUM-COL-l2SG-MALE-COL-lIPOT -e -l -x -wa -m. 6 -mra (Q) 3SG-NONHUM-COL-II FROM take-out DYN NEG DEF sun 3SG-xea -w-p'. aps-n' -wda es -pxan-rda NONHUM-COL-l sweetSTAT Abkhazia every summ€rDEF folk -a -z -aa -we j sas -rd
-jt'.
guestABSTRACT 3PL-COL-I 3SG-NONHUM-COL-II FOR come DYN FIN -aa -!a -ii we-rt g' Aps-w Abkhazian PL AND theseheart 3SG-NONHUM-COL-II pleaseABSTRACT -r -jt'. aps-n5 z-n5 -la -p6lo ja INSTR 3PL-COLI 3PL-COL-IlI welcome-DYN FIN Abkhazia once -z -bd-z ja es-nA! (Q) -aa 3SG-NONHUM-COL-I WHO seeNONFIN-PAST-INDEF alwaysDEF come -ri -g'a -px6 -r -jt'. @) MASDAR 3SC-NONHUM-COLI 3PL-COL-ll heartwarm-DYN FIN -na -1 -s -ea aps-ne Je Abkhazia3PL-COL-ITHITHER PREVERBpassHITHER -1 -s -na ja -g'e -r PREVERBpass GER 3SG-NONHUM-COL-lPREVERB3PL-COLjll -ta -lo -jt', eps-wa -6*-!a TEATR (0) view ITER-DYN FIN Abkhaziantheatre rSG-NONHUM-COLII -ni-j-lo -jt'. ja
5. Texts
to TOO
3PL-COLJ go ITER-DYN FIN
Phonetic:The definitearticl€prefix a- is omittedbeforethevowelofthe samequality in aa-rd,for a-aa-ra;likewisethe third personsingularnonhumancolumnlI prefix a- in di-Ee, for a-ax-!a.ln dps-w-aa-fa.the addition ofthe collectiveplural suffix -aa to the stem aps-waleadsto omissionof the stem-finala. a-ps-a-bd-ra'its nature', gLe-xoa-re-la'with pleasure':note the compound nouns,with the internalstructurc'soul's sight'(literally:'soulits-sight'),'h€art's pleasure'(literally: 'heart its-pleasure'), wherethe genitivesarc objective. FR EE TRANSLATION
ThenaturalbeautyofAbkhaziais superb,youcan'tgetit out ofyour being.Thesun is sweet.Peoplecometo Abkhaziaeverysummerasvisitors.And the Abkhaaans welcomethem with openarms.Thosewho haveonceseenAbkhaziaalwaysen_joy allaroundit, andtheyregularly visit comingback.TheyviewAbkhaziaby travelling the Abkhaziantheatretoo.
yadi -da co hani J kesek b -atu -n piece-ABS-lll crow LOC onecheese CEN lll find PAST-GER -Ci b -uk'a -na. han k'aldi -b Fu -n, III COP PASTcheese-ABs AND mouth INSIDE seizePAST-GER -b co yot'o-de b -axa -na. cara-da he -b he
it-ABS III one tree ALL III ascendPAST fox LOC it-ABS lll -b guFi -ze q'aid b -ifa-na wa he-{ he III seePAST and it ERG it-ABS III cheatINFIN decision-ABS -bu-ha. ragar-la -na -gi ha yot'o-de cer wa ra6' maKeIII PAST fox.ABStree ALL near BECOME PAST and tail-ABSAND -go he-{ -b -iia -na: Iwaru-la k'ala -ze b 'aj shake PRESCER it ERG speakINFIN-lll III beginlll beginPAST -b yedo! dir iitij-a dur I-GEN dearADJ III crow-ABSlll you-SC-GEN -b! mun -go -gi bercin -4i {i bercin -a -b, beautifulABSTRACT-ABS-IIIwhat III vou-SGSELF AND beautifulADJ Ill haraF{'-gi bercin -a -b 2o b -ugo mun. voice AND beautifulADJ lll thing-ABslll COP-PRESyou-SG -t'o -go ah -e! co ket' ah -e! nete onesong-ABScry IMPER ashamedNEG-PASTGER cry IMPER he-{ ahi-ze b -aj -b -ifa -na. yadi J i t E R G c r y I N F I N - l l l I I I b e g i nI I I b e g i nP A S Tc r o wG E N k'aldi -5a1n)
harakl'
h -Ani
-ran
cebe
mouth INSIDE-ABL voice-ABS-llIlll emerseINFIN BEFOREbefore han caral k'aldi -be Fa -na. cheese-ABs fox GEN mouth INSIDE-ALL fall PAST
Noun classaffixeshavebeenindicatedby Romannumeralsgivingtheclassnumber: in the text, only classIII (b-) occurs.To clarify which noun phrasetriggersthe agreemenlin question,Romannumeralshave,whereappropriate, beenaddedto the glosses ofnounsto indicatetheirclass membership; note,in thisconnection, thatthe infinitivein -zeis ofclassIIL For the spatial casesAvar has, in addition to the three-wayopposition locative/allative/ablative, a further Iive-way opposition relating to the specific spatialorientation(e.9.'inside'versus'under'). In thetext,themostgeneralspatial (traditionally case numbered'one') hasbecnindicatedasLOC/ALL/ABL; for the
-wtl'FlF''ry{l'itFE'!.s=n!ry5-.,!r?,'q:!q!R.!l-{'!n:"F,.?iRnF.:'FF::t4-Fn-t*tt{w
S- Caucasianhnguages
236
other cascs,the gloss is the appropriate English preposition in uppcr cas€letters, accompaniedby ALL or ABL wheremotion is involved, Link vowelsand thematic vowelshave beenassignedto the prec.edingmorpheme.
FREE TRANSLATION
A crow had found a piec.eofcheese. And, having snatched up the cheese in its mouth, it went up into a tree. A fox saw it and det€rmined to chcat thc crow. The fox approached the tree and, shakitrg its tail, it began to speak: -My dear crow! How beautiful you are! You are both beautiful yourself and a creature with a beautiful voice. Sing a song - don't be ashamed, sing! The crow bega[ to sing. Even before a soundcame forth from the crow's mouth, the cheesefell into the mouth of the fox.
FURTHER READING A useful introduclion to the p€oplesof the Caucasusas a whole, including those speaking languaSesother than Caucasianlanguages,is Geiger et al. (1959).Cood introductions to the generalfield ofCaucasianlanguagesare Catford (1977)and Klimov ( 1965);the latter is also available in a German translation. JaNSSSR IV ( r 966) provides gammatical skeichesof all the CaucasianlanguaSes, and is considerablymorc upto-date than Dirr (1928).A further generalsurveyis lIdO I, 7 ( t 963).The fullest rreatment ofergativily in Cauca6ianlanguagesis Catford ( r976),although many problemsstill remain to beinvestigated,in frarticular the extent to which the 'agcnt' or the 'patient' in the transitive construction (two-place prcdicate construction) sharessyntactic properties in common with the intransitive subject. Within the South Caucasianfamily, material on Georgial is plentiful, while material on the other languagesis either vory specialisedor inaccessible.For ihe comparative study of the South Caucasianlanguages,rcferencemay bc madeto Klimov ( r962)on the noun and D€€ters (I93o)on theverb.For Old C€or8ian,thereis agrammarin Frcnchby Marr and Bridre(r93r). For thc modernlanguages, thereare grammarsin Frenchby Vogt (r97t) and in Germanby Tschenk6li(r95E),Hanis (19?6),though largelyan expositionand exemplificationof the theoryof RelationalGrammar,alsocontaiosa goodexpgsitionofGeorgiansyntaxin sofar as it relat€sto argumentsof the verb. For a discussionof ve$ion, secBoeder(1968). Dum6il ( r933)providcsan introductionto comparativeNorth Caucasianstudies.Fot the North-WestCaucasianlanguages,lhere is a generalsurvey by Colarusso(r97?),in addlttonto a partialcomparativemorphologyby Dumez (r932).A comprehensivedescription ofAbkhaz is aow availablein English(Hewitt I979a).For Abazs,thcreis thestandardaccountby Cenko (t9S5),andalsoa detailedaccountin Englishofthe crucialverbcomplexby Allen (r956).The standard gnmmar of Adyge is Rogava and Keraseva(1966),ihat of Kabard-Cherkes GKALIa (t951\. Fot lJbykh, referenc€shouldbe madeto Dum6zil (r93r; 1975).Al-Mufti (1978)hasso far beenunavailableto me. Ofthe cuftent Chechenstandard grammar, only one volume (phonetics) has appearedto date(Deleriev lg60);in addition,thereis a classicdescriptionofchechen syntaxby Jakovlev (I94o).The standardgrammaroflngush is Mal'sagov(t963).The full6t d€scriptionofBats is H€riev (r953).
S. Further reading
l
237
Bokarev (196r) provides a gen.lal introduction to the Dagestanianlanguag€s.In additiotr, monograph descriptiols are available for many of the individubl languages,though not all; many of thcse descriptions are available only in Georgian. Thus the most comprehensive SrammarofAvar, Cikobava and Cercvadze( I 962),is in Georgian, thouSh ther€is alsoa classic description of Avar syntax by Bokarev (t949b). For the Andi languageswe have Cercvadze (1965)or Andi (in Georgian);Gudava (1963)on Botlikh (in Gcorgian);Magomedb€tkova (r97r) on Karata (in Russian);Magomedbetkova(196?)on Akhvakh (in Russian);Gudava (196?)on Bagval(in Ceorgian);and Bokarev(1949) on Chamalal(in Russidn).The Tsez (Dido) languages are surveycd over all by Bokarev (1959) (in Russian), while there are monographdescriptionsin Russianfor Ginukh (Lomtadze1963)snd Bczhti(Madieva1965). The standardaccountof Lak is Zirkov (195j). For Dargva, rcferenceshould bc madeto AMullaev (1954)for phoneticsand morphology,and Abdullaev(r97I) fo. syntax;for the aberrantKubachi dialect,seeM.gometov (1963). Most material on the Lezgianlanguagesis in Russian.The four-volume dcscription ofArchi by Kibrik et al. ( r 972)makesArchi p€rhapsthe bestdescribedofall the Dagestaniai!languag€s; an earlier descriptionis by Mikailov (1957).For Tabasaran,thc standardaccountis by Magometov(r965);for Agul, Magomeiov(t97o); for Rutul, Ibragimov(I9?8).The standard accountof Khinalug is D€l€riev(1959),thoughmary n€wdata and insightsare providedby Kibriket al. (r9?2).Two descriptions ofudi areavailablein CoorSian:Dteiranilvili (r 9?r) and grammaris Zirkov (r94r); for Panavidze(r9?4). For Lez8i,th€ most rccentcomprehensive syntax,s€eGadtiev (1954-63).
6, Paleosiberianand other languages
6 Paleosiberianand other languages
ofthe U.S.S.R., In this chapterwe shallbeconcernedwith the remaininglanguages in thosewhichdo not fit into anyofthe major genoticfamiliesthat wehavediscussed prgviouschapters.Someof theseare languageswhosestatusas languagesof the U.S.S.R.is even more accidentalthan usual, and resultsfrom the interactionof populationmiglation with the wayin whichthe bordersofthe RussianEmpire,and subsequentlythe U.S.S.R., becamefixed. The two languagesin this group are Aramaic, a Semitic language,and Dungan, a Sino-Tibetanlanguage,indeed structumlly a dialect of Mandarin Chinese. The others are the so-called Paleosiberian(Paleoasiatic)languages,especiallyif this telm is taken to include Eskimo-Aleut. (for which Sovietscholarsusually Although we haveuspdthe term Paleosiberian preferPal€oasiatic) in the title ofthis chapter,this doesnot imply that Paleosiberian is a geneticfamily in the senseof Uralic, or evena possiblegeneticfamily in thesense of Altaic or Caucasian.The Paleosiberianlanguagesare defined in essentially negativetelms:they are thoselanguagesof Siberiathat do not belongto any ofthe major languagefamiliesof Siberia,all of which have moved into most of Siberia lelativelyrecently- thesemajor familiesare Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian,Tungusic. whetheror not geneticallyrelated),Uralic, and, last ofall, Indo-European.The socalledPaleosiberianlanguagescannot be shownto be geneticallyrelated;they are not particularlysimilarto oneanothertypologically,indeedoneofthem, Ket, differs ofSiberia(seesection6.4); radicallyinmany other resp€ctsfrom all otherlanguages geographical locations,the only moreover,they are spoken in widely ditrerent commonfeatureof theselocationsbeingtheir isolation. The p€oplesspeakingtheselanguages(with the exceptionof Eskimo and Aleut, relativelyrecentimmiglants from North Ame ca) are probably th€ remnantsof oncemuch larger populationsspeakinga wider rangeof languagesrelatedto the survivingPaleosiberianlanguages.For instance,althoughKet is now a languageisolate,we know that in the eighteenthcenturytherewererelatedlanguagesspoken in Siberia,namelyAriir, Assan,and Kott; thesedied out in the early nineteenth
239
cantury, SinceAltaic, Uralic, and Indo-Europeanlanguagesare relativelyrecent newcomersto Siberia,therc must havebeenpopulationgroupsthere before,who were either assimilatedor driven out by the newcomers.Thus the present-day Paleosiberian languages arealmostcertainlyjusta remnantofan earliermuchricher linguisticpicturein Sibe a, and thusoccupya positionsomewhatanalogousto that of Basquein westernEurope. Sincethe term Paleosiberianhas never beenintendedas sith€r a geneticor a typologicalgrouping,we may stop brieflyto considerthe languagesand languagegroups that fall within it, before proceedingto th€ more detaileddiscussionin individual sectionsbelow.The term coverstwo small geneticfamilies:ChukotkoKamchatkan, i.e. the languagesspoken in the peninsulasof Chukotka and Kamchatkain easternSiberia;and Eskimo-Aleut,consistingof Eskimoand Aleut, although,aswe shallseein section6.2,it is misleadingto think ofEskimo asa single language.Sincethe centreof gravity and of dispersionof Eskimo-Aleutis on the North American continent, Eskimo-Aleut is often not consideredas part of Paleosiberian,although it does have sometypologicalfeaturesin common with Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguagesinparticular(inadditionto markeddifferences). The other membersofPaleosiberianare all, at present,language-isolates, namely: Yukagir, Ket, and Nivkh (Gilyak). A further addition is sometimesmadeto the Paleosiberian group, namelyAinu, althoughan Asiatic mainlandhome for the Ainu is controversial.Sincetherewere onceAinu in the RussianEmpire,we may brieflyconsidertheir presentstatushere. The homeofthe Ainu wason Sakhalinisland,the Kuriles,and Hokkaido, the most northerlyofthe largeJapanese islands.The areahaslong beenin disputebetween Russia/theU.S.S.R.andJapan:after the Russiandefeatin the Russo-Japanese War of t9o5,RussiacededsouthemSakhalinto Japan,with the resultthat all Ainu werc thenin Japan;in r 945,southernSakhalin,and alsothe Kudles,werecededby Japan to theU.S.S.R.ThepublishedaccountofaSovietlinguisticexpedition to Sakhalinin I949notesexplicitlythat the memberscameacrossa few Ainu, includingsomewho could speakAinu (Novikova and Savel'evar953: r28 33).However,recentworks on thelanguages ofthe U.S.S.R.makeno m€ntionofAinu, andwe mustconclude that, evenif there are still ethnic Ainu on Sakhalin,they have not retainedtheir language.In Japan (Hokkaido), the processof assimilationot Ainu speakers linguisticallyto Japanese hasalsobeenveryintense,andthelanguageison theverge ofextinction. As a final point in this introduction to Paleosiberian, we may note that a further synonymthat is sometimesfound in the earlierliteratureis Hypetborean,reflecting the fact that the languagesin questionare spokenin the Far North.
6. Paleosiberianand other languages
240
6.r
CbukotkG.K&mchatkanlanguages Chukotko-Kamchatkan is a small group of genetically related languages, spokenin the peninsulasofChukotka and Kamchatkain the far eastof Siberia.The namefor the family whichwe arc usinghere,following the usualSoviet t9'JmCukotkso-kamdatskiejazyki, simply reflects the geographical location of the languageswithin the group, much as doesIndo-European.Sirce the term is not particulareuphoniousin English,other termshavebeenusedin the literature,such as Chukchi-Kamchatkan,Luoravetlan, Chukotian, but these are potentially misleading,sincethe term Luoravetlanhasneve!beenusedasa self-designation by theltelmen,andtheothertwo termssuggestaurliquepositiorIfor Chukchiwithinthe family. The threemajor languageswithin the family are Chukchi,Koryak, and Itelmen, and theseare the threeethnic groupswhich are listed separatelyin Sovietcensus statistics.Ofthe threelanguages, Chukchiand Koryak areverycloseto oneanother, indeedwereit not for the clearethnicdistinctionbetweenthe Chukchiand Koryak theymight wellhavebeenregardedasdialectsofone andthesamelanguage.Itelmen is verydiferent from the otherlanguages, both in typologyandinbasicvocabulary, but attempts to argug against their geneticrelationshipon these grounds are unconvincing,in view of the large number of corr€spondences among bound morphemes,including bound morphemesthat participatein rclatively abstract patterns.For instance,all Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguageshavesubjectprefixes for both transitiveand intransitiveverbs,exceptthat in the secondpersonpluml thereis a suffx (Chukchi -feft, Itelmen -sx). Although th€seare the three major membersof the family, it is probablethat further languagesmight have to be recognised,For instance,Alyutor and Kerek have traditionally been considereddialects,Alyutor of Koryak artd Kerek of Chukchi,whichreflectsin larg€measurethepresentgreaterethnicsimilaritybetween Alyutor and Koryak, betweenKerek and Chukchi.However,in termsoflinguistic structureAlyutor and Kerek are not noticeablymore similar to eitherChukchi or Koryak, thougheachis verysimilarto both ofth€selanguages, so that, assuggested above,all four ofChukchi, Koryak, Alyutor, and Kerekcould beregarded,in terms of structuralsimilarity, as dialectsof a singlelanguage.In recantSovietlinguistic work, Alyutor and Kerek havebeentreatedincreasinglyass€paratelanguages(for instance,in -IaNSSSRV (r968))What remainsat presentof Itelmenis but a smallfragmentoftherelatedlanguages or dialectsthat were spokenduring the eighteenthcentury when early Russian explorers,in particular Kraseninnikov,first noted down vocabularylists of the languagesofthis most€asterlypart ofSiberia.From thesevocabularylistsit seems Kamchadal(i.e. Itelmen)by KraSeninnikov that,althoughthespeechvarietiescalled
6.t Chukotko-Kamchatkan
languages
weregeneticallyrelated,theywercrcmarkablydivergentfrom onganother.At that time therewerc probably at leastthrce Itelmenlanguages,rather than dialects,at leastin termsoflexical divergence:No hern, Southern,and WesternItelmen.At present,only WesternItelmensurvives,the other two formsof Itelmenhavingdied out finally in the latenineteenthor early twentiethcentury- before,unfortunately, any significantvolumeoflinguistic work wasdorleon them,which meansthat to a largeextentwe muststill relyonvocabularylistsnoteddownby untrainedobserveG in the eighteenthcentury. Theproblemof ethnonymsfor thespeakers of Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguages (with the exceptionofAlyutor and Kerek) hasbe€nacute,and the current names Chukchi(RussianusesCukCi,singularCukCa, astheethnonym,and tukotskij asthe adjective),and Koryak are not the namesby which thesepeoplecall themselves (indeed,thedialectofKoryak on whichthe standardlanguageis basedlacksa rhotic phoneme),this beinganexceptiontothegeneralrulein the U.S.S.R.wherebynative ethnonymsare used.However,thereis no nativeethnonymwhich refersexclusively and comprehensively to eitherthe Chukchi or the Koryak. The current standard which means literally 'proper Chukchi name for themselvesis ley2oravetl2en, person',but unfortunatelythis sameterm is usedby the Koryak in referenceto themselves,with the result that the attempt in the inter-War years to adopt Luoravetlanastheethnonymofthe Chukchihasbeendiscontinued.Apart fromthis term whichdoesnotdistinguishbetweentheChukchiand Koryak, othertermsrefer to only part ofthe Chukchi or part ofthe Koryak (or evenpart ofboth together). Thus CavCavis thenameby whichtheChukchireferto r€indeer-breeding Chukchi(it is also a common noun meaning'reindeer-breeder'), but it does not include the Chukchiofthecoastwho do not breedreindeer,andis alsousedto referto reindeerbreedingKoryak; it is, however,probably the native namefrom which the terms Chukchi and Chukotka derive in Europeanlanguages.In the l93os and l94os Koryak wasoften referredto asNymylyan,from Koryak namrlcrr 'village-ADJ'. However,this is the term by which nomadic(reindeer-brceding) Koryak refer to their settledcompatriots,and hasneverbeenusedasa generalethnonymfor all the Koryak.Thusthe termsChukchiand Koryak areretainedhere,in the absence ofany preferablealternativeand in accordancewith current Sovietusage. The term Itelmenis somewhatlesscomplicated,sinceitisclearthat this term was at thetime Kraseninnikovvisitedthem. usedbyall the Itelmento referto themselves Subsequently,however,this term fell out of use,and was replacedby the term Kamchadal,whichcould,however,alsoreferto peopleofRussianorigin who lived among the ltelmen - contact betweenthe two ethnic groups was v€ry closeln Kamchatka,giving rise both to Russianisationof Itelmen and ltelmenisationof Russians,until the currentpreponderance of Russiansin the populationled to the
. 6. Paleosibedanand other languages
242
virtual exti[ction of Itelmen as a language.Kamchadal is also the term most frequentlyusedoutsidethe U.S.S.R.,but herewe have,in accordwith our general policy,preferredto usethecurrentomcialterm Itelmen,whichwasrevivedafter the Revolution. Chukchiis the largestofthe Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguages, beingspokenby 82.6%ofthe r3,597ethnicChukchiaccordingtothe IgTocensusretums.Although this percentage is high by Siberianstandards,it represents a markeddecrease from peninsula, in r959. The tedtory inhabited by the Chukchi, the Chukotka is 93.9% oneofthemost isolatedpartsofSiberia-especiallyits tundraportion awayfrom the sea which has kept the Chukchi rclatively isolatedhitherto, although influx of Russianpopulationcouldaffectthisbalancerapidly.80.9%ofthe Chukchilivein the Chukchi N.O., where they forrn, however,only ro.9% of the population, the overwhelmingmajority being Russian. Prior to Europeansettlementin Chukotka,Chukchiwasthe dominantlanguage of this part of easternSiberia,used as a lingua franca by other small peoples, includingin particularthe Eskimo,so that SiberianYupik Eskimocontainsa large fund ofloans from Chukchi,includingmany particlesandconjunctionswhich have broughtaboutmajor changesin Eskimosyntax,aswill be shownin section6,2.The Chukchi fall into two main groups, the Tundra Chukchi, the majority, whose and the Maritime Chukchi who live traditional occupationis reindeer-breeding, along the shoresof th€ Bcring Strait and adac€nt areasand engageprimarily in fishingand hunting ofsea mammals.Despitethe hugeareaover which Chukchi is spoken,dialectdiferentietion is slight:one reasonmay be the traditional nomadic existence, which broughtdifferentgroupsofChukchi into frequentcontactwith one another, but more important is probably the fact that the Chukchi have only relativelyrccentlyexpandedto occupymuch oftheir presentterritory, assimilating large numbe$ of Eskimo in the process.Chukchi was developedas a writtel languageduringthe r93os,and is curently usedin publishingandalsoin education, in the first gradesof primary school. Koryak is spoken by 8r.r% of'1,48'l ethnic Koryak, again representinga substantialfall from 9o.5% in 1959.The Koryak live in the no hern part of Kamchatka,thoughin rec€nttimestheyhavealsobeenpushingfu her southwards, assimilatirgcertainItelmengroups.In contrasttoChukchi,Koryak is characterised by marked dialectdiversity,probably reflectingtheir generallymore established, Koryak was,like Chukchi,developedasa written languagei[ sedentaryexistence. a th€ r93os,but now hasa verylimiteduse.Inparticular,Koryakwasdiscontinuedas mediumofinstruction in schoolsin the I95os(Zukova I97z: 3), sothat all Koryakspeakingchildrennow havetheir educationin Russianfrom the fiIst grade. Sincethey werenot countedsepalatelyin recentcensusstatistics,r€liablefigures
6.r Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages
243
Table 6.1. ConsonantsystemofChukchi t
m
I n f
!
iY
arenot availablefor thc numberof Alyutor, who live on the no h-easterncoastof Kamchatka,or the Kerek,who live togetherwith Chukchion CapeNavarin. ln the r926 census,about 2,oooAlyutor werc listed,but the numberof peoplespeaking Alyutoris nowcertainlymuchsmaller,asthe resultoflinguisticassimilation.Kerek is now spokenby only a few families,with perhapsaround Ioo speakers. Itelmen,ormore acculatelyWesternltelmen,wasclaimedasa nativelanguagein asin r 959 rg'loby 35.7y.of | 3oI ethdc Itelmcn,almostexactlythesamepercentage (36%).However,this must reflectsomemisinterpretationofthe languagequestion, sincerecentobservers, in particularVolodin (I976), haveobservedtbat the number offluent Itelmenspeakers ismuchlower,withthe youngestbeingagedaroundforty. The languageis thuson the point ofextinction. In theearly I93osa written form of Itelmenwasdevised,anda primerandbasicadthmetictextbookpublished,but they were apparentlyneverused in practice.The marked tendencyfor Itelmen to be replac€dby Russianmeant that ther€ was little demandfor a separateltelmen written language,and no further attemptshavebeenmadeto createone. The consonantsystemof Chukchi (Table 6.r) is among the simplestof any languageofthe U,S.S.R.,with only I4 distinctconsonantphonemes.Although the numberofphonemesissmall, thephoneticvalueofsomeofthemis ratherunusual,in particular the only lateral, here symbolisedin broad transcription as /, is phoneticallya voicelesslateralfricative.In the Chavchuvendialectof Koryak, on which the standardlanguageis based.r and j have mergedto j, but in general Koryak hasmorephonemicdistinctiorsthanChukchi,althoughsomeoftheseareof low functional yield. Thus, whereChukchi has v (phoneticallyusuallya bilabial fricative), Koryak distinguisheslabio-dental v from bilabial ry (although the oppositionis neutralisedto w in syllable-finalposition).Koryak alsodistinguishes n t, ,1,r and palatalisedi, I, it, as in warat/ 'pitch' versus waiaw 'word', betwee although strict minimal pairs of this type are very rare, and palatalisationplays primarily an affectiverole, beingusedin the formation of diminutives,e.g. 1erlel 'head', lawtepii'little head'. The phoneticvaluesof some of the corresponding phonemesarealso differentasbetweenChukchiand Koryak: forinstance,Koryak / is a voicedfrictionlesscontinuant,and Koryak haspharyngal I correspoldingto Chukchi 2 (althoughChukchi 2 also haspharyngalconshiction).
6. Paleosiberian and other lanEuages
244
The consonant system of ltelmen stands in marked contrast to thes€ simple systems,sincelteljmendistinguishesplain aud ejectiveplosives(bilabial, dental, palatal, vclar, and uvular), has voicedand voic€lessfricatives(bilabial, alveolar, velar, and a voicelessfricative only in the uvular region), in addition to having three lateral phoncmes,voiced / and /(though the functional yield of the opposition betweenthesetwo is low) and voicelessl. In traditional Chukchi society,the pronunciationofconsonantsamongwomen differed slightly from that ofmen, in the replac€mentof r and d by c, with further e.g. assimilationofa following,k, giving somewords a very diferent app€arance, crca 'walrus' for rarfte. The standardlanguageis basedon the male pronunciation, and the separatewomen's pronunciation is norf, discouraged, Of morc structuralinterestis the vowelsystemofChukchi and the closelyrelated languages, especially in view of the vowel harmony system that pervades the language.The systemcontainsa schwa,which is largelypredictable,especiallyin wherethis is notso, e.g.in the Koryak, althougheien heretherearc someinstances -teft p€rson plural (for intmnsitive subjector suffixes opposition betweeDthe second -tk (for transitivesubject).In Chukchi,asa resultofdiachrcnic direct object)and processesof vowel reduction (reconstructable in part on the basis of synchronic alternations betweene/ a and schwa),there are far more instancesof nonpredictable 'pot', Koryak *u,lrege).The schwa,e.g. in word-final position (cf. Chukchi /
6.r Chukotko-Kamchatkan languagas
245
harmony; more recent loans from Russian, which are taken over in their Russia[ form, may combinedominant and reaessive vowels. i.e.in particularwill A givenmorphemein Chukchiis eitherdominantor recessive, vowels(in additionto thepossibilityofthe containeitherall dominantor all recessive 'match' is recessive,while neutral vowel schwa). Thus the lexical morph€me mrTf'cup' *o79is dominant; the grammatical morpherne -u marking the essivecase('as while the comitativesumx -ma is dominant,(This comitativesumx X') is recessivo, prefix ye-, which will thus, for requiresthe obligatory preserlccof the recessive leasons now to be discussed,appear in this environment as fa-, giving the appearanceofa circumflx ya- . . . -ma.) When morphemesare combined together intowords,ifthe word asawholecontainsat leastonedominantmorpheme,thenthe vowels of all recessivemorphemes are changed to the cofesponding dominant vowel. One efect of this is that recessivevowels will appear in a word only if all morphemesarerec€ssive, e.g.m/y-u 'asa match'.Contrastftojt-o 'asa cup', where the dominant vowelofthe first morphemeaffectsthe vowel of the second,and yamely-ema'withamatch', wherethe dominant vowel ofthe sumxaffectsthe vowelsof root and prefrx. ln ya-kojq-ama'with a cup', both toot and sumx are lexically dominaDt.One interestingaspectofthis kind of vowel harmony,distinguishingit sharply from that found in Altaic or Uralic languages,is that the direction of the harmony is determinedsolelyby the distinction betweendominant and rec€ssive,the t ggeralwaysbeingthe dominant morpheme(s)ofa word, irrespectiveofwhether or the triggeris alwaysa vowel not thesearein the root; in Altaic and Uralic languages, of the !oot. As indicated above, vowel harmony applies equally when several lexical morphemesare combinedtogether,most typically by incorporation,so that the appearance ofa rootcan be ratherdiferent whenitappearsin isolationand whenit appearsin an incorporativecomplex,e.g.*upre- (absolutivesingularkupre-n)'net', bi'J.tpelvente-kopra- (absolutive singular palv te-kopru-n)'metal net', wherc thc fiIst morphemeis dominant. This examplealso introducesanother feature of Chukchi vowel harmony, namely that a given morphemeis necessarilyeither dominant or lecwsive,even if contains only the vowel schwa,indeed even if it containsno vowelat all. Thus themorphemeprlvrtt- 'metal' is dominant,whereas anpr- 'old' is recessiv e,e.E.mpe-iquke-t'old polar foxes'(rrgu*e- 'polar fox'; -, is the absolutive plural suffix). The suffix -r (stem -tv-), which forms locative ofvowels,e.g,tele-'to go', lela-r (st€m derivatives,is dominantdespitethe absence tala-nv-)'rcad, way'. In Koryak, to a differentext€ntin differentdialects,thevowelharmonysystemis paltially disruptedin that,in manyforms,for thepair e/a onefindsa ratherthanein vocalism,e.g, maniyet?ul'matefial,cloth' (cf. Chukchi wordswith overallrecessive
.
6. Paleosibeian and other languages
246
menly); this is probably to b€ viewed as an intermcdiate sragebetweenthc strict Chukchi vowel harmony systemand thc Alyutor system$ith only thrc€ vowels,i.e. with no distinction at all bctwecndominant and recessive,a bcing retainedofthe e/a pair. In additionto vov/elalternationsconditionedby vowclharmony,and alternation b€twe€nschwaand zeroconditioncdby general(though,in part, morphologised) phonologicalrulcs,Chukchiandthecloselyrelatedlanguages havcalsoa numberof consonant altemations, the sum total of which can lead to quite striking deformations in the shapeofa morpheme.Thus 'kill' appearsas tem- in t.m-nen 'he killed him', but as -rm- in te-nm-et.k 'I killed you' (where t+ is the first person prefix, -(c)ta* th€ secondperson plural suffix). Thc morphology of Chukchi is largely agglutinative,although there is some fusion, especiallyin the verb, asin the opposition between t iri-yzek'l descended' aad me-viti-fek'may I descend',wherethe prefix fa- combinesthe s€manticunits of first personsingular and indicative, while ma. is fiIst personsingular and imperativ€. ln noun morphology,Chukchidistinguishes singularfrom plural (asdo€slt€lm€n), whilethe othcrlanguages havea separatedual,aselsewhere in theirmorphology.As in most other languagesof Siberia,a small number of casesis distinguishcd, including somebasicspatial cascs.Bcyond this, there are scyeralunusual featuresin the noun morphology of Chukchi and th6 closely related languages.There are various possibilities for the formation of the absolutive singular of nouns, and in gcncralone simply hasto learn the appropriate form for eachindividual noun; useof the stemalon€(e.9.miilr 'work'); thc stemalonerf,ithvowcl reduction(e.9. vala, stcm vala- 'knife'); partial reduplication (e-E nutenut, stem rute- 'tundra'; tumyatum, s!.rm tumy(aI 'friend'); sufrxation (e-g- kupren, stem kupr6 'net'; lalalym, stem lala- 'eye'; jaraqe, stemjara- 'hous€'). Especiallywith reduplication and the longersuffixes,the rosultis often that the absolutivesingularis one of the long€st forms in the noun paradigm: contrast absolutive singular tumyetum with absolutiveplural tumyat and instrumentalsingular tumy€. For purposesofdeclension, Chukchi nouns divide into two maiDnatural class€s, which ditrer on a number ofparamcters. The distinction b€twcenthe two class€sis not, howevcr, rigid, in that certail nouN can be declinedaccording to either pattern. Th€ flrst pattem is obligatory for proper namesand certain kir tcrms, and optional for other humannouns.The secondpattern,in addition to beingusualfor human common nouns, is alsoobligatory for all nonhuman nouns (othcr than propcr names ofdomestic animals, which arc assimilatcd to the first class).For c€rtain cas€s,thc two classeshavc difcrcnt sufrxes,€,g.the first classhas -re (recessivc)iD the locative while the secondclass has -1. A more basic distinction, howcv€r, is that, whcrcas both classesdistinguish singular from pluml in the absolutive, itr other cascsthe number distinction is neutraliscd in the second class. but r€tained in the first. A
6.r Chukotko-Kamchatkan languagcs
24',1
further distinction conc€rns thc exprescionof the ergativc rclation (i,e. thc cas€marking oftransitive subjccts):neitherclasshasas€parateergativscase,nounsofthc first classusing the locative, while nouns of the secoBdclass usethe instrumcntal; only personalpronouns(ofall thrc€persons)havean crgativecascs€paratefrom both locativeand ilstrumental. Verbs in Chukchi and related languages agree with their subject (whether transitiveor intransitive)and with their dir€ct object(if traNitive). Only one vcrb, 'give', showsagreementwith the indirect obj€ct (althoug! this standsin the allativc case,not in the absolutive), and then only whcn thc indirect object is first or sccond person(V. P.Nedjalkov-pe$onal commurication).The morphologyofsubjectand objectagreementiscomplex,with idiosyncraticformatioDsfor certaincombinations (e.g.the suffix .rrb for third p€rsonsingularactingon third personsingular),and forms borrowed from other paladigms (e.g. derived intansitivcs) for ccdaiD other combinations.Nonetheless, the following generalsystemcan b€ discem€dbehind thesevarious complications.Most verb forms havc bolh a prefix and a su$x (althoughthe prefixis oftenzero,exceptin thefirst person).With intransitivev€rbs, both prefixand suffrxencodcthe intransitivesubject,asin the imperativeforms m,vi2-yret 'may I descend'ard qe-viri-ye'may you descend(SG)'. With transitive verbs, the prefix encodes the subject, tbc sumx the object, as in thc foUowing imperative forms: m-imti.yat 'm"y I carry you (SO)', m-imti-tak 'may I carry you (PL)', man-imti-yet'maywccarryyou(SG)', men-imti-tak'mayw€carryyou(PL)'. pattern(encodingtransitiv€and The prefixesare thus on a nominative-accusative inhansitive subject),while th€ sumxeswork on an crgative-absolutivepattern (encodingintransitivcsubjectsand transitivedirect objects). Although a number of Chukchi verbs arc labile, i.e. can be us€d without modification€itter transitivelyor intransitively,in generalthe distinctionbetwecn transitiveand intransitivein Chukchi and relatedlanguages,espcciallythe closely relatedlanguages,is well marked, for instanceby the ergativcconstructionfor transitive verbs discussed belo\tr. Another reflection of the basic transitive/intransitivedistinction is the existencrof a number of constructions utilising auxiliary verbs,whercthc verb it- 'be' is usedasthe auxiliary for intransitivc verbsand the verb ret- 'have'with transitivevcrbs.In the text on p. 274,the fust sentence illustratestheuseof qofi' (transitive:go,lre,-)togctherwith anotherfinite verb as the equivalentof'once (upon a time) . . .' Another frequentuseof these auxiliariesis in oneofthe commonestnegativcconstructions,whcrethe lexicalvcrb standsin a nonfrnite form with the circumfix e-, . . -fte (recessive)and the auxiliary showstense,personand number,etc,,categories.Thus we have,citing infinitives with the suffix -(e)kt tejkev-ak 'to 69ht', e-Ejkcv-ke it-ak 'not to fight'; ket?o-.kto remember',a-ket o-ka rat-ek'Itot to rcmcmb€r'. In thc following discussionof syntaxof Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguages,wc
6- Paleosibeian and.other langlages
shall concentrate on Chukchi, which differs little if at all frbm the closely related languageson the parametersdiscussed.Itelmen material will beci ted only in order to draw specificcomparisons.Our knowledgc of Itelmcn syntaxis much more restricted than that of the other langu4ges, and in large measure this ignorance is now irremediable,giventhat thelanguageis virtually extinct.ThusVolodin ( r976:32G?) notes that we may neve! know how comparatives were constructed in Itelmen, because thereare no cleartextualattestations,the only nativeconstructiotr,known only to the oldestspeakers,hasa diferent rangeofmeaning(includingdiminutive, i.e,'ratherwide', in additionto'wider'), and the ontyconstructionthat corresponds exactly to a comparative usesthe comparativc sufiix {e7b derived from Russian,and eventiis constructionis normally only given in responseto direct elicitation. Case-markingof subjectsand direct objectsin Chukchi and the closelyrelated languagesis on an crgativc-absolutivcbasis,with a ditrerentcasefor transitive subject(instrumeltal, locative,or ergative,dependingon the classofnoun phrase) f.om that for intransitivesubjectand direct object:
(r+o)
(r4r)
penvel rultaqe -ne rcveng-enin Rultinge LOC skin 3SG+3SG buck 'Rultinge skinnedthe buck'
qupub-t
qemkterket petrel ABS-PL fly PRES-3PL 'petrels fly'
lndeed,in Chukchithe ergativityofthis case-markingis oneofthe most consistent found in any languageofthe world; virtually everynoun phraseparticipatesin this ergative/absolutive opposition,the only exceptionsbeingthe emphaticpronouns, wherethe ergativeform togetherwith Arit 'self', e.g. yem-nan6init'l myself', can be used for transitive and intralrsitivo subject and for dir€ct object. In addition to the ergativeconstructionillustratedin (r4o), Chukchialsohasan antipassive construction,iDwhichtheverbis detransitivised by theprefix ,rc- or the sufnx -d(u, the subject(now intransitive)standsin the absolutive,and the pationtis eitheromittedor (veryrarely)put in theinstrumeltal orlocative,ascanbeseenfrom comparingthe following two sentences:
042)
tumy e kupre-tl na-ntevat-Y2an friend INSTR net ABS-SG put 3PL+3SG 'the friends put the net'
( r43)
tumy -et kupre-te ena-ntevat- yrat put fiiend ABS-PL net INSTR 3PL
6.r Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages
248
249
As indicated, thc antipassivewith an cxpressedobject is very rare in Chukcbi, and the functional diference betw€€nsentenc€slikc (r42) and (r43) has not y€t b€enmade explicit in the literature. There is, however, one area where the function of the antipassiveis clear, and this is one of the fcw areaswhere Chukchi evincel ergative syntax, namely in the construction with participles in -1?-.Thesepaiticiples can be usedfor forming a relativeclauseon either an intransitive subject,asin ( r 44), or on a direct object,ss in (I45):
u44)
-in -y2e -ti?,ejge-ke -l? e 0evxqet nyte NEG sing NEG PART ABS-SGwoman go-home3SG 'the woman who did not sing went homc'
(r45,)
-jot -ka -lz iyer a et. enm-ete man now NEG reachNEG PART ALL hill ALL IMPER-rPL -.lqen-mek go rPL 'let us now go to the hill that
[we] did not reach'
Ifit is necessaryto form a relative clauseon a transitive subject,then the verb must be used in its antipassiveform, i.e. the relativeclauseis efectively formed on an intransitivesubiect:
(r46)
-k ,aacek-a -a qaa en-aytat-ka -1, chaseNEG PART INSTR reindeerLOC youth INSTR -ine-Yinrct-qinet n $eveqet-ti help 3SG*3PL woman ABS-PL IMPERF 'thc youth who did not chasethe reindeer help€d the women'
(In ( r 46), the prefix er- is a vowel harmony variant of ,re-, with lossofthe final vowel beforeanothervowel;thenegativeprefix e-/a- alsoloscsits vowel,i.e.becomeszero, beforethe following vowel of ez-.) Ergativity is one parameterwhere Itelmen difcrs from thc othcr ChukotkoKamchatkanlanguages,sincein Itelmenboth transitivesubjectand direct object stand in the citation form:
(r 42)
enc Qitpit 'nkdi|-nen seal catch 3SG-3SG fish 'the sealcaught the fish'
Exampleslike (148)belowweresometimescited in the earlierliteratureto suggest but Volodin ( r 974)demonstrates that ltelmenhasan optionalergativeconstruction,
6. Paleosiberian and other languages
250
that such constructionsare mote akio to a passivethan to an active ergative construction;
(r48)
-kiCen lgig -enk mifif n-ink hare catch-PASS3SG wolf LOC 'the hare wascaughtby the wolf.'
'the ln (r48), omissionof the instrumentalnoun phrasegivesa scntencemeaning hare wascaught'. One of thc asp€ctsof Chukchi syntax that has arousedmuch interestin thc literatureis incorporation,wherebya [umber ofroot morphemcscanbe combined togetherproductivelyto producea singleword with complexmeaning.The unity of the word is demonstrated,for instance,by the spreadof vow€l harmony right through it, in addition to other word-internal phonologicalalternations.Thus anotherway ofsaying'the friendsput the net'would be by incorporatingthe dircct objectintolhe verb,to producea newverbkopra-ntevat-'tonet'put';thisnewverbis intransitive,giving the sentencel (r49)
(I53)
(rsa)
te -maj07 vetyav-trken rSG loud speak PRES 'l am speakingloudly'
(r5r,
te - ytty- elqet-erken rSG lake go PRES 'I am going to the lake'
(r5 r) can also be expressedas (r5z), without incorporation: yety-eta te Jq.t-eften lake ALL ISG go PRES
te, -tu -meniy 'good new cloth' na-te0-qin n?-tur-qin meniy 'goodnew cloth'
(Note that unincorporatedadjectivestake the prefix ,a- and the sumx -grr.) Traditionally, the distribution of incorporatedand nonincorporatedattributes seemsto havebeenthat incorporationdid not usuallytake placein the absolutive, but was obligatory in the oblique cases.In present-dayChukchi this rule is not observedrigidly, and it is possibleto find oblique casenoun phraseswhere the adjectiveagreesin case with its head rathef than being incorporated.In the comitativewith thecircumfixya-.. . -ma,however, incorporation is stillapparently obligatory,as in the following:
( r55)
ya4a0 -Ior - maney-ma good new cloth COMIT 'with good new cloth'
kopn- ntevat-Y'at put friend ABS-PL net 3PL
(r50)
25r
Incorporationis also possiblewithin the noun phrase,with incorporationof attributes(adjectives,genitives)into the headnoun, ct the following pairl
tumy -?t
with respectto incorporationin Chukchi,it shouldbenotedthat whilethis syntactic deviceis verycommonin traditionaltales,itismuch lessfrequentincurrent writing, and virtually absentin translationsfrom Russian,i.e,incorporatio[ seemsto be on the wane in the modern language.(In ltelmen, incidentally,there are no clear attestationsofincorporation asa productiveprocess;ifitever existed,it must have disappearedvery early on, possibly under Russian influence.)In addition to incorporationofdirect objects,variousotherverbargumentsandadverbialscanbe incorporatedinto verbs,as in the following examples:
(r52)
6.I Chukotko-K amcharkan languaFes
( r56)
ya-mor-aK
-tof -orv
-ama
we OBL new dogsledgeCOMIT 'with our new dogsledge'
Thechoice between agreement or incorporation hereisreminiscent ofthebehaviour ofdirectobjects:ifthey arenot incorporated,theverbwill agreewith them,ifthey are incorporated, it will not. Within the incorporativecomplex,Chukchihasrigid morphemeorderofadjunct before head, i.e. in an incorporativeverb complex the verb stands last, in an incorporativenouncomplextheheadnounstandslast.Wheresepatatewordsrather than incorporationareused,Chukchiword orderisvery free:whilesubjectsusually precedetheir verb,the predominanceof object verb oververb-objectis slight,and attributesoccur freely beforeand aftcr their head.One areawhereCbukchidoes, however, conform to the subject-object-verbword order type is in having postpositionsrather than prcpositions,e.g. etley-ekreea 'with father', literally 'father-LOCwith', y'ara-k yaryota 'abovethe house',literally 'house-LOC above'. Unlike nearlyall otherlanguages ofSiberia,Chukchimakesfrequentand regular use of finite subordinateclauses,and has a wide range of native subordinating conjunctions, e.g.rni7qa qun 'because', rqgun'in orderthat', ever'if', ge(v)eq 'although',eiyr"assoonas'.andevenenrre, 'that'. usedfor instance to introduce
6. Paleosiberianand other languages
252
indirectspeech.This seemsto be a long-established traditiolal meansofexpressing subordination,free from foreign influence,and indeed Chukchi has even been influential in introducing this pattern into SiberianYupik Eskimo (seep. 257). Howcver, Chukchi does also have a number of nonfinite forms, in particular of gerundswhich can substitutefor various adverbial clauses.In Chukchi, these gerundsare invariable,in particularshowingno subjector objectagreement.The subjectof a g€rund is either taken to be the sameas that of the main verb, ot interpretedaccordingto what makessensein the context,or expressed overtly.In (r57) below,with the gelund in -ma, the two clauseshavethe samesubject: (r57)
amqan'taio meyteran-ma tamen|era-k, 1evecqet-ti, woman ABS-PL work GER workshoD LOC alwavs - tiptej7e-qinet D. IMPERF sing 3PL 'the women,while working in the workshop,alwayssing'
In ( I58) and ( r 59),with the gerundin ya-. . . -Da (like thecomitativeof nouns),the subjectsofthe two clausesaredifferent,and that ofthe gerundis expressed overtly; notethat thesubjectstandsin thesamecaseasifwith a finiteverb,i.e.absolutivefor intransitiveverbs,ergative(in form, ergative,locative,orinstrumental)for transitive verbsl (r 58)
- ruiqev-ma enpenaty-et, zaatek-et qut-y2et youth GER enter GER old-man ABS-PL ABS-PL rise 3PL 'when the old men entered,the youths rose'
(r 59,
vem-nan ya -lqaynav-ma, aileq tapet-yti I ERG GER shoot CER duck dive rSG 'when I shot [it], the duck div€d'
ya
6.2 Eskimo-Aleutlarguages The Eskimo-Aleutfamily has twd branches,Eskimo and Aleut. The relationshipofAleut to Eskimo,thoughdistant,is now generallyrecog[isedandwell established. Aleut, most ofwhosespeakerslive in the Aleutian Islards,which form part ofthe stateofAlaska in the U.S.A.,is a relativelyhomogeneous language,with mutualintelligibilityamongall dialects,althoughtheWesterndialect(Attu Island)is themostdivergent.In the U.S.S.R.,Aleut liveon B€ringIsland(OstrovBeringa)and Copper Island (Mednyy Ostrov). They are not native to th€seislands,but were movedthereby theRussianauthoritiesintheearlynineteenthcentury,from Atka to Beringlslandand from Attu to CopperIsland.Accordingto the r970census,Aleut i.e.by 96peopleall told.Since wasspokenby 2 r.8%ofthe44r Aleutin theU.S.S.R.,
6.2 Eskimo-Aleut languages 'fal>le
I
I
6.2. Verb forms in Aleut dialects of the \J.S.S.R.
BeringIsland
CopperIsland
awa-ku-q awa-ku-Xl awa-ku-x awa-ku-s awa-ku-XFxiaix awa-na-X awa-Danana-X ajyay-laka-s awa'3a
aba-ju aba-is aba-it aba_im aba-iti abal bud-etaba_i nlayjaya_im aba-j
'I work' 'you (SG) work' 'he works' 'you (PL) work' '(he) worked' 'he will work' 'we don't go' 'work (Sc)l'
Aleutis only rathermarginay a language ofth€ u.s.s.R.,weshallnot discuss rt rn detail here,exceptto note one interestinginstanceof language contact that has affected the Copper Island variety of Aleut under strong Russian influence (Menovsdikov 1968r405). On BeringIsland,thoseAleutwho stillretaintheirnativelanguage alsorerarnthe basic morphological traits of Aleut. On Copper Island, however, the onginal conJugational sumxesofthe Aleut verb havebeenreplacedby Russiansuffixes, and otherwaysofconstructingverbforms(suchasthenegativeprefix lrg, thecofiipound futurc with the auxiliary bud- and the infinitive in _/); there has beenno similar influenceon noun morphology.Table 6.2 givessomeparallel forms from Bedng Islandand Copper Island.This borrowing is all the more surprisinggiven that the verb inflectionsof Russian,a fusional language,are not always immediatelyand obviouslysegmentable. Although thelaymanoftenthinksofthe Eskimoasa singleethnicgroup, speaking dialectsofa singlelanguage,in factthedivergences amongdiferent formsofEskimo aresufiicientto impedemutual inteltigibility,and moreoverthe Eskimo havenever developeda common ethnonym for all Eskimo. In particular, there is a major Iinguisticbar er whichdividestheEskimointo two majorgroups,theyupik andthe Inuit(Ifrupiaq).This boundaryrunsacrossAlaskafrom westtoeast, andis sufficient to impedecommunicationacrossit; thereare no transitionalforms from yupik (to thesouthofthis Iine)to Inuit(to thenorth). Inuit is adialectchainstretching from the northernpart ofAlaska acrossCanadato Greenland:althougbthe extremeendsof thechainarenor mutualtyinteltigible, thereareno sharpbreaksin thechain.Of the Eskimoin theU.S.S.R.. onlythosewhooriginallylivedon RatmanovIsland(Ostrov Ratmanova.Big Diomede),the larger of the two DiomedeIslands(Osrrova Diomida),spoke Inuit; the smallerDiomedelsland. Little Diomede(Ostrov
6. Paleosibeian and other languages
254
Kruzenshterna)is already part of Alaska, and repres€ntsthe closestcontiguity land territoriesof the U.S S.R andtheUSA' between Yupik is much lesshomogeneous,with at least four mutually unintelligible transitions)Two of thesearerestrictedto Alaska: varieties(and,in someinstances, central Alaskan Yupik and SouthernAlaskan Yupik (Sugpiaq'also sometimes Sireniki misleadinglycalledAleut). Of the other two forms, the highly divergent other' th€ Eskimo is (or was) spokenonly in the village of this name in Siberia; Eskimo)is SiberianEskimo (in Russianusuallycalledthe languageof the Asiatic part ofAlaska ln spokenbothon theSiberianmainlandand onSt Lawrenc€Island' in particular on Yupik' Siberian the presentsection,we shallbe concentratingon (and Eskimomore someofthe typologicalparametersalongwhich SiberianYupik generally)diftersfrom Chukchi,the closestneighbourofYupik in Siberia'and on oncethe someofthe waysin which SiberianYupik hasbeeninfluencedby Chukchi' dominant languageof the area. R a In t97o,Eskimowasspokenby 60%ofthe I '3o8ethnicEskimoin the U S S ' of forms large drop from 84% in 1959.Sincethe Ratmanov Island and Sireniki of Eskimo are extinct or virtually so, most of thesecan be taken to be speakers t'ooo R : about S S the U outside SiberianYupik. Eskimohasmost ofits speakers other speakersofSiberianYupik on St. LawrenceIsland,2oospeakersofSouth€rn ofCentral AlaskanYupik in Alaska'and AlaskanYupik in Alaska, l4,5oospeakers in 65,ooospeakersof Inuit (6,000 in Alaska, 16,000in Canada, and 43'ooo Greenland). thoughtto Although theEskimo,likeall othernativepeoplesofthe Americas'are are not have migratedoriginally from Siberia,thc present-daySiberianEskimo who ofgroupswho failedto crossthe BeringStrait,but ratherofgroups descendants lsland (from migratedback acrossthis strait, alsofurther populatingSt Lawrence time before for some receding the Siberianmainla[d). In Siberia,Eskimohasbeen a result of as Chukchi.The number of Eskimo speakersis likely to drop rapidly up to recentpopulationmovementsby theSovietauthoritiesAlthoughin thepedod theendofthesecondworldwarthesovietEskimorcmainedintheiroliginalhome Eskimoon theAmericanside areas.andwereevenallowedconsiderablecontactwith whenthe ofthe BeringStrait and on Americanislands,this policywasdiscontinued of ColdWarwasat its height,andEskimofrom RatmanovIslandandthesettlement further Naukan on Cape Dezhnev(Mys Dezhneva,East Cape) were removed westwards,tosettlementswheretheyarenowalwaysonlyonepopulatlongrouplna Moreover' multiethnicwhole,usuallyoutnumberedby eitherRussiansor Chukchi the althoughEskimo wasdevelopedas a written languagein the U'S S R during I93os,andstill existsomciallyasawrittenlanguage,thereis scarcelyanyproduction The in Eskimo at present,and Eskimo is not used as a medium of instruction
6.2 Eskimo-Aleut languages
255
curtailmentofthe functionsofEskimoin the U.S.S.R.contrasts with theopposite reversal ofpolicyin the U.S.A.andCanada,whereIiteracyprogrammes in Eskimo are currentlyin the processof beingdeveloped.ln Greenland,under Danish administration. Eskimo(usuallycalledGreenlandic) hasbeena writtenlanguagc sincethe eighteenthcentury;it is the languageofthe overwhelmingmajority ofthe population,and is now alsothe officialIanguage. Phonetically. SiberianYupik diflersfrom Chukchiin havinga rathersimpler vowelsystem, at leastin termsofqualitativeoppositions, but a muchmorecomplex consonant system;indeedtheconsonant systemof SiberianYupik is complexeven by Eskimostandards.Thevowelsystemdistinguishes /', u, a, alsoa (in largemeasure predictable, as in Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages), but also has a phonemic lengthdistinction.From a morewesterlyarealtypological perspective, oneof the unusualfeaturesof Chukchi is the distinctionbetweenvelar k and uvular g (alongside thevelarfricativey),but thispalesintoinsignilicance in comparison with the rangeof distinctions madeby SiberianYupik, which has in additionto the plosives,t and q a full setofvoicedand voiceless velarand uvularfricatives:x, y, ;, n; thesealso occur labialised.SiberianYupik is unusualevenamongEskimo Ianguages in havinga phonemicoppositionbetweenvoicedand voiceless,/and r.. In nominal morphology, Eskimo has a case systemsimilar to that of the Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguages, but differsfrom them in alsohavingpossessive sulnxeson nouns.Sincea three-waynumberdistinction(singular,dual, plural) is madefor both possessor and possessed, this leadsto a prolific systemthat hasno counterpartin Chukchi.Examplesare,usinl aljaq'boat'.. a4ja-qa'myboat', afia-n 'your boat', anja-a'his boat', anja-ak'theboat of thosetwo', anja-at 'thei boat', a?ja-kok'bts two boats', arJl-.r'his boats'. The possessive suffix also plays an obligatoryrolein the possessive construction, e.g.aBna-matku-va'mother-GEN parka-3sc',i.e.'mother'sparka';the caseglossedhereas genitiveis calledthe relativecasein traditionalEskimogrammar. The basicstruclureolthe simplesentence is verysimilarto thatofChukchi,with intransitivesubjectand transitivedirect object in the absolutive,and transitive subjectin a differentcase:for this differentcase,SiberianYupik ittvariablyusesthe genitive(relative)in -m, exceptthat for Iirst andsecondpersonpronounsthereis oo distinctionmadebetweenabsolutiveand relative(thesepronounsare in any event rarely used,sinceverb agreementindicatesthe personand nurnberof subjectand directobiect): ( r60)
avnaq qavav-tuq woman-ABSsleep 3SG 'the womansleeps'
6. Paleosiberianand other languages
(r6r)
256
kaju nesa-qaa asna -m bullhead-ABS woman ERG eat 3SG-3SG 'the woman eatsthe bullhead(fish)'
thetransitiveconstructionof As in Chukchi,thereis an intransitivecorrespondentto ( r 6r), in whichthesubjectstandsirl theabsolutive,and theobjectiseitheromittedor standsin the instrumental: ( r62)
( r63)
6.2 Eskimo-Aleut languages
This is thus a switch-reference system,thougha ratherwell_developed onein that it can indicate not only coreferentiality of subjects across clauses,but also coreferentialitybetweensubordinateclausedirect object and main clausesubject. The followingexamplesilustrate this, wheresubscript r indicatescoreference wlth the main clausesubject: (I64)
(165)
-m.t nara-quq kaju arnaq woman-ABSeat 3SG bullheadINSTR 'the woman eatsa bullhead'
( r66)
versusindefiniteness of the object. in the glosses,the definiteness both ChukchiandSib€rianYupik have Ashasbeenshownin theaboveexamples, subjectagreementwith intransitiveverbsand both subjectand object agrcement with transitiveverbs,althoughin SiberianYupik themarkingofsubjectandobjectis exclusivelysuffixaland is muchmorefusionalthan in Chukchi.Overall,though,the verb morphologyof SiberianYupik is considerablymore prolific than that of the To a smallextentthis is due to the existenceof Chukotko-Kamchatkanlanguages. e.g.thespecialint€rrogaliveform asin Siberian additionalformsin simplesentences, 'did youeat?'.The majordifference, howcver,is that whereasnonfinite Yupik narsrn in verb forms play a relativ€lysmall role in the constructionofcomplex sentences Chukchi.wherethesenonfiniteformsareinvariablefor personandnumber,Siberian Yupik on the other hand makes widespreaduse of such forms, including ofthe personandnumberofthe subjectand/ordirectobject ln Siberian specification the 6niteverbPersentence, it is usualtohaveonlyone Yupik,asinEskimogenerally, othersbeingvariousnonfiniteforms.Ofthcse nonfiniteforms,we shallgivea brief discussionhereof the so-calledconnective,which illustratesthe systemin its full complexity. The connectiveindicates,by meansofperson and numbersumxes,not only the personand numberofits own subjectand direct object,but alsowhetheror not its own subjectand/ordirectobjectarecor€ferentialwith th€subjectofthe main clause
asEaEJa-yu
see 'when
ne6a-quq asnaq woman-ABseat 3SG 'the woman eats'
betweenChukchiand SibcrianYupik Thereare,however,somespecificdilferences here.InSiberianYupik, no derivationalaffixis requiredto detransitivisctheverb,the transitive suffixesare simply replacedby their intransitive counterpart. While constructionsoftype ( I63) areextremelyrarein Chukchi,they arevety commonin SiberianYupik, the semanticdifferencebetween( I6I ) and ( I63) being,asindicated
25',l
qula
-aq
3SG+3SGbe_happy 3SG hej saw hime,he;was happy,
esrarja-miyu _aq quja see 3SG,+3SG be-happy3SG 'when hei sawhimj, he, was happy, -aq quJa be-happy 3Sc-3SCr 3Sc hej saw him,, he,was happy,
asBaEJa-tU
see 'when
Most varietiesof Eskimo lack conjunctionsand other separateword padicles altogether,but Siberianyupik hasborroweda largenumber ofthesefromChukchi, suchas ama 'and', ,,rgu, .in orderto', givingriseto a considerable shift in svntactic typolog)l'romnonnniteto finiteconsrructions. Although both Chukchi and Eskimo sharethe facility fo! forming long words incorporating a wide range of semanttccategories(polysynthesis), the typical mechanisms in thetwo languages aredistinct.Chukchiusesprimarily incorporation, wherebytwo or mo.e root morphemesare combined into a singleword. Eskimo neverusesthisdevice,but ratherattaches affixes,in Eskimoalwayssumxes,to a slngle root. Thus we can saythat Eskimo,includingSibe an yupik, is polysynthettc,but not incorporating.An exampleanalysedby Jacobson(1977: z_31will serveto illustratethis: (t671
a1ja-rla -g -jut auq boatAUG ACeUIRE want 3SG 'he wants to acquirea big boat,
Althoughthe ideasexpressed by theseparateErglish wordslle , want, acquire,big, boal areallcontainedin thisSiberianyupik word, the wordin factcontainsonly one root morpheme,atja- :boat',all the othersare derivational or inflectionalsumxes. Thesesuffixesare not relatablefofmally to root morphemes in the language,so that evenif they deriveetymologicallyfrom separatewords it now seemsimpossibleto tracethisdevelopment. As a finalcommcnton Eskimoin thc U.S.S.R., wemay notetheearlypatternof
6. Paleosiberian and other languages
6.j Yukagir
258
contactwith Europeanswas for SiberianEskimo to come first into contactwith of CentralAlaskanYupik camefirst whilespeakers Americans, English-speaking given riseto the strangesituation,from the into contactwith RussiansThis has loansfrom English Yupik hassome thatSiberian politicalviewpoint, contemporary (e.g.kaas"a'cow') whereCentralAlaskanYupik has loansfrom Russian(e g' 'cow', from Russiankorova) kuluvak 6.3 Yukagir ofthe YakutA'S S R Therearetwo TheYukagirlivein thenorth-east and KolymaYukagir,thisbeingalsothe Yukagir maingroupsofYukagir,Tundra were traditionallynomadic,wandering maindialectdivision.TheTundraYukagir in the regionof the riversAlazeyaand Chukoch'ya,whilethe Kolyma Yukagir' hunters and fishermen,live further south, along the rivers Yasachnayaand is spokenby only46 8'X'of 6I5 ethnicYukagirKorkodon.TheYukagirlanguage one of the smallestpeoplesin Siberia,though one whoseoverallnumber is increasing,aft€r almostdisappearingentirelyin the pre-Sovietperiodasa resultof AlthoughYukagircannotbesaidto haveestablished pooreconomic circumstances. languageor languagefamily' in recent years the other geneticlinks with any possibility o[ a geoetic link betweenYukagir and Uralic has been proposed energetically.Yukagir hasneverbeengivena writing systemThe nameYukagir is -1)in nor the native ethnonym,which is either wadu,l(stem wadu-, plural suffix TundraYukagiror odu./lstemodu-)in KolymaYukagir'In the inter-Waryears' to asOdul,thoughnow themoretraditional Yukagirasa wholewasoftenreferred nonnativeterm Yukagir (of uncertainetymology)is once more omcial-In the of Yukagirstructurebelow,exanplesare takenfrom TundraYukagir' discussion ln terms of its typology, Yukagir dift€rs much less from the generaltype thando mostofthe othersoby theAltaic andeasterlyUralic languages represented called Paleosiberianlanguages For instance, its phonemic system is very ofthe uvular phonemesq and n; straightforward,apart perhapsfrom the existence i tssyllablestructureis (C)V(C)(C).lnnounmorphology,two numbers(singularand plural) and a smallnumberofcases,primarily spatial,are distinguished'although distinction we return to the morphology of there is no nominative/accusative suffixesare restrictedto the third person' subjectanddirectobjectbelow.Possessive 'het 'husband', husband"(A numberofYukagir nouns'like kdde-gi e.g.kdde4 -9 this -t beingdroppedbeforeothersumxesand form, kdde7,endJn in thecitation in certainotherenvironments) verbs agreewith their subjectin personand number (three persons,two numbers);there is no object agreementThe morphological structureis basicallyagglutinative'though with a cartainamount of fusion in the thoughtherearesome predominate, sumxes verb(seeTable6.3for someexamples);
259
Table 64. Verbagreenentand focusin Yukagir (past tensefonns) Int.ansitivc(uu(/) to go ) Verb lbous SGr met mer"uu-jel 2 lel mer-uu-Jcx J tudelmeFuu-j PLI mil mer'uu"jcli 2 lr( mcr-uu-Jcmul 3 tittel mer-uu-'li Transilivelrl to shool) Verb focus SCr mel nrer-ai-! 2 tcl mcr-ar-mck 3 tudclmcr-ai-m PLr mit mcr-.ri-j 2 tit mer-ai-mk 3 ti(el mcr-ai-rJa
SGr 2 3 PLI 2 3
Subjecl focus met-ek uul lel-cl( uu-l tudel uul mit-ek uu-l lit ek uu'l tittel uu-4ul
Subjecl focus let ai tud ar
tlll al-4u
Objcct focus met ilclcDai-meo tet ilelerjai-merl tudelilelcDai-melc mit ilcleDai-l r;l ileleoai-mk liltcl ilsle9ai-Dumlc
prefixes,aswill beseenfrom the examplesbelow.Attributesprecedetheir head,e.g. k(ttine-jgddef fat man', cf. tudelme-k
met ntme0me -wte -0 I houseFOC build rSG 'l built the house'
The basicnreansol'combiningclausesinto complexsentences is by useof nonfinite forms; this is illustrated,specilicdllyfor gerunds,in the text on pp. 275-6. These
6. Paleosiberianand other languages
nonfiniteformsareinvariablefor personand number,theirsubjectusuallybeingthe overtly. sameas that of the main clauseor expressed On one parameter,however,Yukagir does ditrer significantlyfrom the other focus(i.e.essential andthisisinitsspecial systemforindicating languages ofSiberia, newinformation);it is on this systemthat we shallconcentratein our discussionof Yukagir. For subjectsand direct objects, Yukagir has special morphological markingon thenounphraseand/orverbin orderto indicatewhetherthesubject,the direct object,or the verb is in focus.Examples(169)1176),in which the focused constituentis in italicsin the Englishtranslation,will be usedto illustratethe distinctionshere.One easyway to appreciatethe pragmaticdistinctionsbetween thus (t 69) would be differentfocusesis to considerquestionand answersequences: (new ran away),while question'what do?' informationl. did the deer theanswerto the (new ( I70)wouldbe the answerto the questioo'whatran away?' information:the deer). ( r69)
ileq me -kdtege -j deer FOC run-away3SG 'lhe deer ran away'
(r70)
ile -leD kdtege J deer FOC run-away 3SG ' the deer nn away'
(I7I'
met mer - uu-je| I FOC go ISG 'I went'
\r'12)
met-ek uuJ I FOC go tSG '/ went'
(r73)
-4 met mer -ai I FOC shoot ISG 'l s'hot'
\t't 4)
-4 met ile mer -ai I deerFOC shoot ISC 'l slol thedeer'
( r7 5 )
met ai I shootcrSG) '1shot'
6.1 Ket
260
(r76)
26r
-meg met ile Je| ai I deer FOC shoot rSG 'l shot the deer'
(Theaboveexamplesare all in the pasttense,the tensemarker beingusuallyfused with that lor personand numberof the subject.For more detailson the ranseof subjectagreement distinctions, seeTable6.r.) Whenthe verb is focused,it takesthe prefix me(r)-, and both subjectand direct objectarewithoutanysuffix;thisis independent ofthe transitivityofthe verb,and with transitiveverbsof whetheror not thereis an expressed direct object.This is illustratedin examples( r 69),( r 7r ), ( r 73),and ( r 74).Whenevereithe, thesubjector the direct object is focused,the prefix me(r)- is omitted. In order to focuson an intransitivesubjector on a directobject.thefocusednounphrasetakesthesuffix-rer; thissumxtakestheform -k ifthenounphrasecontains anattribute,ascanbeseeoby repfacing r'le-,/e,in ( r 7o)by amat'edite-k . gooddeer',and -ek is also usedfor tirst andsecondpersonpronouns, asin ( r7z).Notethatthisgivesan ergati patternfor the distributionol Je4 (like treatmentof intransitivesubiecr transitivedirect object),although otherwiseyukagir evinceslittle or no
( r 70).( r 72).and( r76).It wi benotedthartheverbsuffixes. seeexamples ind: personand numberagreement, alsovary accordingto whichconstituentis seefurtherTable6.3. Finally, in order to focuson the subjectof a transitiveverb (example(r75)), nounphrasetakesnosuffix, buttheverbstandsin a diflerentform,withsyncrettsm subjectagreement. cf. metai '1shot', te,a/ you shot',etc.;onlyin thethird pfural is therea separateverbform, e.g. titt ai-ru , they shot'. This sameatrophy subject agreementis found when focusing on an intransitive subject, e.g. /rel_e/k '1 went', ter-ek uu-l 'you went', tittel uu-7uJ . they \vent'; on this parameter,
system is nominative accusative.The relation betweenfocus and its expression is thusrathercomplex,therelevantfactorsbeing:presence versus of me(r)- on the verb (focuson verb);presenceor absenceof Jetl or _(elk on nounphrase(focuson intransitive subjector transitive directobject);atrophyor of verbagreement (focuson subject,transitiveor intransitive). 6.4 Ket Whilethe existence ofany language-isolate, suchasyukagiror is disturbing to the general linguistic map of an area, the existenceof the
isolateKet is moredisturbingthanmost,because not oolyis thereno relationship to any other languageol'the area (or outside it), but even lrom typologicalpefspectiveKer dillers radically tiom all rhe other languagesof
6. Paleosiberian and other languages
2b2
isolates. whetheror not theybelongto themajor familiesofthe areaor arethemselves In particular,Ket is the only languageof the area known to have phonemictone oppositions,althoughthis is a recentd iscovery,andthe precisenumberofphonemlc tonesin the variousdialectsremainsto beworkedout, althoughit seemsto be three in the areato havea or four (Dul'zon 1969;Feer19?6).Ket is the only language gender/class system.The morphologyof Ket is quite unlikeanything consistent tobeanareaofagglutinative whichhasastrongtendency in Siberia, foundelsewhere roots as well as discontinuous internal flection, widespread languages:Ket has preiixingand suflixing,givingoveralla picturemuch moresimilarto someof the than to a Uralicor Altaic language. languages Caucasian groupsrcmain with any ofthe major language Attemptsto link Ket genetically is that gained popnlarity recently some view that has one although veryspeculative, family having been theunityofthis Ket maybedistantlyrelatedto Tibeto-Burman, ofa ( Dul'zonI968;thoughDul'zonissceptical oftheChinese splitby theexpansion link with North a genetic to contact,andhimselfadvocates genetic link,asopposed time, at thepresent Althoughwemayspeakof Ketasa language-isolate Caucasian). as century, such into the eighteenth spoken thereweresomecloselyrelatedlanguages of Kott were still to be found at the Arin, Assan,and Kott. lndeed,speakers noteddownsomeKott in century,whenM. A. CastrCn of thenineteenth beginning asa wholeto whichthese The family Ket materials. more extensive to his addition belongmay be calledYeniseyan. languages for I97o of I,I82 ethnicKet, the percentage At presentKet is spokenby74.9"1, remarkably constantfrom 77.I % in r 959 The Ket livealongthe havingremained Imbatand andaredividedinto two maindialects, riverYeniseyandits tributaries, most. The structural at the Sym, the latter havingonly a few scorespeake.s differences betweenthe two would be sufficientto considerthemdistinctlanguages ln earlierliterature,the Ket areoftenreferredto asYeniseyOstyak,correctlygiving suggesting an ethnicor linguistic location,but misleadingly their geographical peoplewho live (formerly a Finno-Ugric calledOstyak), amliationwith theKhanty to the westofthe Ket. In fact,althoughthe Ket havebeenin closecontactwith the quite Khanty,to theextentofadoptingtheethnonymOstyak,theyarelinguistically ( KS I968: I3-I4)' preparation in the I93os primer was in Although a Ket distinct. useRussian andits speakers Ket hasneveractuallybeenusedasa writtenlanguage, astheirbasicmediumof literatureand education. of writerhasnothadtheopportunityofworkingwithoativespeakers Thepresent on the belowis basedexclusively Ket or of hearingKet spoken,so thediscussion pointsthereis published sources listedin the FurtherReadingsection.On s€veral among thesesources,ior instanceconcerningquite basic lack of consistency givenbelow,bitsically questionsof phonetics,so that the actualtranscriptions
6.4 Ket
263
following Krejnovid, are to be treated as provisional. To some extent these discrepancies may relateto dialectdifferences. Althoughthemorphology ofKet, includingthecomplexmorphology oftheverb, is basically agglutinative, thereare manyinstances wherethis is not thecase.Foi instance,althoughmost nounsform their plural by meansof a suffix, c.g. am 'mother'. an-at 'mothers',severalnounsform their plural by internalvowelor otherinternalchange, e.g.tii.dol'. tai,dogd, qcj ,bear',qun ,t>ears,, andevenby prosodicalternations,e.g. trJas .receptaclemadeof birch_bark,,pluml tryas. In additionto sumxing, prefixingiswidespread in Ket,e.g.in t hepossess iveprelixes, cf. am 'mother', (a)b-am 'my mother', (u)k_am .your mother,. In the verb morphology,as we shallsee,in additionto prefixingand suffixingthere is alsoa varietyof infixing,for verbswilh discontinuous roots. Like mostIanguages of Siberia.Ket hasa smallnumberofnoun cases, including three basicspatialcasesfor locative,allative,and ablative;there is, howcver. no nomtnattve/accusative distinctionfor any kind of noun phrase,the distinction between subjectanddirectobjectoftransitiveverbsbeingcarried primarityby the complexverb agreementsystem.The most interestingleatureof Ket nouns. however,is the existence of a well-defined classsystem,uniqueamongSiberian languages. Ket distinguishes threeclasses. masculine, feminine,and neuter..l-o a largeextent.thesecorrelalewith, respectively, maleanimate,femaleanimare,anq lnanlmate. but therearesomeexceptions: thussomeanimalnames(e.g..fox,,.hare,) arefeminineirrespective of the sexof the referentr mostfishnamesaremascuhnei Iargewoodenobjectsaremasculine, whereas smallcounterparts areneuter.In the plural,masculine andfemininelall together, whilefor certainpurposes feminine and neuterfall togetherin thesingular. Classis covertin Ket,in thatthenounitselfdoes not showanyovertmarkeroftheclassto whichit belongs, thisclassrevealing itself primarilyin agreement, especially predicate agreement. ln addition,thesDatial cases haveslightlydifferentsumxes (etymologically, apparentl], sumxedpronouns) for the different classes,e.g. allative ob-daTa ,lathel. but an-di7a .mother.. The realisation ofthedistinction withagreement canbeseelby contmstingbu ga_lu,he is big' with bu ga-la 'sheis big' notethatthepronounbu doesnot itselfshow me classdistinction. Apart from predicate agreement andtheformsofspatialcases, the main realisation of classis in the possessive prelixes: contrastda_antor bura_am 'hismother' with d-an or bur-am.hermother'. As alreadyindicated, the mostcomplexareaof Ket morphologyis the verb,in particularlhe wav in which verbsagreein person,class(for third personr! ano numberwith theirsubjecr(lor all verbs)and directobject(for all transitiveverbs) (excepting onlya veryfewverbswhichdo not showagreement or fail to takecertain agrecmenl ittlxcs).Thcreitrclwo lrrlin sources ol contplication. Onc is theformal
6. Paleosiberian and other languages
264
structureof the verb as a lexical item, sinceone has to distinguishverbs with a root in final position(and thus a numberofprefixes)from verbs nondiscontinuous with a discontinuousroot, the latterconsistingeitheroftwo root morphemesor ofa root followedby a derivationalsumxor a root precededby aderivationalprcfix;with betweenthetwo partsofthe root, thusgiving discontinuousroots,manyamxesstand 'inlix' standsbetweenthe two morphemesthat (although the a form of infixation constitutethe root, rather than actually being insertedinto a morpheme,as is requiredby thestrictsenseofinfixation). In additionto thisgeneraldivisionofverbs accordingto thestructureoftheir roots,th€applicationoffurthercriteriawouldlead The secondsourceofcomplicationis therange to evenmoreand smallersubclasses aflixes,whichlallinto two main sets,calledDand B from the ofperson/class/number differentinitial consonantsofsome ofthe affixes,e.g.first personsingulard(/)-/-rversus(-)ba-/(-)br-; only certainamxeshavedistinctD and B forms.The diUerence betweenthesetwo setsdoesnot. however,correlateat all directlywith that between quiteidiosyncraticwhichset it seems subjectanddirectobject.andin manyinstanc€s The a particularverbtakes,e.g.ba-yissal'lspendthe night',b.utdi-jit'l sneeze'. ofthe systemis suchthat Dul'zon(I968)'th€ overallcomplexityand idiosyncrasy grammar ofKet to date,effectivelytakesthelinethateveryverb mostcomprehensive is irregular,and proceedsto list a wide rangeof forms for eachverb discussed can be brought to the choiceand position of somesystematisation Nonetheless, theseamxes,which tum out to operateessentiallyon an ergativebasis(eventhough Ket seemsnot to haveanyothersignsofergativity) For transitivesubjects(ergative relation),only the D seriesis used,and prefixesencodingtransitivesubjectsalways root. For intnnsrtrve occur initially,precedingboth parts of a discontinuous subjectsand lbr direct objects(absolutiverelation)' eitherthe B or the D seri€sis in thisl'unction, arbitrarily); lexically(apparently used,thechoicebeingdetermined the two parts of a but between root, a nondiscontinuous the amxesoccur before column,the precedes the absolutive columnalways root.Theergative discontinuous root,e g dverbswith a nondiscontinuous in transitive two columnsbeingad.jacent subjectand -rpersonsingularmasculine her',whered- indicatesthird ,:tu!'he sees 'she seeshim'.where third personsingularfemininedirectobject:contrastda-a-rut -apersonsingular third and third personsingularfemininesubject da- indicates directobject. masculine principlesln ofthesegenetal theapplication will illustrate Somefurtherexamples amx the absolutive is nondiscontinuous: the root the night'. bii-yhsa,l'lspend return', ln iug-ba-1,'l B series verb is ofthe precedes theroo1,andfor this therefore thetwo partsof separates andtheafhx,againoftheB series. therootisdiscontinuous. 'I sneeze' markingaredllt absolutive with D series examples theroot.Comparable 'l root) For (nondjscontinuous root) ?:ndicqda-d-dan exercise(discontinuous
6.4 Kel
265
transitiveverbswith the D seriesabsolutive,we havenondiscontinuousdu_.i_j.he dresses me' (du- third personsingularmasculineergatjve;-r'- first personsingular absolutive),and discontinuousd-r.rgi-.-rl'he warmsme,.The B seriesindicatinga direct objectis found in ba-ru4'(he)seesme,,where ba- is the first personsingular amx;in thisparticularform,it is apparently impossible to includean ove subiect marker. Someof the amxes,most noticeablyprefixesin the D series,do not distinguish singularfrom plural,andmanyverbsindicatetheplurality oftheir subj€ct(transrttve or intransitive) by meansofa sumx,or suppletion. Theusualpluralsulllxis _a,which in someverbscontrastswithsingular-p. This givessuchexamplesas dr1l.I sneeze' versusd$t-, 'we sneeze',d-avro-p'I drink up' versusd-avro-ri.wedrink up,, ba_ fstu-i'(he) coversme've6us ba-yrstr-n'(they)coverme',d-of-dag,helived'versus d-cf-in'theylived'.In the last(suppl€tive) pair, -rl- is the pasttensemarkel Ket distinguishes pastfrom nonpast,thelatteroften(thoughnot for all verbs)havinga zeromorph.The tenseaffixprecedes a nondiscontinuous root but occursinternalto a discontinuous root. followinga B series absolutive markerbut preceding a D series absolutive marker(except withtransitive verbshavingathirdpersondirectobiect,in which casethe t€nsemarker follows the D seriesabsolutiveaffix). In terms of word order typology, Ket has many of the characteristicsof the subJect-object-verb type,althoughtheorderof majorconstituentswithin thecrause varies betweensubject-verbobject and subject-object_verb;given the prolific systemofsubjectandobjectagreement, manytransitive sentences do not havetheir full complementof noun phrasearguments. Adjectivesalwaysprecedetheir head novn,e.g.aqta doh' largeknife';in general,thereis no agreementbetweenadjective andnounfor anycategory, althoughsomeadjectives do agreein numberonly,rnus aqtadoh-i4 ts'bigknives',but rheadjectivega .large.hasa plural qa_4:qa qui,larye lent , qa-t qu-0 'l^rgetents'.The genitivealsoprecedes its headnoun,and requiresa possessive prefixon theheadnounrecapitulating theperson,number,and(for third person)classofthe possessor, e.g.obda-quS'father.stent,,literally.fatherHIS_ 'mother's tent',am d-Ltui tent'.literally'motherHER-tent';the wholepossessive complexis pronounced asa singleword.Ket hasa numberofpostpositions andno prepositions. postpositions, The etymologically derivingfrom nouns,enterinto the possessrve constructionwith the other no:un,e.g. aq na_bafga'betweenthe trees', lilerally'tree-PLTHEIR-between'. Unlike many of the other languages of the area,Ket doesnot have a well_ developed systemofnonfiniteforms,whereas it doeshavea numberofconjunctions, includingmany nativeconjunctions in additionto a currenttendencyto borrow conJunctions from Russian_ Indeed.Ket hasonly onenonfiniteform.theso-called inhnitive.whichcanscrvebothiLsiLnitttributc,e.g.iuf ,(et.swimming person'. andas
6. Paleosiberian and othei languages
266
complementto the verb, e.g. luj di-jaq'lamgoing to swim'(where dr'raq hasthe first personprefix dL); the form ,iuj hereis infinitive of the verb'to swim'. A Kot text, thus, is €ssentiallya sequence unlike textsin trearlyall of the neighbouringlanguages, of finite clauses. '5.5 Nivkh Nivkh is currently spokenby slightly lessthan half (49.5%)of 4,420 ethnicNivkh; in 1959the frgurcwas76.3%,onceagaindemonstratinghow rapidly languageassimilationofa smallgroup can takeplacein contactwith a much more populousgroup.Of the 2,I99Nivkhwho gavetheirnativelanguageasnot Russian, r,936claimedalsoto be fluent in Russian.In non-Sovietliterature,the Nivkh ale usuallyreferredto asGilyak, althoughNivkh (iivx) is the nativeethnonym,besides simplymeaning'person'.The Nivkh live on thelowerreachesof theAmur river,and on Sakhalin island. There is a major dialect split b€twoanthe Amur dialect and the EasternSakhalindial€ct,suchthat mutual inteltigibilityis virtually excluded,and the question celtainly arises whether or not these should be considered, from a structural viewpoint, two separatebut closelyrelatedlanguages.The Northern Sakhalindialectoccupiesan intermediateposition. In many lespects,the Eastern Sakhalin dialect is more archaic than the Amur dialect, which has,for instance,lost certain final consonants(especiallymany instancesof final -n), and othelwise simplifiedconsonantclusters.For instance,the EasternSakhalinequivalentofthe Amur dialectethnonym iivx is rtivyq or rliyvq. The relationshipof Nivkh to any other languageis very questionable,although Nivkh does show marked typologicatsimilaritiesin severalr€spectsto various neighbouringlanguagcs: for instance,the systemofclassifiorswith numerals(seep. 269)is very reminiscentofJapanese.However, for any typological similarity onecan find between Nivkh and any other language, one car also find typological discrepancies betweenNivkh and that language:thus, Nivkh phonology is not remotelylike that of Japanese.Mainly as a result of the Japaneseowno$hip of southernSakhalinbetweenI9o5 and 1945,most ofth€ Sovietwork on Nivkh has concentratedon the Amurdialect.whilemuchwork on the EasternSakhalindialect hasbeendone by Japaneselinguists,and also other non-Sovietlinguistsworking from theJapanese side,nowadaysoftenwith Nivkh who movedto Japan,The Amur dialectof Nivkh wasdevelopedas a written languagein the early I93os,and was transferred to a Cyrillic basedwriting systemin 1953.Howover, sincr then scarccly anything hasappearedin Nivkh, with the exception ofthe primer published shortly after the change-over to the Cyrillic alphabet,Recentlinguisticworks usedifferent versionsofth€ Cyrillic w ting system,andin additionto this confusionthealphabet alsousessomeunusualsymbolsfor consonantsin the velar and uvular regions,in
6-5 Nvkh
26j
Table 6.4. Obstruent system of Nivkh (Amur dialect) IIIIIIIVV Labial Dental Palatal Velar Uvular
p t l' k q
p. f t" k, q'
bf dfr d'sz gxY G1E
pafiicular symbolswhich are not to be found in regularCyrillic type fonts (suchas loops added to Latin ,). Given thesepracticalcomplications,and the fact that virtually all Nivkh speakfluentRussianastheirfirstor secondlanguage,itis unlikely that the written languagewould be revived. WhilethevowelsystemofNivkh is relativelysimple,with only thesixphonemesr, e, a, e, o) u, the consonantsystemis, at leastat fiist sight,much more complex, especiallyin the Amur dialect, and especiallywith regard to the plosivesand fricatives,which arerepresented diagrammaticailyin Table6.4.In addition,Nivkh allows quite formidable consonantclusters,esp€ciallywhen monoconsonanral prefixesand suffixesare added,e.g. f-raf .my house'(wherei- is the first pcnon singularpossessive preox), fevrft-t' 'pluck' (where -t,, a phonetic variant of _d,, indicatesfinitenessof the verb). The rationaleofthe obstruentsystembecomesmuch clearer,however.onceone looksat it in termsofthe initial consonantaltemationsthat charactedseNivkh, in particularwhenit is realisedthat oneofthe fiveseriesinTable 6.4,namelyIII (voiced plosives),doesnotoccurword-initiallyin thecitationformsofnativewo!ds,buromy as a result of morphophonemicalternation. The various seri€sof obsruenB altematewithoneanotherincontext,the alternatiollbeirgdeterminedprimarily by the final segmentofthe precedingword. Thus,column I alternateswith columnV aftera plosive,vowel,orj, e.g.taf'house',but ata,kraf.father's house',whilecolumn II alternateswith column IV in this environment,e.g, /.u ,dogsledge,,et k iu 'father's dogsledge'.Column I alt€rnateswith column III after a nasalor 1,e.g. ki 'shoe', but t"et gi 'yorrj' shoe'. The remaining alternations apply to initial consonantsofverbs, but not ofnouns. After a fricative,column IV alternateswith columnII,e.g.fa-d"tocook't'ust,a-d"aocookmeat',whilecolumnValternares with column l, e.E. vekz-d' 'to lose', nux pekz-d' .to losea needle',Column IV altenateswith columnII after a nasalor 1,e.g.seu-d.,to dty,, kelm t , eu-d.'to dty raspberries',while column V alternateswith column III in this environment,e.g. vakz-d' 'to lose', 4irg bekz4' 'to lose a a\p'. Although the alternationswereoriginally conditionedby the phoneticnatureof
268
6. Paleosiberia and othet litngutges
6.5 Nivkh
269
the linllsegment olthe preccdingword, somealtcrnationscan now beexplainedonly prefix lhistoricallyilr this way: for instance.the hrst person singular possessive
In the pronoun system,a distinction is made betweendual and plural in the first persononly, with du al megi or mege;in the first personplural (but not dual), thereis
triggcrsalternationofthe stem-initialconsonant asifthis prefixendedin a vowel' e g. house' (not * i-del"): etymologically. this prefix derives from the ri-ol"my 'l-. inclcpendentfirst person pronoun ir
a distinction betwceninclusive mer and exclusiveria4. One parameter which sets Nivkh ofl markedly from other languages of Siberia. but relatesit to other languagesfurther south, e.g. Japanese,is the existenceof a
In addilion to the phonologicalconditionitlg.however.syntaxis alsocrucial to an understandingof initial consonant {lternation in Nivkh, becauseonly in certirin syntaclicconstructionsdoes the final consonilntofone word trigger alternation in
developed system of numeral classihers. These function most clearly with the numerals'one' to'five. for which Nivkh nouns are divided into 26 classes,with
thc initial consonant of the next word. An attribute triggers alternation in the following hcad noun. as in ,frk t f falher's house'.and a direct object triggersthe 'to lose a altcrnation in a following verb. as in vckz-d''Io lose', but tux pJkz-d' 'lo lose a cup'. Especiallyin view of the absenceof caseneedle'and 0i0 hekz-d' n]arking for subjects,direct and indirect objccts. rnd genitives,initial consonant illtcrnationis often the only outward signofa givcn syntacticconstruction.With the 'cook'. for instance.we can seethat 1'us'mcat' is direct object in ( I77), but verb fasubject(or at least.not direct object) of the rcsultativeconstructionin (I78), even
diflerent numeral forms for each clitss. In most instances. the numeral forms can readily be segmented.synchronicallyor at least diachronically, into a numeral element and a classilier,which lattcr is often relatableto a separatenoun in the language.For instance,in counting boats,the forms aret ,iim 'one boat', rrir, 'two boats', f'en?'three boats', nrrr 'four boats'. tbr, 'five boats'.where the final -rr is relatable to mu 'boat'. Likewise, for counting dogsledgesthe fotms arc: rtif, mii, (cf, nci. t'of, \vhere the final -i is relatable ro t.lr 'dogsledge' (bearing in mind the alternation ofinitial t' wir, i). Many of the noun classesthnt are definedin this way by separatenumeral forms
though the same semanticrole is representedin both sentences:
are very specific.e.g.separltesetsfor dillerentitemsoffishing tackle.Othersarc very
-d'
general classifications,for instance pcople, animals, places,or relate to spatial characteristics ofobjects, e.g.long objects,flat thin objects,small round objects.cf.
ltTt)
untgu
t'us
t'a
woman meat cook FIN 'the woman cooked the meat' ( t 7tj)
also paired objects.In addition, thereis a remainderclasscontaining all nouns thal do not fit into any ofthe specificclasses-In somel'ewinstances,the assignmentoIa grvennoun to a given classseemsarbitrary, e.g.of ku 'day' (i.e. period of z4 hours, and not, incidenlally.'sun') to thc classoIsmall round objects,although mosl limc units belongto the remainderclass.F'ornumeralsup to five,wherethe classifiers are
-d' -yala I'us ia meat cook RESULT FIN 'the meat has beencooked'
Nivkh noun morpilology distinguishestwo numbcrs(singular,plural) and a small nunbcr ofc[ses. including basicspatialcases.This is rather like the casesystemof most othcr langrragesof Siberia, although Nivkh is somewhat unusual in not distinguishing between nominative. accusiltive,dative (for indirect object) and gcnitivc. all of which stand in the cit.rtion form Civen the virtual absenceof verb triggeredin noun phrasesby agreemenl(seebelow).word order and the iLlternations genitives and in verb phrases by direct objects.tre crucial to the retrieval of grilmm.rlicalrelationsfrom the surfaceform ofsentences.In its casesystemNivkh does have one rather unusual case.called dative-irccusativeby Panfilov (I962 ). 'cirusee'would be a bettertcrm. sinccthis caseis usedonly to express though perhaps thc causeein a morphological causativeconsttLlcllon.as ln:
(r79'
tir xevgun -ax
er -)(
qala-gu
-d'
I XevgunCAUSEEhe ALL hateCAUS FIN 'l will iDakeXevgunhatehiD'
used.the usual traditional ordcr is for thc numeral-classifier complex to follow the no]un,e.g.qan mor'two dogs',literally'dogtwo-animal';with highernumerals,used without classifiers,the numeral preccdcs,e.g. 4amg iivx'seven people'.The latter reflectsthe typical Nivkh order with the attribute precedingthe head.The classilier construction also, in a sense.rellectsthis word order internally to the numertlclassificrcompiex, and was probably originally an appositiveconstructionwith thc noun and the numeral-classifiercomplex in apposition.Currently in Nivkh, thereis a lendency for the numeral-classilicrcomplex to be preposed(Panfilov r962: r9r), presumablyreflectingrcanalysisas an attributc head construction. Severalpropeltiesol Nivkh word order lypology have already beenintroduced, such as the Jixcdattribule head word order. Within the clause,word order is l'airly rigidly subicct object vcrb. with thc dircct object forming a particularlycloseunir r ilh the \erb phonologicrlly !s wcll ls svntactically.in terms olalternation of the i n i t i a ls c g m c n to l ' v c r b s .N i v k h h i r ss c v c r i rpl o s ( p o s i t i o nasn d n o p r c p o s i t i o n se.. g . pa; r'.'r7 u n d c t t h c s l o n c . N i t h t h c p ( ) s l p ( ) s i l i orn. ' r f u n d c r ' .
6.5 Nivkh
6. Paleosibetian and other languages The formal structureof the verb in Nivkh is very straightforward,especiallyin ofmany ofth€ otherIanguages comparisonwith themoreprolificverbmorphologies ofSiberia.However,onecomplicationis thewiderangeofnonflnitegerundsthat the and which will be outlined b€low.The semanticdistinctions languagepossesses, variousgerundshavenot beenfullydescribedin theliterature,and the betweenthese provisionaland glossesbelow and in the Nivkh text on pp. 276-7 are necessarily incomplete.In commonwith manylanguagesofthe area,Nivkh usesthesegerunds to the virtual exclusionoffinite subordinateclauses.Many of the points discussed beloware illustratedin the Nivkh text, to which further referenceshouldbe made. and In a Nivkh simplesentence, theverbalmostinva ablyoccurssentence-finally, -d'. serves essentially This sumx takesa closingfinite sumx,the mostcommonbeing asit doesnot haveany tensevalue(futuretense,alsowith only to indicateflniteness, modal values,can be indicatedby suffixing-na before -d'), and doesnot serveany subjectand/or objectagreementfunction. Basically,in Nivkh, finite verbsdo not agreewith any of their argumentsin person,but the sumx ',ku and its phonctic variants,identicalto the noun plural sumx,indicatca plural stbject, e.g. ifi-d'-Yu 'they ate',at the end ofthe first paragraphof the text.Only in th€ imperativedo we 'go!' (to one find full differentiationofperson and numberof the subject,e.g. vi-f person),vr'-veor vi-bg'go!'(to more than one person),vi-trle'let's go!'(speaker addressingone other person,cf. the distinctionbetweendual and plural in the fiIst person),vl-da 'let's go!' (speakeraddressingmore than one other person). Onewayofcombiningclausestogetherisby meansofcoordination,in whichcase in thecoordination takethesamesetofsumxes, in Nivkh all theverbsparticipating -.a. -da)and -/a The differencebetween-ra and -.a (and, namely (phoneticvariant moregenerally,between/and r forms)involvesalimitedrangeofsubjectagreement ofc€rtaingerunds. ofverbsin Nivkh whichwewill encounteragainin thediscussion Thesumx -ra is usedifthe subjectis first personsingular,oranypersonin theplural. The suffix -ra is usedifthe subjectis secondor third personsingular.What€verthe historicaloriginofthis unusualpartitionofsubjectagreementitseemstohaveno -jt ischaracteristic ola widerangeof naturalsemanticor pragmaticcharacterisation containing verbformsin Nivkh. The secondparagraphofthe text is a long sentence -r'a, person The following sentence with singular subject. third severalverbs in persons: illustratesthe useof both sumxes,sincethe subjectsare of different (r80)
-ta t'i tol -ux ne1 -ra, hi miv -uin pan you waterABL walk AND I land LOC be-bornAND 'you walk on water,and I wasborn on dry land'
Turning now to gerunds, lhereare two formal parameters according to which one can classify ggrunds in Nivkh. First, there is a distinction between those gerunds
z'l I
whichcantakea specifiedsubjectoftheir own, andthosethatcannot:with the latt€r. thesubjectof thegerundis coreferentialwith that ofthe finiteverb(or ofthe geruno that this gerundqualifies, wherea chainof gerundsis formed;seeexample(r8z) below). In the text, the gerundsin il-r and in -tol/-.o. illustrate neccssary coreference,while that in -4a[ illustratesthe possibilityof noncoreferelce.The secondparameteris whetheror not the gerundagreeswith its subject,accordingto the opposition second/thirdpersonsingularversusall other pe$on and number combinations. ln thetext,the gerundsin -tli and -totl-ror showthis distinction (thesecond form in eachcasebeingusedforsecond andthirdpersonsingular), while that n -tan doesnot. The two parameters ar€,incidentally, independent of one another,althoughthereis somestatistical validityto theratherunusualimpression that may have been gleanedfrom the examplescited, namely that the gerunds requiringcoreference (andwhereverbagreement might seemlessnecessary) usually have verb agreement,while those not requiring coreferencetend not to have agreement. With the gerundsthat do not requirecoreference, it is possibleto specifythe subjectexplicitly,thoughnot necessary to do so,and oftensurprisingly elliptical constructions are attestedwherethe contextmakesclearwhich participants are involved.In thelastsentence of thetext,for instance, all thatis madeexplicitis that someone isgoingtowardsthehousewhilesomeone issinging insideth€house;clearly thereference cannotbeto thesameperson,andfrom thecontexttheonly reasonable interpretation is thattheyoungerbrotheris goingtowardsthehousewhilesomeone else lrom the widercontext,clearlyhis sister is singinginsidethe housel
(r8r)
-iaf -rx lu -d' p' ery -tox vi -tan tcv ni REFL housesideALL go GER houseinsideALL sing FIN 'when [he] wenttowardshishouse,[someone]wassinginginsidethe house'
One final poitlt concerning Nivkh gerunds that is revealed by a careful examinationofthe text relatesto sentences with severalgerunds,one dependenton the other, as in the following example from the text:
( r8z)
iy -ror t'ewq tupi fawkt' fak -4an nanak kill GER-3SGbring GER elder-sister bird featherpluck FIN 'whenhekilledthem, hebroughtthem,andtheeldersisterpluckedthe birds'feathers'
ThesubjectoIthe liniteverbr'avr*-t'isn.tra,('eldersistcr'.Thegerundimmediately dependenl on this. ruk-rilr. doesnot requirecoreferential subjects, and it is clear lionr thccontcxtthrLtthesubjcctol'thisgerundis theyoungerbrother.Thegerundin
6. Paleosiberianand other languages
2',12
-ror is dependentin turn on the gerundiek-tat, not directlyon the main v€rb;this iscruciallywith thesubject and thecoreference gerundrequiressubjectcoreferenca, -roi is most immediatelydependent,i.e. in this ofthe verb on which the gerundin examplewiththe subjectofthe gerundiek-tat, and not with the subjectofthe main verb. Thus the interpretationis that the youngerbrother killed the birds and the youngerbrother brought them home,while his sisterpluckedthem.
6.6 Aramaic(Assyrian) of playscarcely anyrolein thelinguisticcomposition Semiticlanguages of the doesqualifyomciallyas a language the U.S.S.R.,but oneSemiticlanguage U-S.S.R.The peoplewho speakil are usuallycalledAssyrians,or Aysor, in the U.S.S.R.,and their languageis a form of Aramaic,a North-WestSemiticlanguage very closelyrelatedgeneticallyto Hebrew;their languageshould not be confused and the language of the ancientBabylonian with Akkadian(Assyro-Babylonian), whichis in facta muchmoredistantlyrelatedSemiticlanguage Assyrianempires, that hasbeenextinctfrom aroundthe middleof the first millenniumB.C. Most membersof the Assyrianethnic group with which we are coocernedhere live in northern lraq and adjacentparts of lran and Syria.Accuratefiguresfor the total vary widely, numberofspeakersofmodernAramaicarenot available,andestimates enteredthe RussianEmpireasa Assyrians althoughroo,ooois probablygenerous. (TorkamAn) ( I 828),bywhichIrancededeastern resultoftheTreatyofTurkmanchai and ofthese64.5%have Armeniato Russia.Theynumber24,294in the U.S.S.R., (thepercentage wasvirtuallythesamein the I959 Assyrianastheirnativelanguage census). At the beginning of our era Aramaic was the dominant language from Mesopotamiato Palestine,having replacedAkkadian and severelyrestrictedthe area coveredby scvcralother languages.including Hebrew. However,the rapid replacement expansion olArabicthroughoutthisareahasledto thealmostcomplete by thelactthatthis ofAramaiciscomplicated ofAramaic.Theinternalclassification sinceAramaichas but alsohistorical. mustbenot only geographical, classification beenrecordedlor well over two thousandyears,and evencultural, sincedifferent formsof Aramaichavebeenusedby dillerentreligioustraditions(Jcwish,Jacobite divisionhasbeen However, onemajorgeographical Nestorian Christian). Christian, Eastern Aramaic. Western Aramaic and ofourera. between the bcginning clearsince villages to the north of in a few At present,WesternAratnaicsurvivesonly speakEastern includingSovietAssylians, Damascus; all otherAramaicspeakers, Aramaic.One l-onn of EasternAramaic,calledSyriac,became(hc liturgical and in its Nestori n form still language of the Jacobiteand NestorianChristians.
6.7 Dungan
273
suNivesasthe liturgicallanguageofmost EasternAramaicspeakers; it is written in an original alphabetderivedfrom West€rnSemitic,calledEstrangelo. In thenineteenthcentury,a writtenform ofmodernEasternAramaicwasdevised. basedon thedialectofReza'iyeh(Urmia) in northernIran, and usingthe Estrangelo alphabet.Within the U.S.S.R.,wheremost Assyrianslive in the Transcaucasnn republics.though also scattercdacrossurban centresthroughout the U.S.S.R.,a writing systembasedon th€ Latin alphabet was devised,and was used in the Aramaic-mediumschoolsthat existedlrom r 926to r 938.At present,Aramaicis not usedasa written languagein the U.S.S.R,;mostAramaicspeakersarealsofluentin the dominant languageofthe areain which they live,and usethis languageastheir written languageand their mediumof education. The only other Semiticlanguagespokenby a population group native to the U.S.S.R.is Arabic,spokenby theArabsofUzbekistan(in theBukharaandKashkaDar'yaoblasts). 6.7 Duogan In terms of its structureand basicvocabulary,Dungan is a form of Mandarin (Nofthern) Chinese,not standingout particularly from other NorthWesterndialectsof Mandarin. However,the Dunganare an ethnicgroup distinct from the Chinese(Han), perhapsin largemeasurethedescendants ofprisoners-ofwarbroughtinto ChinafiIst in thefourteenthcentu!y.Thetraditionalreligionofthe Dungan is Islam. Most Dungan still live in China, wherethey number over th.ee million;in China,theyareusuallyreferredto asHwei.Croupscf Dunganmigrated westwaldsfrom China properinto CentralAsia,and with the establishment ofthe preselt frontier betweenRussiaand China in CentralAsia,som€of themendedup on the Russiansideofthe lrontier.At presentthemainconcentrations ofDungan iD the U.S.S.R.are in Kirgiziaand Kazakhstan,especiallytheformer.The majority of Dungan speakersin the U.S.S.R.speakthe Kansudialect,somespeakthe Shensi dialect,whichdiffer,for instance,in thenumberofphonemicallydistincttones(three in theKansudialect, fourin theShensidialect). Therateoflanguage retentionisvery hight 94.30/.of 38,644ethnic Dungan have Dunganas th€ir native language. Perhapsthemainditrerence betweenDunganandMandarin in thenarrowersense is thepresence ofseveralArabic andPersianloansin Dungan,in additionto asmaller numberofloans from Turkic (with which the Dullgaltcameinto contactin Central Asia). Dungan as spokenin the U.S.S.R.also containsa number of loans from Russian(includinginternationalwords borrowedin th€ir Russianfo!m), although Dungan,morethanInostlanguages stillfofmsnewwordsfrom its ofthe U.S.S.R., 'aeroplane'), (e.g. perhaps own resources fanC"'an reflectingin part the same dillicultythat all othcr formsof Chinesehavein adaptingloansfrom European
2't4
6. Paleovberiatr and other langutges
Dungan ofChinese. In theU.S.S.R., to theverydiffcrentphoneticsystems languages amount of and there is a certain hasbeenusedin the schoolsystemsince1929, wasoriginallyon a Theorthography publication in Dungan,includinga newspaper. to Cyrillicin theearlyl95os,makingDunganoneof Latinbase,but wastransferred doesnot, R. to effectthischange.The orthography of the U.S.S. thelastlanguages incidentally. mark tone. In the generallinguisticlitcrature,Dunganis perhapsbestknown becauseofthe claim by Trubetzkoy( r939)that it hasa four-waycontrastin theconsonantsystem Dungan between plain, palatalised,labialised,and palatalised-labialised. i.e. followed by a semivowel, of consonant orthographytreatstheseas sequences (e. g. palatalised-labialised sdi). (e.g.sj),labialised (e.9.sw), plain(e.g.s),palatalised
6. Texts
275
Phoneticr./ represents[t]: i variesbetween[6] and [3]; v is bilabial. The text illustrates severalmorphophonemic alternations dueto vowelharmony(e.g.-y2i, -y2e'3SG'),schwainsertion(€.g.-t, -at'PL'), andadjacent vowelloss(e.9.gora-, go.- 'reindeer'). The unmarkedtenseis past,so noneofthe verbsin thistexthasa tensemarker. qolityti. . . ejmekvri.thecombination of go1'one(ofseveral)'with theintransirive auxiliary it- in the sameform as the iritransitivemain verb translates'once.. .' ejmekvri, ikvri: here lv is for * vy, by regularrule.
FRI]E TRANSLATION
T E X T S I N P A L E O S T B E R T A NL A N C U A G E S CIIUKCIJI DXT ,aqa- yory-et onktaln korYe- yery-ct joyful N PL PL and reindeer POSS bad N -v7i vaam-cto '0a ejmek qot it -y'ti qon qor
-en
ekvete-nve
one be 3SG reindeerABS approach 3SG river ALL drink PURP viilviil. cinit"kin miml-cL ekvece-gqo -yk ank1am l'u-nin
see3SG+3SGwaterLOC self POSSreflection drink INCH 3SC and -y1e majie-rann -at ka''aqvt-77o tinit'kine I yeta -rJro -nenat look-atINCH 3SC*3PL self POSSPL big antlerPl- rejoice INCH 3SG -at. ienet-renn -eto, inqun otti ne - mej1a-qine-t ankzam vercmke'|2 branch PART PL self antlerALL since theyADJ big ADJ PL and tinitkine 1 y?tkal cnk'am ik -v'/i: anqor-em yite -ninet say 3SG then well look-at3SG-3PL self POSSPL leg PL and -t. -rul -qine 'etki1'at -t -em Cama ne yatkal yem-nine -les luur
PL well I ley -i
POSSPL awful PL also ADJ weak ADJ PL -a
Penf
-anen
qofa
-0e.
qofa
suddenlywolf AUC ERG:INSTR attack3SG--3SGreindeerABS reindeer -0. rrile-yti nota -jekve. r2ile-pkit -y'i omk -ete- umka-ieku ABS run 3SGtundraALONC run arrive3SGforestALL forestINSIDE -yre entk-rcnn -a kotyo-k ank'am'liy -e yava wolf ERG:INSTR get-stuck3SC he antlerINSTR cedar LOC and -nin otlotl. piri take 3SG-3SG he-ABS jilaiil, Leningrad, (Extractedfrom l. S. Vdovin and P. I. Indnlikdj, Ley2onvetl')en r9'12.)
The misfortunesand joys of a reindeer Onceupon a time a reindeerapproached a riverin orderto drink. Hebegantodrink andsawhisreflection inthewater.Hebeganto lookat hislarge antlers. He beganto rejoiceat hisantlers, sincetheywerebigandbranching. Thenhe lookedat his feetand said: -My feetareawlul and weak. Suddenlya big wolf attackedthe reindeer.The reindeerran acrossthe tu[dra. Running,he arrivedat a forest.Insidethe foresthe got stuckby his antlersand the wolf seizedhim.
YUKAGIR TIXT
ja4te mer -uo4 -ej. uodavawi| me -pun-na -0 KAPKAN-ek. goosePOSSyoung 3SGgosling FOC kill INCH rsc trap -san mer - ewrienu-jeg. uodariawi7 wagt'i-r. maarqa-de4 ibal one ASV mountainPROL FOC walk rSG gosling seek CER -d -enmur-ek nuu-me -0. nime -sa mer -uu-jeg. met qolro mammoth GEN horn FOC find FOC rSG houseLOC FOC go rsc I me - pundu-g: FOC tell rSG -d -enmur-ek nuu-me -4. qolso mammothGEN horn FOC find FOC rSG net ana -ieg me -kewe-feli,nimudi4 erimedawjeweli -re, me I latherCOMIT FOC leaverPL axe shovel carry GER FOC -kewe-ieli.lu -,rolyo -d -enmur-sa me -kdtke -t'eli. me lcaverPL this mammothGEN horn LOC FOC approachrPI- FOC
6. Paleosibeian and olher languages
276
-enmur-ek. nime -ra met -d Iukul -sat kin'qofuo pull-out rPL groundABL two mammothGEN horn FOC bouseLOC FOC -uu-jeli. maarqan-g6de mon-ni: personsay 3SG go rPL one -d -enmur rnaarqa-le met-i| met -qolyo kii -|ik.
-waare -(
FOC I ALL giveIMPER-zPLI mammothGEN horn one -le giite-me|. t'urBa young-doeFOC give I SG-FOC (Extractedfrom E. A. Krejnovid, Jukagirskijjazyk' Moscow-Leningrad,1958)
For the morphemesglossedFOC (focus),seepp. 260-I.
FREE TRA NSLATI ON
The geesehad young. I beganto kill goslingswith traps. Onc€ I was walking along the mountain. While seekinggoslings,I found a mammothtusk.I wenthome.I told (my father): -l founda mammothtusk. this Weapproached axeandaspadewesetout My fatherandI s€tout,carryingan mammothtusk.We pulledtwo mammothtusksout of theground.We wenthoi'irOne personsaid: Sive me one tusk.I will giveyou a youngdoe.
NIVKH T[XT
-d'. aiik -xe pai -nanak -xe p' -a(ik p' AND grow-upFIN youngerAND REFL elder-sister REFL younger-brother -t -rot -ye p'u -d'. puhd-ye bo * u maika go-out GER-3SC brotherbe-smallFIN arrow AND bow AND take GER-3SG {evrq tuPf ierrq ya -d'. iy -ror iak -4an nanak bird feather GER elder-sister bring kill CER-3SG FIN bird shoot -yu. -d' -tot ii t'uur-tox ia favrk-( pluck FIN fire ALL cook GER-3PLeat FIN PL -ra pal -rox mer pil erk hotgut'um-ke aiik alreadyb€-bigAND forestALL go-up live-thus GER younger-brother q'otr k'u-ra t'ox k'u'ra t'olgaj ru -ra AND deer kill AND elk kill AND bear kill AND
-ra
6.Tos hoqgut'um-ke muuv haqr pal -rox mar -ra q'otr k'u-ra ho4orot go-up live{hus GER day one forest ALL and bear kill AND then -yat -ra. -in lar vevi -f t'u toidi-ror cut-up COMPLETE AND sledgeLOC load GER-3SC drag GER-3SG -d'. taf -qan p' -tox mev -faf mar k'ikr ajma go-down FIN houseuppcr-partALL go-downGER REFL houselook-at -d'. ftf -gur poj q'au -d'. hoyor er ha-dox mey FIN smoke billow be-INFIN NEG FIN then be-quick GER-3SG go-down -ra -d'. may -zus -ku ho -rx -yet -rap' xiii FIN go-downAND REFL meat PL barn ALL lift-up COMPLETE AND -xuku -d'. p' -iaf hovorot p' erq lox vi -qan tav then REFL shake-downFIN REFL houseside ALL so GER housc -rx mi lu -d'. insideALL sing FIN (Extracted from V. Z. Panfrlov, Grammatika nivxskogo jazyka, vol. 2. Moscow-Leningrad, r965.) Notes For thesyntaxofsentences consisting ofmorethanoneclause, in particularfor the functionofverb forms glossed'GER' and 'AND', seethe discussionon pp. z7o-2. hadoxq'aud': the combinationof the negativeauxiliary q?u- with the infinitive of the main verb is onecommonway of expressing negation. e|gur'. the gerund of the verb er- 'be quick' servesas an adverbial,meaning 'quickly'.
F R E ET R A N S L A T I O N
A youngerbrother and an eldersistergrew up. The brother wassmall.He took his arrowsandbow,wentout,andshotbirds.Whenhekilledthem,hebroughtthemand theeldersisterpluckedthe birds' feathers.When theyhad cookedthem on th€ fir€, they ate them. Living thus, the youngerbrotherwasalreadybig and wentup into th€ forestand killeddeer.killedelk. and killedbear. Livingthus,onedayhewentup to theforestandkilledbearandthencuttbemup. He loadedthemonto thesledgeand,draggingit, camedown.Whenhecamedown io abovethe house,he lookedat his house.Therewasno smokebillowing.Thenhe camedownquickly.Hecamedownandliftedhismeatsintothebarn.Thenheshook himselfdown. Whenhe went towardshis house,someone wassinginginsidethe house.
6. Paleosiberian and other languages
218
F U R T H E RR E A D I N G Severaicollectionsofarticl€s haveappearedin recentyearsin the U.S.S.R.coveringthe full languages,usuallyalsoincorporatingarticleson Samoyedicor olher rangcof Paleosiberian we shall concentrateon monographstudiesof languagesof Siberia.In this list of references individual languagesand, where applicable,languagefamilies. Brief sketchesof all the in this chapterare availablein "IaNSSSRV (t968). languagesdiscussed For theIanguages ofthe Chukotko-Kamchalkanfamily, thestandardgrammarofChukchi is Skorik (r96r-??); for Chukchisyntax,thereis an excellentintroductionin Germanthrough the study of verb valencyby Nedjalkov (1976).Bogoras(1922),though mentioningonly Chukchiin thetitl€,alsocoversKoryak andItelmen,and appearedinEnglish;whileBogoras's phoneticsisimpressionistic, with Chukchi and the attemptto describeItelmensimultaneously and Koryak hardly successful, this accountcontainsmuch important data and insiShtful The standardgrammarof Koryak is Zukova ( I9?2).For the smalier syntacticobservations. languages. therearedetailedaccountsofAlyutorconjugation by Mel'auk( I973),and ofbasic s€ntencestructureby Mel'duk and Savvina(I974), the latter also availablein English.For (Western)Itelmen,the standardwork is now Volodin (19?6). AnexcellentsurveyoiEskimo-Aleutlinguisticscholarshipisprovidedby Krauss(tg?3).For SiberianYupik Eskimo,theslandardSovietworksareMenovsaikov( I962 ?)on theChaplino dialect(and,thus, on the written language),Menov{tikov (r9?5) on the Naukandialect,and SinceSib€rianYupik is also Menovidikov( r964)on the aberrantSir€nikidialect/language. alsospokenon St. Lawrencelsland,Alaska,onecanprofitablyreferto theaccountsin English ofSt. LawrenceIslandphonology(Krauss!975)and morphologyandsyntax(JacobsonI977). ismuchlessdefinitivematenal ForYukagir,Krejnovia(r958)istheclassicdescription.There available on Ket, though Dul'zon (1968) is the most comprehensivegrammar. Verb morphologyis describ€din greatdetail by Krejnovit (I968), while KS ( I968)containsmany solid descriptivearticles.The phoneticsof Nivkh is describedin detail by Krejnovia( I93?). while Panliiov(r962 5) is the standardoveralldescription.
Appendixr Ethnic and linguisticcomposition of the U.S.S.R.accordinsto the r97O CenSUS Nolc. The languagenameis givenfiIst, foliowedby the nameofthe ethnicgroup if this is very different from the languag€name.The first figure in the third column gives the number of membersof the ethnic group that have the correspondinglanguageas their native language.For languagesof Union Rcpublics,thetotal numberofspeakersin the U.S.S.R.(i.e.includingmembers ofother elhnic groupswho speakthat language)is giv€nin parenthes€s.
Language/Ethnicgroup Russian Ukrainian Uzbck Belorussian Talar Kazakh Azerbaydzhan Georgian Lithuanian Moldavian Tadzhik Turkmen Chuvash Kirgiz Lalvian German Mordva Estonian Bashkir Chechen Udmurt Mari
Yiddish,Jcw Polish
Number in ethnic group r29,Or5,r40 4c.753,246 9.r95,093 9,o5r.755 5,93o.670 5,298,8r8 4.379,937 r5r 3,559. 3,245,300 2,664,944 2,69'7.994 2,r35,883 t,525,284 r,694,35r |,452,222 r,429,844 r,846,3r7 r.262,61o r,oo7,356 r,2j9,68r 6t2.674 7o4,328 598.628 488.oj9 391',29'7 2.| 5o.1o',l r.r67.523
Number of nativespeakers r 28,8r r,3?r (r4r,830,564) 34,906,299 (35,400,944.) 9,oto,748 (9,r54,?04) 7,29r,277 O,630,001) 5,289,435 5,194,996 (5,2r3,694) 4,3o1,299 (4,34?,089) 3'254,132 ( 3 . 2 6 r , 0 5 3 ) 3,r93,49r (3,3ro,9r7' 2,608,223 (2.625,608) 2,563,oo5 (2,60136j) 2,to4.o23 (2,202,67 r) r,5o8,478 ( I,5r4,980) r,472,r56 t.434.434 \1,445,2t3) I , 3 0 !r 4 r 4 (r.39o,r 62) r,233,3r7 982,963 (914.649) 962,o84 82o,390 604,655 581.877 545,8o3 432,589 385.043 j8r,o?8 379,470
Appendix
28o
r
Kabard-Cherkes Kabard Cherkes LezEi Buryat Yakut (includingDolgan) Yakut Dolgan Komi Bulgarian Korcan Karakalpak Dargva Kumyk Karachay-Balkar Karachay Balkar Hungarian lngush Uygur Gagauz Tuva Greek Komi-Permyak Kalmyk Romany/Gypsy Adyge Karelian Lak Abkhaz Kurdish Romanian Khakas Tabasaran Altay Nogay Finnish Dungan Abaza Nenets Aramaic/Assyrian Khanty Evenki Tat Beludzh Shor Rutul Chukchi Tsakhur Persian
3 r9,7r3(total) 2j9,928 39,785 34,829 3t4,67r 30r,I2r (total) 296,244 4,877 32t,894 35r,r68 357,507 236,oo9 23o,932 r88,t92 rj2,24z (totat) rr2,74r 59,50r r66,45r r57,605 rj3,2j6 r56,606 r39,388 336,869 r 53,45r r17,t94 r75,335 99,855 r46,08r 85,822 83,24o E8,93o | 19,292 66,j25 55,rEE 55,8r2 5r,784 84'75o 38,644 25,488 28,705 24.294 2r,138 25J49 17,r09 r2,582 16,494 | 2,O7 | r3.597 rr,r03 2',7.501
3r r,o78(total) 274,460 36,6r8 3o4,oE7 29r,432 289,528(total) 285,!47 4,38r 266J35 256,646 245,076
r85,804 r68,435(total) r r0,6r6 57,8r9 r60,78r r53,483 r5 3 ' 3 r 3 r46,575 r37,607 r32,3o3 r3r,677 r2S,j8r r24,r65 96,33r 92,or9 82,oro 79,835 't'7,879 't6,263 55,834 54.574 48,660 46,493 43,2o8 36,445 24,449 21.952 r5,662 | 4,562 r2,899 r2,427 12,339 r2,r30 r r.933 tt,23t ro.7r9 IO.tOO
Ethnic and linguistic composition , rg7o Cz€ch Agul Nanay Even Koryak Slovak udi Mongolian (Khalkha) Mansi Pashto/Afghan Veps Albanian Nivkh Selkup French Ulcha Lapp Ket Udege Eskimo Nganasan Karaim Oroch Itelmen Tofa Yukagir Negidal Ingrian Aleut Peoplesof India and Pakistan Populationof U.S.S.R.
20,98r 8,83r ro,oo5 r2,o2g 7,487 r r,658 5'919 5,r70 7,7ro 4,r84 8,28r 4,402 4'420 4,282 2,470 2,448 r,884 I,I82 t,469 r,3o8 953 4,571 r,o8g t,30r 620 6r5 537 't81 441 I,945 (total) 24t,720,t34
28r 8,998 8,782 6,9rr 6,i36 6,o't5 6,060 s,537 4,803 4,o37 2,956 2'V7 2,496 2,r88 2,r86 I'E54 r,489 r,058 885 809 785 719 585 529 464 349 288 286 208 96 I,706 (total) 226,88t,jj4
Ethnic administntive areas
Appendixz Ethnic administrativeareasof the U.S.S.R.
Nore. Where the name ofthe arca, as given here, difers markedly from the Ru$ian name, the latter is givcn in par€tth€ses, as halsliterated in the Tirres Atlasof the Wo d,lacluded areethnicgroupsconstiluting5% or moreofthe populationofthe area,and also,in the cas€ofthe Khanty and Mansi,theethnic groups after which the areais llamcd, eventhough theseconstitute lessthan 5% of the populaliotr. Population I. S,S.R.S(SovietSocialistRepublics) RussianS.F.S,R. Armenian (Armyanskaya) S"S.R. AzerbaydzhanS.S.R.
BelorussianS.S.R. EstoniaoS,S.R. Ceorgian(Gruzinskaya)S.S.R.
Kazakh S.S.R.
Kirgt S.S.R.
Latvian S.S,R, Lithuanian(Litovskaya)S.S.R.
MoldaviadS.S.R.
r3o,o79,2to 2,49r,873
283
TadzhikS.S.R.
2,899,6c.2
TurkmenS.S.R.
2,rj8,E8o
UkrainianS.S.R.
4j,rz6,sr7
UzbekS.S.R.
rt,199'429
2. A.S.S.R.s(AutonomousSovietSocialistReDublics) (in R.S.F.S.R.) BashkirA.S.S.R. 3,8r8,o?5 BuryatA,S.S.R.
8r2,25\
Chech€n-Ingush A.S.S.R.
r,o64,4jr
ChuvashA.S.S.R,
r,223,675
DagestanA.S.S.R.
I,42E,54o
Mair ethnicgroups(%)
Russian Armenian Az€rbaydzhan 5,t r?,o81 Azerbay&han Russian Armenian 9,oo2,338 Belorussian Russian I .3'6,079 Estonian Russian 4,6E6,358 Georgian Armenian Russian r3,@8,726 Russian Kazakh Ukrainian Gelmarl 2,932,8os Kireiz Russian Uzb€k 2,364,121 Lalvian Russian 3,r2E,236 Lithuanian Russian Polish 3,s68,8?3 Moldavian Ukrainian Russian
82.8 E8.6 5.9
n.8 IO,O
9.5 8r.o ro.4 68.2
Kabard-BalkarA.S.S.R.
5t8,2o3
KalmykA.S.S.R.
267,993
24,7 66,8 9.7 E.5 42,5 32.6
KarelianA.S.S.R.
7t1,45r
Komi A.S.S.R.
964,802
6.6 +:.8
Mari A.S.S,R.
6t4748
29,2 56.8 29.E 80.r 8.6 7.7 64.6 r4.2 I t.6
Mordva (Mordovskaya)A.S,S.R. North-Ossete(Severo-Osetinskaya)A.S.S.R.
\,c29,562 552,58r
Tatar A.S.S.R.
3,r3r,238
TuvaA.S,S.R.
40,864
Tadzhik Uzbek Ru16ian Turkrhen Russian Uzbek Ukrainian Russian Uzbek Ru3sian
56.2 23.o rr.9 65.6 r4.5 8.3 74.9 19.4 65.5
Russian Tatar Bashkir Russian Euryat Chechen Russian IDgush Chuvash Russian
40.5 24.7 23.4
Ru!rian Dargya Kumyk Lezgi Lak Kab6.d Russian Balkar Russian Kalmyk Rusiian Karelian B€loaussian Russian Komi Ukrainian Russian Mari Tatar Russian Mordva Os!€te Russian Tatar Ru!sian Russian
22.O 47.8 34.5 ro.? 70.o 24,5 24.5 r4.7 14,5 rr.8 r r.4 5.r 45.o 17.2 8.7 45.8 4r.r 68.r rt.E 9.3 53.r 2E,6 8.6 46.9 43.7 5.9 58.9 35.4 48.7 36.6 49.1 42.4 58.6 38.3
Appendixz Udmurt A.S.S.R.
Yakut A.S.S.R. (in Azerbaydzhar) NakhichevanA.S.S.R. (in Ceorgia) Abkhaz A.S.S.R.
Adzhar A.s.s.R.
(in Uzbekistan) Karakalpak A.S.S.R.
3. A,O.s (AutonomousRegions/Oblasts) (in R.S.F.s.R.) Adyge A.O.
284 r,417,675
Khanty-Mansi N.O.
zo2,r87
Azrrbaydzhan
93.8
. Komi-PermyakN.O.
486,959
Georgian Russian Abkhaz Armenian G.orgian Rursian Atmenian
24.6 l9.l t5.9 r5.4 16.5 rr.6
664,123
309,768
702,264
3t.o 30.3 26,5 5.6
ti.t
47.1 28.2 9.r 7E.4 r2.3 65.6 21.8
Arm€nian Azelbaydzhan
8o.5 r8.I
99,42r
Ossete Georgian
66.5 28.3
9j,796
Tadzhik Kirgiz
9r.9
65,?68
Buryat Rwsian Russian Chukchi
50.4 44.o 69.1 ro.9
Khakas A.O.
,{45,824
Mountain-Altay (Gorno-Altayskaya)A.O
168,26r
r5o,3r3
rol,r84
285 12,658 27r,r57
zr2,r4r 3o,9r7
NenetsN.O.
39,r 19
Taymyr (Dolgan-Nenets)N.O.
38,060 .
Russian AdyCe Rwsian Jew RNsian Karachay Cherkes Russian Khakas Russian Altay
385,644
3,|4,65I
Chukchi (chukotskiy) N.o.
lkrakalpak Uzbek Kazakh Turkmen
arcas
Koryak N.O.
Ust'-Ordynskiy-BuryatN.O.
Karachay-Cherkes A.O,
4. N.O.s (National Arcas/Okrugs) (in R.S.F.S.R.) Aginskiy-BuryatN.O.
Evenki N.O.
57.r 34.2 6.2 47'3 43.o
112,449
(in Tadzhikistan) (GornoMountain-Badakhshao Badakhshanskaya) A.O.
Ethnic administrative
Russian Udmurt Tatar Russian Yakut
Jewish (Yevreyskaya) A.O.
(in Azerbaydzhan) Mountain-Karabakh(NagornoKarabakhskaya)A.O. (in Ceorgia) South-Oss€te(Yugo-Os€tinskaya)A.O.
'
2t.r 83.7
Yamal-NenctsN.O.
146,412 19,977
Russian Evenki Russian Tata. Khanty Mansi Komi-Permyak Russial Russian Koryak Russian Nercts Russian Dolgan Nenets Russian Buryat Russian Nenets
6r. r 25.3 j6-g 5,2 4.5 2.s 58.2 36.0 63.0 r9.r 64.s r5.o 66,9 rr.4 5,9 58.8 33.o 46.9 2r.g
Alphabets of the languages
z8'j
Figure4.2. Chukchitest(page2ZOin cuftent(Cyillic) orthognphy
Appendix 3
I{open a'rgarrrprrrr
Alphabetsof the languagesof the U.S.S.R.
brHrcball
ICOprbIlr,rprbrT.
I{on
v.rl.'bzr rJoparJbr oiiuaris r,lr !lir-
AIVIOTbI I)KREI{CH I]bI.
Figure A. t. Russian(Cyrillic) alphabet Cyrillic
66 BB fr A,q Ee
Transliteration a b
d
Cyrillic
Transliteration
HbI1\,IDitEIIJI{I{H gT bIr{n.rra M Bbr i)i>lr\flr r,rJlbbrT.
Pp Cc TT Yy
o(,
t
blu6oprr-rrtr
f
TbITHAT
Xx
Uu Xx 33 Vl rt il ll KK Jlr MM
2 z
' j k I m
HH
Oo
o
q.l lll tll
Ennaveqqorbe brr{K,r)ar\{.ribvrl rri r r\rtri\tIbrK r{IIHIITKI{;.I }Jr{r{Jrl]ul{.rr. f I r:it r;4 or.rl; I tit t rrnHr4TKr4Hgr MatirJbrpbrlrr{brr. Itit.rsaparIeHSTpbrHHllTr,r, Itrjtiyrr brTprr BT,TIJIJOT:bD
a uI rq
s
: ?r lOrc tA
ju )a
nn The symbolstrunsliteralede, €.ju, ja are prcnounced[e], [io], [jn]' [a] word-initially,after a vowel,and after'and "; otherwiseas [e], [o], [u]. [a] with palatalisationoflhe preceding consonant.The diaeresison i is usuallyomitted in Russianorthography(and henceIn the ' translitcration).The symbol indicatespalatalisation," nonpalatalisationof the preceding y is pronounced[i], and e as [e]. transliterated consonant.The symbol
bIHKbANI
rrrrorr{rrDT
rlluJrrnl{rlDT
I4IT]]bI{:
- lsrrrar-rrlr lbrM[r]r]rDT etlrtl.trjrrr rraMa HbrpyJrrsxHEr. - Jftoyp o'rrtqra rlDr{pbrirorr gol)alJbr. I{opaqsr p'buJrerr,r.{HoraeHBD. Pr,r;lcuKI{prbI4 oMItETbI. VMKJ,I.II IIi5' I'bIut'lf rr:l r,IHblrtpbrHHa KbIpfoK brHI(:baM ntID rLrl)UHUH rrr.nelH.
Appendix j
288
Alphabets
FigureA.3. Modern Amenian alphabet Capital
Small
Figurc 4.4. Armenian
Translileration
ll,
a b
r
,t
c
t
L
{ b t
t
d e, je z e
F
t
L
I
t,
lI
2
(
c' k'
1.
'I
2gq
text (pages tg21)
in current orthognphy
t4tu1,r1 *-$ 1,b!Lt t e 74r!,8bt, 414. p.F.4L' n-.-1.14pfu,1L "."bEE t'n ,t |-l"Lc qrel 4ro, Lnpuo N!/,. d, 4 F,pe uEDu,4LLp., u.rbr c.n 1fi".!F|tu, ..7nLt +t, Eu!\urtb! nt abt +t!u Fa,ftb,t I,EL, tt 4bnutuu,t, Fplr L- 9u.ru^nrbr, \tu |1tut , ,p t,^!L L u+u.tu;lu7n.t np +1,, tt-br,| t '!a!a6.1' ttuaLp4, tzr,t rhTLs[4 fldLbc 24q EBEiL.4, 'tL+..+ -cLt "EdL? "r , sDl eaat-|-1, LrDr.IrL? tta ELi,'L' n.;t .. FLe 6,n&rsrFt - u!,-b| t-tLtLp, - u.esl, rL.rt,F4,.F rt.!"E ,t.-7".! 7r,:t 4r-r1,, p-rt-
8u4u4,
z
d. l, l. l" It
b
of the languages
,,!t |tysuhl,a
+,2!
tN4I,1,, b,t
d4, 2r&t
484,
Figure A.5. Moden Georg)an alphabet (mxedruti)
a SqCAt b
g dc
v
oo,JqAS'r z
t, ik'l
mn
J{6bO o
UB
,je u ? B cl d
e th
U 3
m j
uP
k y
ccx
l,
n
v 1l ,9 ft
U ,l
s
2
2
4
tD
t
f
0 ,!
.7'
q' E d' o
3
.-]
Based on H. Vogt,Grammaire dela langue gio.gienne,Oslo,t9?r,p. 6.
a
Figure4.6. Georgiantext(page23t) in cuftentorthography
p'
3 s f
I
st,
s
f
I
r
h 5
Y t'
r,
p' i,
c p k ev,jev o I
Basedon C. H. Fairbanksand E. W. Stevick,SpokenEastAnnenian,New york, r958,p. 74. The sixthlastletterofthisfigureis not usedasaseparate letterin Modern EasternArmcnran. but is usedlogetherwith preceding( v)o to give a digraph with the phoneticvalue u.
Jq..,O-5o J.'pCa e"pb,)51, osc., ggp596r',q, 0o66op 3;po0o to3o3op,:L,or,>6, q'oL ,1gob3?o J.:go6o 66oq' 6ooor $'o5 q,o 196 ,1oqgg o,s3oLo po3$55o696o5o 6o6o6.:qr q.o5d(,.)Oe,)g.r o6o59bo6 996 6pq'o. g,o oo3^Loo3L, 6e'3 g"qo69pq' 3,>9o,o636to36c.rboo6 poo?oq's po o3q,g5o pl,no3"'353bo p.' 3o$'3oq'gbogo?ooo6o... 6.:$3;q'g6o 6o$'gsqg6o o5o, 3;36o3 8oL pg&" L,o6gb3ogo 3,1q"o3qo,oB fl5ggg?.' 6c.r0 8o,gq' Lot..,3;g,oX6o?o $o?-.d.b. gr SoLo Lsopp?q'<.r 6,:o0gq'o35o. 6oLo;3oFr 33q'oo, obq"o t,!3Jtb&'a,p oJSgbc,qo ogp363q'o o3 g?.:f3oq'gboLo6,>6, 6tn33q.5"0 q,oq'oqru5Loq,o0ro8qroL Sboq'r'rp oSoor o6orE 916ogq'5o, 6o3 trsobpS;o, LoLsgoq'r', po tro0;Lb6o L,ogoSo 6sB o5 0oogc.'5r,r5, oG ?3o085".r5 3ol.'3g..:0otg o,1q'o3q,,: o,o3t, Jq'ogoSo p,: o05oo6 gpSgbotX e.p6o, 6cl3 Stoqr o5c" bgq'o ogq'er o,o3oL g.r5t6ob3otC, aoCOoSCboSo oro3oLoLuj3g, .:0$'o?1,39 g3rE 6o66p536pq'oyc'rLJbq'?o, o,J3o 0og53bg6o5o 3o35q'o3XLoo3o!po q,.'g, 6o9 p6qro oL 3r,3b*-o6oye,.
References
References
Abaev, V. L 1959.Osetitskijjazyk- Ordzhonikidze.(English translation:A grammatical sketchof Ossetic.Bloomington,Indiana, r964.) Abdullaev, S. N. 1954. Gftmmatika darginskogo jazyka: fonetika i mofologia. Makhachkala. Abdullaev,Z. G. tgjt. OCe*i po sintaksisDdarginskogojazyka. Moscow. Abeghian, A. t936. NeuarmenischeGrammatik. Berlin Leipzig. Adjarian, H. 1909.Classifrcationdes dialectesarmdniens. Paris. Aliev, U. B. 1972.Sintaksiskandaevo-balkankogojazyka. Moscow. Allen, W. S. 1956.Structureand systemin the Abaza verbalcomplex. Transactionsof the Philological Society rySC nj-j6. Allen, W. S. 1965.On one-vowelsyslefis.Lingua r! rrl-24 Al-Mufti, S. t978. Die Spnchwissenschaft der Tscherkessischen:Einleitung und Lautlehre. Heidelberg. Ard, J. I98o.A sketchofvow€l harmonyin the Tunguslanguages. In SaUSSR. Ariste, P. r968. A grammar of the Voticlanguage.Bloomington,Indiana. Asatiani, I. r9?4. C'anuri (lazuri) t'ekstebi. Tbilisi. Avrorin, V. A. 1959-6r. Gftmmatika nanajskogojazyka. 2 vols. Moscow-Leningrad. Bakaev,e. X. t962. Govor kutdov Turkmefl;. Moscow. Bakaev,e. X. 1965.lazyk azerbajdZazJki,kurdoy.Moscow. Bakaev,C. X. 1966.Kurdskij jazyk. In "IaNSSSRI. Bafakaev, M. B. 1959.Sovrcmennyj kazaxskij jazyk: sintaksis. Alma-Ata. Barannikov,O.r933. Ukrajias'kitapivdenno-.osijskicigans'kidialekd. Leningrad.(English translation: A. Baranniko\t, The Ukrainian and South-Russial gypsy dialects. Lenin9rad, r934.) Bardakjian,K. B. and Thomson,R. W. i9?7. A textbook of Modefi WesternAmeaian. Delmar, New York. Baskakov, N. A. r94o. Nogajskij jazyk i ego dialekty: grummatika, teksty i slovar'. Moscow-Leningrad. Baskakov,N. A. rg5r-2. KarakalpakskijJazyk. 2 vols. Moscow-Leningrad. Baskakov, N. A. 1958.Altajskijjazyk: wedenie v izuCeniealtajskogojazyka i ego dialektov. Moscow. Baskakov, N. A. 1969. Wedenie v izutenie tjurkskix jazykov. 2nd. edn. Moscow. Baskakov, N. A. r9'7o. Arammatika turkrnenskogojazyka. Ashkhabad. Batalova,R. M. et al. r962. Komi-pemjacki jazyk. Kudymkar. Batmanov,I. A. r939-4o.Grammatikakirgizskogojazyka. 3 vols. Frunze-Kazan'. Batmanov,I. A. 1963.Sovrcmennyjkirgizski jazyk, t.Frlr/Jze. Benzing, J. I953. Einti)hrung in das Studium der altaischen Philologie und der Turkologie. Wiesbaden.
29r
Benzing,J. 1955.Lamutische Gnmmatik nit Bibliographie, Sprachproben und Glossar. Wiesbaden. Benzing,J. 1956.Die tungusischenSprachen: Versuch einer vergleichendenGramfiatik. Wiesbaden. Beranek, F. 1958.Das Pinsker Jiddisch. Berlin. Bertagaev, T- A. 1964. Srrtaksrb sowemennogo mongol'skogo jazyka v sravnitel'nom osveltenii : prostoe predlotenie. Moscow. Bertagaev, T. A. and Cydendambaev, C. B- r962. Crammatikabu.jatskogojazyka:sintaksis. Moscow. Binnick, R. L 1979.Modern Mongolian:a transfomationalsynlax. Toronlo. Birnbaum,S. A. t979. yiddish: a surveyand a gnmmar.Toronto. Boeder,W. 1968.Uber die V€rsionendesgeorgischen Verbs. Folia Linguistica/ 82-t52. Bogoras,W. 1922.Chukchee.In Handbook of AmericanIndian languagesll, ed. F. Boas. Washington,D.C. (Reprinted:Bloomington, Biihtfingk,O. rSSr. Aber dieSpnche derlakrte,. St. Petersburg. Indiana,r963.) jazyka. Moscow-Leningrad. Bokarev,A. A. t949 . Ote* grammatikiAamalinskogo Bokarev,A. A. t949b. Sintaksisavankogojazyka. Moscow-Leningrad. Bokarev, E. A. 1959.Ceskie(didojsde) jazyki Dageslana. Moscow. Bokarev, E. A. tg6t. Wedenie v snvnitel'no-istoriieskoe izulenie dagestanskixjazykov. Makhachkala. Boldyrev, B. V. 19'16.Kalegoija kosvennoj prinadleznosti v tunguso-man'C,urskixjazykax. Moscow, BSE. r95o-8; rgjo . Bol'laja sovetskajaenciklopedia. 2nd. edn,5r vols.and 2 indexvols., Moscow. I95o-8. 3rd edn, Moscow, r97o . (English translation: The grcat Soviet encyclopedia,3rd. edn New York. rg73-.) Budi4a Lazdila, T. 1966.TeachyourselfLatvian. London. glagolav darginskomjazyke. Byxovskaja,S.L. r938.Osobennostiupotreblenijaperexodnogo ln Pamjati N. la. Marrc. Castr€n,M. 4.. 1854.Gnmmaik der samojedischen Sprachen.St. Petersburg.(Reprinted: Bloomington, Indiana,r966.) Catford,J. C. r976.Ergativityin Caucasianlanguages.Papershom the SixthMeetingof the North-East Linguisic Society of Anerica. Montrcal Catford,J. C. r 977.Mountain of tonguesrthe languages of the Caucasus.Annual Reviewof A nt hropol ogy 6t 283-3| 4. -fbllist. Cercvadzelcercva3e],l. \965. Andiu ena. eikobava,A. r 974.'TheAnnual',its aimsandlinguisticprinciples.A, nual oflbero-Caucaslan Linguistics r: 33-44. Cfkobava.A. and (-ercvadTe[Cercva3e].L 1962.Xun'uri ena. Tbilisi. Cincius, V. L r94j. Ote* grammatiki evenskogo(lamutskogo)jazyka. Lenin$^d. Cincius, V. L 1949.Sravhitel'naja fonetika tunguso-man'tZurskixjazykov. Leningr^d. Colarusso, J. rgj'. The Northwest Caucasian languages: a phonological survey. Ph.D. dissertation,Harvard University,Cambridge,Mass. Colarusso,J. r97?.The languagesotthe northwestCaucasus.ln L'NRPSU. Collinder,B. 1960.Comparativegrammar of the Unlic languages.Stockholm. Collinder,B. 1965.An intrcduction to the Uftlic languages.Berkeley,California. Collinder,B. 1969.Surveyof the Uralic languages.znd. edn. Stockholm. Comrie.B. I9?8.Definitedirectobjectsandrelerentidentification.PragmaticsMicrofiche3.|. Comrie,B- and Stone,G. t9'18.The Russianlanguagesincethe Revolution.Oxford. Creisscls, D. 19j7. LesIanguesd'U.R-S.S.,aspecls/irAursliqueset sociolinguistiq ues.Paris.
References
292
erelasvili. K. [e'rclasvili, K'.]. rg75. Naxuri enebistanxrnownta sist'ema.'fbilisi CIL r. 1968.Cu e l tends in linguisr'cr,ed.T- A. SebeokVol. tt Sovietand eastEuropean /r'rgul.rlr'cs- The Hague. Dambriinas, L., Klimas, A.. and Schmalstieg.W. R. I9?2 lntroduction lo modern Lithurnian.Rcv.edn.Brooklyn,New York. Dc Bray. R. G. A. 1969.Guidc lo the SlavoniclanguagcsRev edn. London. S\achwisserrcrafl. wiesbaden Decsy.cy. r965. Einfihrung in die finnisch'ugrische Decsy.Gy. r966. Yunk chrcslomathy.Bloomington,Indiana. Deeters.G. r93o. D.s kha hwclischevetuum Letpzi9. Dcscricv,Ju. D. t953. Bacbiskijiazyk. Moscow DeScricv,Ju. D. 1959.Grunmulika xi nalugskogojazyka. Mosco\N Deieriev,Ju. D. t96o. Sovremennyjaetenski literatunyi iazyk, t: fonetika- Groznyy. Sprachcn.Leipzig. Dirr. A. 1928. Einfijhrungin dasStudiumder kaukasischen Dmitriev, N. K. r94o. Grammaika kumykskogojazyka Moscow-Leningrad. Dmitriev. N. K. t948. Gnmmaika balkirskogojazyka. Moscow-Leningrad. Dulling, G. K. t960-An introduclion lo the Turknen larguage.London Dul zon. A. P. 1968./<els*iJrzy.i(.Tomsk. i ix zvukovyxolratenijaxln slovketskogojazyka Dul zon.A. P. 1969.O tonaxodnosloznyx Proisxotdcnie borigenov Sibiri i ix jazykov. materialy meZvuzovskojkonfcrcncii I I I3 majr r969I. Tomsk. Dumtzil. G. tgft. La languedesOubyklts.Paris. Dumdzil. G. 1932. Etudes conparatives sur les langues caucasiennesdu nord'ouest ( oryhologie).Pdris. du nord.P{;s Dumezil.G. I933.ltlro ductiont)l'6tudecompllraliredeslanguescaucasiennes Dumazil,G. I958. Le vocalismcde l'orbykh. Bulletinde la SocieftLinguistiquede Paris 53: r98-2o3. Durnezil.G. tg'75.Lc verbeoubykh.P^tts. Dyrcnkova.N- P. tg4t. Grammatikaloskogojazyka Moscow Leningrad DieiraniSvili [jcirani\vili],E. r97r. Udiuflera. Tbilisi. . I 5th edn Chicago. EBM. tgjf-. EncyclopaediaB unnica: ntacropaedia Edel'man.D- l. t966. I azguljanlsk i jazyk . Moscow Elfenbein,J. t966. The Baluchilanguage:a dialectologywit texls. London. Endzclins[Endzelin],J- tg22. LcltischeGramrrarJft.Ri8a.(Atso:Heidelb€rg.1923.)(l-atvian translalion:LaIvleluvalodatgtumali,(l.Riga.195I.) Endzclins.J. tg41. Senpr?luv oda. Riga.(Germantranslation:J Endzelin'Allprcussische Grarnnntik.Riga.t944.) Endzellns.J. tgt8. Baltu valodaska4aso', /'ort,as. Riga.(Englishtranslalion:Contparaivc phonologyand ntorphologyof the Baltic languages.The Hague.I97 | ) G. H. r958.Spot.]nwesl,4.tlctlar. New York Fairbanks. Fairbanks.G. H. and Slevick.E. w. 1958.SpokenEasl Armenian Ncw York Pamtra.Dushanb€. Fajzov.M. r966.Jazyk rul,anccrsovetskogo Feer.B. B. 1976.Tony v ketskomjazyke:istorija voprosa ln Jazyki i toPonimija,ed. E. G Bckkeret al. Tomsk. Feydil. F. r948. Mtnuel de langucameniennc(amdnic,l occidentrlmodemc) P^(rs. (nit Fokos-Fuchs.D. R. 1962.Rolle der Syntaxin der Ftage nach Sprachverwandtschaft besondercr Riicksicht aut' das Problcm det ural'altaischenSryachverwandlschaft) Fraenkel.E. rysa. Die bahischenSp.acrer. Heidelberg. Frie
References
29.1
Frolova, V. A- 1960.BeludZsktjazyk. Mosco\\. jazyka. 2 vols. Makhachkala. Gadziev,M. M. r954 63. Sintaksislezginskogo Gad:ieva, N. Z. r9l:'. Osnovnyeputi ftzvitija sintaksieeskoj struktury tjurkskix jazykov. Gambasidzc[yambaai3e].G. r97?.Kartuli k'ult'uris 3eglebidayest'ansi.Samloblo 466.8. Camkrelidzc,T. V. r966.A typology of Common Kartvelian. Language4/ 69-83. GamkrelidzeIGamq'reli3e],T. and MatavarianiIMat'avariani], G. 1965.Sonant'tas$tema da ablaut'i ka velu enebli.Tbilisi. Ctters, A. r9?7. Die lettischeSprachcund ihre Dialekte.'fhe Haglue. jazyka. Baku. GAzJa. t91t. Grammatikaazerbajdzanskovo GBu a. t962. Grammatikabudatskogojazyka:fonetikai morfologia. Ed. G. D. Sanzeev et Geiger.B., Halasi-Kun,T.. Kuipers,A. H.. and Menges,K. H. r959.Peoplesandlanguages of f.fieCaucrsus.The Hague. Genko, A. N. 1955.A bazinskijjazyk . Moscow. Genko, A. N. 1957.Fonetiaeskievzaimootnosenijaabxazskogoi abazinskogojazykov. Sakaflvclos SSR MccniercbataAk ademiis ADxazetis Enis. Lit'ent'urisa da Is(oriis Inst'it'ut'is Sromebi. 28. CIP. r895 r9o4. Grundrissder iranischenPhilologie,ed.W. Geigerand E. Kuhn. z vols. Strasbourg. GKCLJa. t9S'l. Gnmmatika kabardino-Aerkesskoqo literatumogojazyka. Moscovt. GMorla. 1962.Gnmnralika mordovskix(mok{anskogoi erzjanskogo)jazykov, t, ed.R. A. Zavodova.rndM. N. KoljAdenkov. Saransk. Crierson. C. A. tg2o. lshkashmi.Zcbaki and Yazghulami,an account of thrce Erunian London. dralecas. Grjtrnberg,A. L. 1963.Jazykseveroazerbajdzanskix latov. Leningrad. jazyk. Lcnin$ad. Grjunberg.A. L. tgl2. Jazyki vosto[nogoGindukula: mundzAnskij Grjunberg.A. L. and Sleblin-Kamenskij, I. M. t916.JazykivostotnogoGindukuta:vaxanskij jazyk. Lening?d. Gruzov. L. P. t960- Sovrcmcnnyjma4skijazyk: fonetika. Yoshkar OlaGSUdmJa. t962. Granmatika sovremennogoudnuftskogojazyka. lre\sk. CSUdmJaSPP.r91o. Gnmmatika sovremennogoudmurtskogojazyka: sintaksisprostogo predloZenija. Ite\sk. GSUdnlaSSP. t9j4. G mmalika sovrcmennogo udmuftskogo jazyka: sintaksis sloZnogo prcdlozenAa. IZersk. Gudava.T. [T.] t963.Borl,xuriera. Tbilisi. Gudava,T. [T .] r96?.aaar"lu.i e'r. Tbilisi. Gulya. G. r966. Ea en Ostyakchrestomaf,hy. Bloominglon.Indiana. ed. N. A. Baskakov.Moscow. CXakJa. r915. GrummatikaxakasskogoTazyka. Haarmann. H. tgj4. Die linnisch-ugrischenSprachen:soziologischeund politiscbe Aspekte ihrcr Entwicklung.H^mbufE. Hajdi. P. I962. Finnugor nepek.'s ,yelve*. Budap€st.(English translation: Finno-Ugric Ianguagesand peoples.London. t9?6.) HrUdu,P. t963. The Samoyedpeoplcsand languages.Bloomington,Indiana. Hakulinen. L. tg'l&. Suomen kielen nkenne ja kehitys. 4th edn. Helsinki. (English rranslation of rst edn.: Iie structure and developmentof the Finnish ]anguage. Bloomington.Indiana. t 96r.) (Germanlranslalionand 2ndedn.:Handbuchder frnnischen Sprrcrc.2 vols.Wiesbadcn. t95? 69.) IIallc.M. tg?o.ls Kabardiana vowel-lcss languagc? Foundations ofLanguage,6.95-t03. llarris. A. (. t9'76 CNrgiM slnltx t slud!'in rclitionalgnmmar. Ph.f). dissertrtron,
References
294
References
295
Harvard University,Cambridge,Mass. Revisedversionto be publishedby Cambridge Kert. c. M. 1967.Saamskajapis mennosr'.tn PF./a. UniversityPress. Kerr, C. M. rgtr. Saamskijjazyk (kil'dinski dialekt). Leninlrad. Hdo'L.HandbuchderorientaIistik'|:Dernaheundde|mittlereoste,'ed.B'SpulerandH'Kettunen.L.Iq18'GrammatischeEinleitune.InL,Ke|tunen'LivihesW6|te|buch' Kees.Leiden-K6ln. Helsinki. HdO l, 4.1. 1958.Iranistik: Linguistik. Kibrik, A. E. r 979.CanonicalergativiryandDaghesrani ianguages. In Ergarlvify,ed.F. Plank. HdO 1,5.r. t963. Altaistik: Turkologie. Loncton. HdO l, 5.2. t964. Ahaistik: Mongolistik. Kibrik. A. E. and Kodzasov,S. V. r9?8.Fonetiaeskie osobennosti.[n Sr.uklurrye obJJrosrl HdO l, 5.3. t968. Altaistik: Tungusologie. kavkazskixjazykov, ed.G. A. Klimov- M oscow. HdO 1, 7. t963. Armenischand Kaukasisch. Kibrik, A. E. ct al. rg72. Fngmenty gftnlmatiki xinalugskogojazyrta. Moscow. Herbert, R. J. and Poppe.N. 1963.Kirghiz manual. Bloomington,Indiana. Kibrjk. A. E. er al. tgj.l. Opyt struktunogo opisanijaaiinskogoJazyka. 4 vols. Moscow. Hcwitt'B'G'r9?7.NotesontheMingrelianre1ativecIause.T Universil'et is Axalgazfila Mecnierla K'rebuli. Estonian Papersin Phonetjcs rg78 44,6. HeVritt,B,G'I978'TheArmenianrelativecIause-Intenationa]ReviewofSIavicLinguis|ics3:Kiefer.F.I96?.onemphasisandwo|d Klimov, G. A. 1962.Skloneniev ka vel'skixjazykaxI sravnitel'no-istorieeskom aspekte. 99 Il8. Hewrtl, B. G. rg19a.Abkhaz. Lingua Desciptive Studies,vol. 2. Moscow. Hewi11'B'G'I979b.AspectsofverbalamxationinAbkhaz(Abzuidia|ect)'TfnsactionsoftheKlimov,G'A'|g65'Kavkazskiejazyki'Moscow-(Germantran5lation; Phtlological Sociel).t9?9:2t t 18. Spracfiun. H:rmburg.r9o9.t Hewitt,B.G. I979c.The relativeclausein Abkhaz (AbZui dtalecr).Lingua. Klimov, G. A. 1976.Anomalii egarivnostiv lazskom (danskom)jazyke. Aymosavluri Hewitt. B. c. r979d.The relativeclausein Adyghe (Temirgoi dialect). Annual of lberopilotogia 4: t'o-g. CaucasianLinguistics. KLMLK. 1956g. Kufi de limbe moldoveiaskeliterah kontemporarr. 2 vols.Kishinev. Householder.F. w. and Lofti, M. I965. Basiccoursein Azerbar'ari. Bloomington,Indiana. Kolesnikova,v. D. r966. Slrrrksri eve,kiskogo jazyka. Moscow,L€ningrad. Ibragimov.G. X. 1968.Fonetika caxurskogojazyka. Makhachkala. Koljadenkov.M. N. \gig. Strukturaprcstogopredlo\enia v mordovskixjazykax. Saransk. Ibragimov,G. X. 1978.Rutul'skijiazyk. Moscovt. Kononov. A. N. t96o. Gftmmatika sovrcmennogouzbekskogolitentDnogo ja4ka. Isaev.M. L tg66. Digorskij dialekt osetinskogojazyka.MoscowMoscow,Leningrad. Isaev,M. I. rgio. Stotridcat Hvnopravnyx(oiazykax narcdov SSSR) Moscow. Konstantinova.O. A. 1964.Evenkijskijjazyk: fonetika.norfolod.ta. Moscow-Leningrad. "Isaev[Isayev]'M'|.|g,77'Nationa]Ia]1guagesintheU'S.S.R':prob|emsandsolutions'Kozinceva.N'A.I9?5'Zalogivarmjanskomja Moscow. A. A. Xolodovia.Leningrad. Isaev,M. L t9'78.O jazykax narodov SSSR.Moscow. Krauss.M. E. 1973.Eskimo-Aleut.I n Curent trendsin linguls1rbs. ed.T. A. Sebeok.vol. I oIsxakov,F. C. and Pal mbax, A. A. tg6t. Gftmmaika luvinskogojazyka . Moscow. The Hague. IVPN lv. |9'13. Itogi vsesojuznojperpisi naselenijaI9Zo goda. ly: ,ase1ert, S,S.tR.Moscow. Krejnovit. E. A. rg3:,.Fonetikani\,xskogo/r4,ka. Moscow Leningrad. jazyki,ed. M. S. JaAA l. t916.JazykiAzrliA&&i, ed.N. I. Ko ffad et sl.,l. Indo-evropejskie Kr€jnovit. E. A- rg'8. Jukagirskijazyk. M oscow,Leningrad. Andronov et al. Moscow. Krejnovia.E. A. \968. Glagol ketskogoiazyka. Let\ingrad. Jacobson.S'A'|g,7.7'AgnmmaticalsketchofSibeanYupikEskimo.Faitblnks'Alaska.Krueger.J,R.l96I'c,,?Uv,simanual:introduction'grammar'rade| Jakobson,R. tgss. Slaviclanguages:a condensedsurvey.2nd.edn. New York. Bloomington.Indiana. Jakovlev.N. F . r94. Tablicy lonetiki kabatuinskogoiazyka. Truvaux de la Sectiondes K ruegcr.J. R. 1963.Yakut manual. Bloomington.Indiana. Languesdu CaucaseSeptentionalde l'Institut O ental A Moscou. KS. 1968.Kcls*tsDomik: l;ngvistika.ed.V.V. Ivanover al. Moscow. Jakovlev,N. F. r940. SmlakslsaeCer skogolitenlunogo jazyka. Moscow-L€ningrad. Kuipers,A. H. tg6o. Phonemeand moryhemein Kabaftlia,. The Haglte.'aNSSSR. 1966-8. Jazyk; narcdov SSSR. ed. V. v. Vinogradov et al. 5 vols. Kuipers. A. H. 1968.Unique types and lypological universals.In Pra danam. ed. L C. Moscow Leningrad. Hoeslcrmannel irl. The Hague. jazyki, e<1. Y. V- Vinogrado! et al. Moscow. IaNSSSR l. 1966.Indo-ewopejskie Kumaxov. M. A. 1973.Teorija monovokalizmaizapadnokavkazskie jazyki. Voprosy jazykoznania 6: S4-6,t. JTNSSSRIL t966. Tjutkskiejazyki, ed. N. A. Baskakovel al. Moscow. JaNSSSRIII. 1966.F,, no-ugorskiejazykii samodijskieiazyki,ed.v. |. Lytkin et al. Moscow. K urbanov. X. rg t6. Rosortski jazyk. Dushanbe. JaNSSSRlV. t966. Ibe sko-kavkazskiejazyki , e<1.E. A. Bokareve!al. Moscow. Kurdoe!. K. K. t g.71t.Gnmnatika kurdskogojazyka. Mosco . jazyki, paleoaziatskie ed. P. la. skie, tunguso-man tiurskie i V. 1968. Mongol Lambton.A. K. S. t961. Pers/a,-sramrrar.Rev.edn. Cambridge. "IaNSSSR Skorik et al. Leningrad. La\karbckov. B. 1975.O govornyx razliiijax vaxanskogoj^zyka. In Issledovantapo Jensen,M. 1959.AltarmenischeGftmnarik. Heidelberg. gnfinnatike jazlkor SSSR.lir-svrsllestre rrsledovrnija| 975.Mosco\'t. Kalmin. B. t965. Vogulchrestonalry. Bloomington.Indiana. Lavorha.O. ry71. Kuffget sstcestnl.rc,rc Crrmmatl*. Wiesbadcn. Karamsoev.D'|963'Bad2uvskijdialekttugnanskogojazyka'Dushanbe'Ll|zr|l.G'l97o'Pe|sll jazyl<.Dushanbe. Karamxudocv, N. t973.Bartangsk, I hc ttr{uc
References
29b
Lehmann,W. P. t914. ProtoJndo-Europeansyntax.Austin. Tcxas. Lewis, E. G. 19j2. Multilingualism in the Soviet Union: aspcctsof languagepolicy an(t s i mpletnentat ion. The Hague. Lewis,C. L. 1961.Turkishgrammar. Oxfotd. LLNRPSU. t917. The languagesand literaturcsof the non-Russianpeoplesof the Soviet Urlor,. cd.G. Thomrs.Hamilron.Ontario. Lockwood.W. B. tg6g. Indo-Eurcpeanphilology: histo cal and compafttive. London. Lockwood.W. B. t9j2. A panonma of the Indo-European\tnguages.London. Lomladze, E. A. t963. Ginuxskj dialekt didojskogo jazyka. Tbtlisi. LomlatidzeILom(ali3el.K. t97l. Apxazu da abazurienebisist'oriul-Iedarcbitianalizi. |. Tbilisi. Lorimer, D. L. R. t958. Lhe Wakhi language.2vols. London. Luckyj. G. and Rudnytkyj. J. B. tg'g. A modem Ukrainiangrammar. Winnipeg. jazyk. Moscow. Lytkin. V. L r95z. Drevnepermskij Madavariani I. C. r of!heancientKartvelian nominaln€ction IMad'avariani], 970.Thesystem as compared to those of lhe mountain Caucasianand lndo-Europeanlanguages.In Theoreticalp oblensof typologyand thenorthe Eurusianlanguages. ed.L. Dezs6andp. Hajdu.Budapest-Amsterdam. MacKenzie.D. N. rq6r 2. Kurdish dialectstudies.2 vols. London. MacKenzie.D. N. | 969.lranian languages.InCurrenttrcndsin lingursrbs.ed.T. A. Sebeok, vol.5. Thc Hague. Madieva.G. l. t965. Arammatiteski ote* beLtinskogojazy*r. Makhachkala. Magomedbelkova.Z. M. t96j. Axvaxski jazyk. Tbilisi. Magomedbetkova.Z. M. tgjt. Karutinski jazl. Tbilisi. jazyka. Makhachkala. Magomedov,A. G. t914. Sistemaglasnyxaeteno-inguJskogo Magometov,A. A. r954.Otricaniev kubaainskomdialektedaryinskogojazyk^. tn Jazyki Dagestana 2. t69-208.Makhachkala. Magometov,A. A. t963. Kubatinski jazyk.'fbilisi. Magometov,A. A. t965. Tabasaranskijazyk . Tbilisi. Magometov,A. A. tgjo. Agul'skijjazyk. Tbtlisi. Maf'sagov,Z. K. 1963.Grummatikai ngu|skogojazJka. 2nd. edn. croznyy. Marr. N. and Briirc. M. r93r. La languegeorgienne.Paris. Matthews,W. K. t95t. Languagesof rre U.S.S.R.Cambridge. Meillet. A. r936. Esquisse d unegrammairecompardede I'affiinien classique.WienMel'auk.L A. r9?3.Model'spdazeniav alj utorskomjazyke. 2 v ols.Institut Russkogojazyka AN SSSR. Problemnaja gfuppa po ekspeimental'noj i prikladnoj lingvistike, Prcdva tel'nyepublikacri,45-6. Moscow. Mel'auk.I. A. and Savvina,E. N. r 974.O formal'nojmodelisintaksisaaljutorskogojazyka.ln Institut Russkogojazyka AN SSSR.Problemnajagruppa poiksperimental'noj i priktadnoj lingvistike,Prcdvaitel'nyepublikacii. SS.Moscow. (Englishtranslation:Towardsa formal model of Alutor surfac€structure:predicativeand completiveconstructions.LrhgurJt-cs, Sp€cialIssuer9?8:5-19.) Menges,K. H. t94j. Qaraqalpaqgrammar, t: phonology.MorningsideHeights,New York. Menges, K. H. 1968. The Turkic languagesand peoples: an intrcduction to Turkic studies. Wiesbaden. Menovsaikov, G. A. t962 I. Grammatika jazyka aziatskix iskimosov- 2 vols. Moscow-LeningradMenovseikov,G. A. t964. Jazyk sircnikskixis/
References
29'l
Miller, B. V. t953. Talylskijjazyk, Mosco,*. Miller, V. F. l\N.) tgca. Die Sptucheder Osseten.Strasbourg.(Russiantftnslalion: Jazyk osetr. Moscow, r962.) Mongu5.D. N. and Sat, S. e. r969.Tuvinskijjazyk. In ZRLIaTFUMJa. Morgenstie.ne,G. t938. Indo-ltunian ftontier languages,2: Innian Pamir languages ( Yidgha-M unji. Sanglechi-Ishkashmi and Wakhi). Oslo. Mullonen, M. r96?.Vepsskajapis'mennost'.In PFJa. Musaev, K. M. 1964.Grammatika karaimskogojazyka: fonelika i mo{ologia. Moscow. Nadiip, E. N. t96o. Sovrcmennyjujgunki jazyk. Moscow. (English lnnslalion: E- N. N^dzhtp, Modern Urg!.. Moscow, r9?r.) Nedjalkov, V. P. 19?6. Diathes€n und Satzsiruktur im Tschuktschischen.[n Sludr; Grammaticar3. Berlin(G.D.R.). Moscow. NerRS. r965. Nenecko-russkislovar'. ed. N. M. Teresdenko. NogRS. r962. Nogajsko-russkijslovar', ed. N. A. Baskakov.Moscow. Novikova. K- A. and Savel'eva,V. N. 1953.K voprosu o jazykax korennyx narodnostej Saxafina.In lazyki iistori! narodnostejKrajnego SeveraSSSR,ed. N. M. Kovjazin. (: UtenvezapiskiLeningrudskogogosudarctvennogo universiteta157.)Leningrad. OFUJa. tg14 6. osnovy Ii nno-ugorskogojazykoznania. 3 vols. Moscow. Oinas,F. r967. Basiccourcein Estoniar. Rev. edn. Bloomington,Indiana. OITIIJa. rgli. Opyt istorikolipologiteskoEo issledovania iranskix jazykov, ed. v. S. Rastorgueva.2 vols. Moscow, Oranskij,L M. t96o. Vvedeniev itunskuj frlologiju.Moscow. Oranskij.L M. t963a.Iranskiejazyki.Moscow.(Frenchtranslation.LesIanguesiruniennes. Paris.r9??.) Oranskij, L M. I963b. On an Indian dialect discoveredin Central Asia. ln Trudy XXv Mezdunarodnogo Kongressa Voslokovedov. rol. 4. Mos!:ow. Oranskij.I. M. 1975.Dic ncuiranischenSpnchen der Sowjeldrrbr.2 vols.The Hague. Oranskii, L M. rg7'1. Fol'klor i jazyk gissarskixparla (Srednjaja Azia): vvedenie,teksty, s,/ovar',Moscow, Paasonen. H- 1953. Mordwinische Chrestomathie mit Glossar und grammzlikalischem A6.r'ss.2nd.edn.Helsinki. Panavidze[Panavi3e],V. tg'14.Udurisgnmat'ik'uli analizi.Tbllisi. Panlifov,V. z. 19625. Gtunmatika nivxskogojazyka. 2 vols. Moscow Leningrad Paris,C. 1969.Indiccs personnclsinlraverbauxet syntaxede la phraseminimaledans les fanguesdu Caucase du nord-ouesl Bulletindela Soci'teLinguistiquedePa s64.Ii ro4-83. jazl*. Moscow. Paxalina,T. N. r959. ,al,(alrl,,s,tr Paxalina.T- N. 1966.Sarykol'skijazyk. Moscow. Paxalina,T. N. 1969.Pamiskiejazyk. Mo$cow. Paxalina.T. N. t915. v .anskj jazyk. Moscon. ofthe U.S.S.R. In Tre Payne,J. R. r9?9.Transilivityandintransitivityin theIranianlanguages Elements:a paftsessionon linguistic units and levels,includingpapers [rom lhe Conference on Non-SlavicLanguagesof the USSR,ed. P. R. Clyne et al. Chicago. PCNSTUSSR. r979.Papersfrom theConferenceon Non-SlavicLanguagesof the USSR In The Elements:a pansessionon linguisticunitsand levels,ed. P. R. Clyne et al. Chicago. Petrova,T. L rg35. Ul'tski dialekt nanajskogojazyka. Moscow-Leningrad. Perrova.T. I. t961. Jazyk orokov (u|'lar. Leningrad. PFJa. rg6'j. Pribaltijsko-lnskocjazykoznanie: voprosyfonetiki, grammatikii leksikologii,ed. M. Mulloncnand B. Ollykajncn.Lcningrad. PhTF l. tgsg. Philologi,tct urcicaelitn.iamenta.vol. I, ed. J. Deny. wiesbaden. Pircjko.L. A. r966.Talyiskiij:tzyk.ln JaN.tSRL lbnctikr i moiologiit . Moscovt. Pokrovskajrr,L. A. t964.Gtin)nt.ttikitF.!Euuzskogojazykt:
References
298
Pokrovskaja,L. A- 1978.sintaksisgagauzskogojazykav sravnite|nom otnorenlt.Moscow. Poppe.N. 1954.Granmar ofwriuen Morgolran. Wiesbaden. Poppe.N. 1955.Intrcduction to Mongo an comparattvestudies. Helsinki. Poppe,N. r960. Buriat grammar. Bloomington,Indiana. Poppe,N. r963. Tatar manual. Bloomington,Indiana. Poppe,N. r964. Bashkirmanual. Bloomington,Indiana. Poppe.N. r965. Introduction to Altaic tinguistics.r. Wiesbaden. Poppe,N. r97o. Mongolian languagehandbool. Washington,D.C. Prokofev, G. N. rg35. Se/ftups*rJhfosiako_samoedskaja) Erammatika.Lentnsrad. Ramsledt.G. J. rgsj-52. Einfijhrung in die attahche Spraciwissensc,rran. geisl"nl,. Rassadin,V. L rg'E. Morfotogia tofatarskogo jazyka v sravn;t"t,no. orr"i"nii. .'orro*. Rastorgu€va, V. S. r954.Kratkij oaerkgrammatikitadZikskogojazyk a.In Tad\;ksko_russkij s./oyar'.ed. M. V. Raximi and L. V. Uspenskaja.Moscow. 1Enllish translation:A rrorl sketch ofTajik grammar. Intena!ional Jounal ofAmerican Liguisrrbs 29, no. 4. r903.) Rastorgueva,V. S. 1966.Iranskiejazyki.In "/aNSSSRL Raun. A. r969. Basiccoursein Uz6et. Bloomington,Indiana. Raun, A. and Saareste,S. t965.Introduction to Estonianlinguistics.Wiesbaden. Redar4 c. r 970.Other lranian languages. In Current trendsi lingur:rri.s.eA.i. e. s"Ueot, vol. 6. The Hague_ R6dei,K. r966. Northern Ostyakchrestomalry.Bloomington,Indiana. Remmel,M. r 9J5.The phoneticscopeof Estonian:somesfecificatio ns. EestiNSV l-eaduste Akadeemia Keeleja Ki4anduse Instituut, prep.int 5. Roguyl: r974. Dedisa da mamis aymniSvnelsaxe,-lta p,osesivisk,at,egorisatvisadryur 9: enebii. Iberiul-K'avk'asiuriEnatmccnierebargt g.j32. Rogava,G. V. and Keraseva.Z. I. tg66.Grammatikaadygejskogo jazyka. Maykop. Rombandee\a.E. l. | 913. M a nsiski r voCu|rk jazyk. Moscow i, sadun.r' rgT4.Apxazuridinamik urizmnebis supiksurmorpemata rangobfivi st.rukt.ura. ln Macne:Enisada Lit'eftt'uris Seia 2: r25-36.Tbilisi. Sanidze[Sani3e],A. r957.Umlaur'i svanurli. Txzulebanit. 323-72.Tbilisi. (Reprinredfrom Atili. t925.) SanidzefSani3el.e. rg.73.Ka utienisgrama! ik.is sapuJvlebt,|. Tbilisi. Sanidze[Sani3e]. A. and Topuria, V. r9i9. Svanurip'roziuli t.ekst,ebi,r: Balszemounk.ito. Tbilisi. Sanleev,G. D. r94o. Gftmmatika kalmyckogojazyka. Moscow Leningrad. Sanreev.G. D. r953. Sftvnitel naja gftmmatika mongot,skixjazykov, i.Moscow. t963. *avnitet najagftmmatika mongot'skixjazykov: gtagol. Moscow. ::"i..1.9 -? t9io. Sravnitetnaja [onelika tjurk
Re/"erences
299
Sl USSR. r98o. Studiesin the tanguagesof the IJSSR,ed. B. Comrie.Edmonton.Alt€rra. SMar.laM. tg6t. Sovrernennyjmaijskij jazyk: morfologija. yoshkar_Ol^. Sokolov. S N. t956. crarnmaliaeskij oaerk jazyka beludzejSoverskogoSojrza. Trudy Instituta JazykoznantaANSSSR 6r 57 Jrr. Moscow. Stang.C. S. t966. Vergleichende Onmmatik der baltischenSpracrer. Oslo. Steinitz.W. t95o. OstjakischeGrammatik und Chrcstomathie.LeipziE. STLh. tg6g 'tt. Sowemennyjtatarski litenturnyjjazyk, ed_X. R. Kurbatov er al. 2 vots. Slreet.J. C. 1963.Khalkha structurc.Bloomington,Indiana. Sunik. O. P. t947. (Xerki po sintaksisutunguso-rtan'tiurskixjazykov. Mosco\N. Sunik, O. P. r962. Glagol v tunguso-man't2urskix jazykax. Moscow-Leningrad. Szemerinyi. O. r96?. The new ]ook of Indo-European:reconstructionand typotogy. Phonctica tT 65-99. Szemercnyi.O- tglo. Einfijhrung in die veryleichendeSp%chwissenscru.li.Darmstaor. Tauli, V. r96j. Structuql tendencies in Unljc languages.Bloomington,Indiana. Taulj. V. r9?3. Sttndad Estoniangramrrar, r. Stockholm. Teresaenko, N. M. tgn. Sinttksissanodiskix jazykov: prostoepredlo\enje. Leningao. Teres{enko.N. M. 1979.Nganasanskij jazyk. Leningrad. Tereskin, N. l. t96t. Oterki dialcktov xantyjskogo jazyka, I vaxovskii dialekt. Vonr\w Lcnrrgrld. Thomson.R. W. 1975.An introduction to ClassicalAmemar. New york. Timbcrlake.A. t974. The nominativeobjectin Slavic,Bahic,and WestFinnjc. Miinchen. Timofeeva. V. T. tg6t. Sovrcmennyjmariski jazyk: sintaksissloZnogoprcdlo4enija. YoshkarOla. Topuria. c. tg5g. LezgiurizmnisJiritadi morpologiuri k'at.egorrebi. Tbilisi. Topuria, V. 1961.Sromebi, r: Svanuriena:zmna. Tbilisi. Trubetzkoy,N. S. r9:5. RevicwofJakovlev (1923).Bulletin de la Sociit' Linguistjque25: 217-6 |.
Trubetzkoy,N. S. r919.Zum unbeendeten Artikel Trubetzkoys.Aus meinerphonologlschen Kartothek'.ln Eruderdidriesi la memoiredeM.le princeN. s. Trubetzkov.(= Travauxdu Ccr clc Li ngui.t iq ue de Prit Eue.8.1 Tschenkeli,K. t958. Einfihrung in die georgischeSprache.2 vols.Ziirich. Tuma{eva,D. G. tg1.l. Dialekty sibirskixtatar: opyt sravnitel'nogoissledovanija. Kazan'. Ubrjalova. E. L r950 76. Issledovanijapo sintaksisujakutskogo jazyka. r: prostoe predloZenie.Moscow-Lcningrad.2: sloZnoeprcdloZenie.2 vols. Novosibirsk. Underhill, R. r972.Turkish p{rriciptes.LinguisticInquiry 3t 8739. Venlccl. T. V. t964. Cyganskijazyk (severorusskidialekt). }r'oscow. Vogt. H. r958.Slructurephonemiquedu g€orgien.Norsk Tidsskriftlor Sprcgvidenskapfi: 5-90. Vogt. H. r963. Dictionnairede la langueOubykh. Oslo. Vogt. H. r 97r. Gftmmaire de Ia languegeoryienne.()slo. Volodin, A. N. r9?4. K voprosu argativnoj konsrrukcii predlozenija (na malenate ilel menskogojazyka).Voprosyjazykoznanuar t4-22. Volodin. A. P. tgj6. Itel'menskijaz.j/k.Leningrad. Von cablin. A. 1945.AzbckischeGramrDrrlk. Lcipzig Wien. VPT,NVD.t969. V*-sojuznaja perepis' naselenija- vsenarodnoede./o.Moscow. t/yrrNS.S.tR. t969. Vzainodejstvici vzaimooboga$enie jazykov ,arodov SSSR,ed. N. A. Baskrkov.Moscow. -l ( . r976. rxvurdsProlo-lndo,lluropcn synlax:problems W.rlkrns. andpseudo-problems. In Pitttctsliont thc ftl../lcssionon diachronics]r,lr.{. ed. S. B_Sreevcrer al. Chicaso. U \ h r r . r , r .l t t , r s 4 .l T k i r | , . . ' ,1, 4 / cr, / r , l / r r r S r , , c l h , ,rl.
References Wiedemann, F. J. t865. Grammatik der Erza-mordwinischen Spnche nebst einem kleinen mordwinisch-deutschenund deutsch-mordwinischer l,forterbucr. St. Petersburg. Wurm, S. r954. Turkic peoples of the U.S.S.R.: their histoical background, their laaguages and lhe development ofSoviet linguistic policy. London. Xajdakov, S. M. 1967.Ardinskijjazyk. In "|aNSSSRIV. jakutskij jazyk, r: fonetikai motologija. Yakvtsk. Xaritonov, L. N. 1947.Sovremennyj Xromov, A. L. rg't2. lagnobskijazyl- Moscow. Zgenti [Zyent'i], S. tgs6. Kattulienis ponel'rth. Tbilisi. Zhlutenko. Yu. O., Totska, N. I. and Molodid, T. K. tS78. Ukninian: a textbook for beginners. Kiyev. jazyka . Makhachkala. Zirkov, L. L rg4t. Gnmmatika lezginskogo Zirkov. L. L 1955. Lakskij jazyk: fonetika i mofologia. Mosco\N. ZRLJa. 1969 76.Zakonomernosti razvitia lheraturnyxjazykov narodov SSSRv sovetskuju epoxu, ed. Ju. D. Deseriev.4 vols. Moscow. ZRLJaIKJa. 1969.Iranskiei kavkazskrejaz./tl,ed. N. A. Baskakov. ZRLJaTFUMJa. ry69. Tjurkskie, finno-ugorskie i mongol'skieJbzlki, €d. N. A. Baskakov. jazykoy, ed. Ju. D. Deleriev. ZRLJaVRSIa. t973. Vnutrenneerazvitiestaropis'mennyx ZRLJaROFLJa. r976.Ju. D. Deseriev,R azvitieoblAestvennyx funkci literatwnyxja4kov. Zukova. A. N. r9'12. Gftmmatika koiakskogo jazyka: fonetika, morfologija. Lenin+rad.
ADDENDUM
Recentstatisticsand literature
,
I
j
I
As indicatedin the Preface,the most recentcensusof the U.S.S.R.is that of 17 JanuaryI979.Full detailsofethnic andlanguagestatisticswerenot availableasthis book went to press,but some preliminary statisticsarc availablefor the ethnic distribution of population( The USSRin figuresfor 1979,Moscow, r98o, pages r5 r6), and thesestatisticsare reproducedin the tablebelow.In addition,this same sourceindicatesthat, whileethnicRussianscomprise52.47oofthe total populatron of z6z.I million,Russian is thenativelanguage of I53.5millionpeopl€(58.6%ofthe total population), ofwhom r6.3millionarenot ethnicRussians. In addition,6I.3 million non-Russians claimedfluent commandofRussianasa secondlanguage;of the non-Russianpopulation,therefore,r3. rYnhaveRussianas a nativelanguage, 49.2y.hate Russianas a secondlanguage,while 37.770claim not to speakfluent Russian.The spreadof Russianis thus noticeablerelativeto the position in r97o (equivalent figures:I r.60l,,3'lo/.,Sr.4%). The figuresfor ethnic distribution of population in I979 confirm the general demographictlends alreadyvisiblein I97o, suchas the high bi h rate amongthe nativepeoplesofCentralAsia(for instance,theTadzhikshowa 35.770increaseover their r97opopulation,and arenow morenumerousthan the Lithuanians),and low birth ratesin the Baltic(e.g.L37nfor Estonians overtheir t97opopulation). For thoseethnicgroupswith very high ratesoflanguageretention(over 90% in r97o), one may assumepersistence of this high rate, the increasein numbersof speakers beingthuscommensurate with theincreasein ethnicpopulation.Forlanguageswith lower ratesof languageretention.only the publicationof languagestatisticswill indicatecurrenttrends.
Table A. Ehnic distribution of population of the U.S.S.R.,lan ary 1979 Ethnicgroup
Russian Ukrainian Uzbek Belorussian Kazakh Tatar Azerbaydzhan Ceorgian Moldavian I aozntK Lithuanian Turkmen Gerrnan Kirgiz Jew Chuvash Latvian Bashkir Mordva Eslonian Chechen Udmurt Mari Ossete Komi (rolal) Komi-Zyryan Komi-Permyak Korean Lezgi Bulgarian Buryat Greek Yakut Kabard Karakalpak Dargva Kumyk Uygur Gvpsv Ingush Cagauz Flungarian Tuva Kalmyk Karelian
Population (in thousands) t3t,391 42,347 | 2,45o 9,463 6.556 6,3t1 5,4t7 4,I5I 3,5?r 2,968 2,898 2,85r 2,O28 r.936 l,9oo r.8r t,75t r.439 t,37r I,r92 I,I5I I,O20 't56 '714 622 542 483 476 327 l5l 389 363 30t
353 344 328 322 301 287 228 2ll 209 r86 t7l r66 |4l rl8
Ethnic group
Kardchay Romanian Kurd Adyge Lak Turk Abkhaz Finn Tabasaran Khakas Balkar Altay Nogay Dungan Cherkes Persian Nenets Evenki Tat Khanty Shor Rutul Chukchi Agul Even Nanay Koryak Mansi Dolgan Nivkh Sclkup Ulcha Lapp Udegey Eskimo Ilelmcn Oroch Kel Nganasan Yukagir Negidal Olherethnicgroups Total population
Recentstatistics and literature
Population (in thousands) t3l r29 IIO t09 IOO
93 9l 77 75 'll
66 6o
46 3r 3o 29 2E
2l
r6 r5 t4 l2 t2 lo 5 1.9 7.6 5,I 4.4
3.o 2.6 r.9 r.6 r.5 1.2 LI
o.9 o-8 o.5 o.5 r30 262.o85
303
in thetext Thefollowingpublications became available to metoolatefor inclusion general or bibliography. V. M. Solncevet al., eds,lazyki Azii i Afrikr, vol. rr (ed.C. D. Sanzeev et al.)l Jazyki drevnej Perednej Azii (nesemitskie), iberijsko-kavkazskie jazyki, paleoaziatskiejazyki, Moscow, 1979,contains sketchesof the main language groupssubsumedunder Caucasian(Kartvelian,Abkhaz-Adyge,Dagestan,Nakh (Chukotko-Kamchatkan, languages) and Paleoasiatic Eskimo-Aleutlanguages, Nivkh,Ket.Yukagir);thesketches ofNivkh andYukagir,bothby E. A. Krejnovid, respectively, concentrate on theSakhalinandKolymadialects thuscomplementing (V. thecontributionsto "IaNSSSRv Z. Panfilovon theAmur dialectof Nivkh, E. A. Krejnovidon the Tundradial€ctof Yukagir). Harald Haarmannhas publisheda numberof books dealingwith detailed statisticalanalysisof languageand other demographicparameters,both for the U.S.S.R.as a whole and for individualethnic groups (Romance,Gypsy): Quantitative Aspekte des Multilingualismus: Studien zur Gruppenmehrsprachigkeit ethnischer Mindeheiten in der Sowjetunior, Hamburg, 1979; Multilinguale Kommunikationsstrukturet: Spracherhaltung und Sprachwechselbei den romanischen Siedlungsgruppen in der Ukninischen SSR und anderen Sowjetrcpubliken,Tijbingen, t9j9, Sprachefialtung uad Spnchwechsel als Prcbleme der interlingualen Soziolinguistik: Studien zur Mehrsprachigkeit der Zigeunerin der Sowjelurior, Hamburg, r979. (r973), on Mansi phoneticsand For individual languages, Rombandeeva morphology.is now supplementedby the sameauthor's Mansi syntax: Srrlaksr's mansijskogo(vogttl'skogo)jazyka,Moscow,t 979.The publicationof a newthreevolumeLatvian grammarin Englishis announced,thoughcopieshavenot yet been availableto me:T. G. Fennelland H. Gelsen,A grammarofmodern Latvian,-fhe Hague.
Language Index
LANGUAGE INDEX dialectsand ethnic groups refeftedto in This index containslanguages,language-groups, of languag€names,but rather refers the rext. It is not a mechanicallisting of occurrences the reuderlo thoseparts of the text wh€reinformation is pres€ntedon the language Cgroup) in question.For filrther easeof rcference,the major topicsdiscussedfor each repetition,this index doesnot languagecgroup)are also indexed.To avoid unnecessary to th€ map, to the sectionson Further Readingor to the statisticalapincludereferences higheror lower in the pendices.nor refer€nces alreadycoveredby language(-group)s family-tree.For policy on languageand ethnic names,refer to pagexiii; omcial Russian All referencesare forms of namesof languagesin the U.S.S.R.are given in parentheses. to pages.
Aleut (al€utskij),genetic,238, 252;status, Abakan Turkic, seeKhakas 15.27, 252f.;Russianinfluenceon Abaza (abazinskij),genetic,I97. I98: morphology,253 status,r98i orthography,33, r99;phonology. 2o6f.:noun class.2o8lcase.2og. Altaic. geneticand lypological. ro-r4 pasverb,2r9. 220:ergativity,224; relative sim, ],9-42, 45:vowel harmony,xi, 14 13, clause.229f. 59 66,67-tr, 72;agglutination, Abkhaz (abxazskij),generic,r9?, t98; 7r-4; morphologicalcategories,74-?; word order, 12,77-80:subject,direct status,2t.27.r9E;bilingualism, 9, 36; object,8of.; nonfinitesubordination, dial€cts.25; orthography,33, r99; phor2f., 8r-5; conjunctionsborrow€dfrom nology, 2o3, 2o7; noun class,2o9:case, Russian,34f. 2o9;inclusive^xclusivepronouns,2r I; Altay (altajskij),genetic,46; status,54; adjective,2 r 2; negation,2r2f.;verb. dialects,43; Buddhism,47 2r8-22; finite/nonfinite,22o;ergativity, Alyutor (aljutorskij),genetic,24o;status, 2rE, 224f.;relativeclaus€,229f.;text, 243i; vowel syslem,244 233f.; seealso Abzhuy, Bzyp Abrhuy (Abkhazdialeco.stalus.t99; pho- Andi (language)(andijskij),genetic,r9?; phonology,20r, zo5i noun class,2oE; nology. 25. 2o3 ergauvlty,2o9,223 Adyge (adygejskij).genetic,r97; status. genetic,r97; phoAndi (language-group), 198;orlhography.r99i phonology,r4, nology, 2oo; noun class,2oE:case,2(4t; 2o3inegation.2r2: relativec'ause,229f.; pronoun, 2I I conjunctioncalquedon Russian,34; see Arabic, in U.S.S.R.,2?3; useof alphabet, a./soBzhedug,Shapsug on Turkic, 13,47f., Adzhar.30 18,23;influence 64f..84:innuence on lranian.g. 166;inAfghan. r55; seea/so Parya,Pashto Agul (agul'skij).g€netic.l9?; no noun ffuenceon Dungan.273 Aramaic (assirijskij),genetic,ro, 238, classes,2o8i verb, 2t1, 222 272f.;status,8, 273;loans in Yiddish, Arnu.239 Akhvakh (axvaxskij).genetic,r9?: phor 84f. Archi (areinskij),genetic.r97, r98; phonology. 2oo, 2or nology, 2oo, 2o2, 2o5: noun class,2oE: Akkadian.2?2 Alan, 160 decimalrlumbersystem.2r2 Arin,238i,262 Albanian. g€netic,r43; Balkan. I2, r88f.; Armenian(armjanskij),genetic,r43, r79t in U.S.S.R.,r42 status,rE.2r,30, I79;culture,17;us€ Albanian, Caucasian,r98
by Armenian Cypsies,r5i; bilinSualisrn, 36: alphabet,orthography,23,32, 162, r?9f., 288; phonology,xvii, t8o; agglutination, 13, r8of.; possessive sufrx, rgrf.; verb analyticity, !82; word order, 12, r 83: nnite/nonfinitesubordination,r83; Turkic influence,12, 13;text, r92f., 299 Assan,238f.,262 Assyrian,seeAramaic Avar (avarskij),genetic,t97; status,t6, 29, r98; lingua franca,9, 25f., r99; old inscriptioN, r9g; dialects,24, r99; orthography,33, r99; phonology,2oof., 2O2,2O5:troun class,2o7f.,22g,235: case,2og,2ro,235f.;pronoun,2rr; adverb,2t2; decimalnumeralsystem, 2r2: negation,2r3i verb, 2t4, ergativity, 223, 226f.;relativeclause,228f.;text. 45f. Avar-Andi-Dido, genetic,r97; phonolog,, 2Or;verb.2r3 Avestan,r59 Aysor, seeAramaic Azerbaydzhan(azerbajdZanskij), genetic, I r, 46, 49; status,29, 48f.; lingua franca, 5. 162.164:vowelharmony.6t 5 passrm, r rof.; agglutination,74; instrumental postposition/case, 74f.; subject agreementof nonverbalpredicate.76; Arabic/{ranianinffuence,especiallyon subordination,47, 84i Bactrian,160 Bagval(bagvalinskij),genetic,t97, i98: phonology,2o5 Bal, Upper (Svandialect).vowel syst€m, 2o3f.;relativepronoun, 2t r; decimal numbersystem,2r2;verb,2I? Balkan sprachbund,12;influenceon Romany, r57; Armenian parallelin conjunctions.r83:influence on RomanianMoldavian, r87f. Balkar, 4, 30, 50, seea/so KarachayBalkar Balochi(Baluchi), seeBeludzh Baltic,genetic,t43f., 146f,;starus,19, r42t., t46f.; rone, 14, l4E-5r; word order, case.t46, rsri; participles,gerunds, 152-4;influenceon Romany. 15? Balto-Finnic,genetic,94, 95f., ror; typologicalsimilariti€swith Ssmoy€dic,
305 92; wilh Indo-EuroFean!93; contact with Indo-European,93, r24. t47, r52i phonology, r tc 17 passirr; vowel har_ mony, r r tf.; consonantgradation. r t3-r7; morphologicaltypology, r3f., rr8f.; morphology,l19 2r; word order, ro9, r2r, r22, r24; subject,dir€ct object, t 26-30. t52; impersonalpassive.r29f.l negation,r3r-3 passrlri nonfinitesubordination, r 34-6 paJsin Balto-Slavonic,geoetic,t43f.; definiteadJecrives,r43f. BarabaTatar (jazyk barabinskixlatar) (Talar dialect?),44 Bartang(bartangskij),genetic,t6r; status, r65 Bashkir(baskirskij),generic,46; statls, 50 Basque,196 Bats(bacbijskij),genetic.r97; noun class, 208:negative pronoun,2r l; verb,2r3, 2r4; ergatlvity,224SouthCaucasian innuence,2I r Belorussian(b€lorusskij),genetic,r44f.; slatus.t5, r6. t42. r46;dialects,25: alphabet,23; contacrwith polish, 20 Beludzh(beludrskij),genetic.r58, 16r; status,162f.;clitic pronoun, t72 Bezhti(be2(i)tinskij),genetic,t97; noun class,2o8 Bo!a, r57 Botlikh (botlixskij),generic,r97, r98, phonology,2o5; useof Avar, 199 Budukh (buduxskij),genetic,r97: noun class,2o8 Bulgar,46 Bulgarian,genetic,r44: B^lkan spnchbtnd, 12, r98f.:in U.S.S.R.,8,r44 Buryat (burjatskij),genetic,55; status, 551; vowel system,harmony,6Ef.; agglutination,74; possessive sufrx, 75; subjectagreement,?6; adjective-nouh ordcr, 77; attributive adjectiveagree_ ment, 77; subjectmarker, 88; text, g?f. Bzhedug(Adyge dialect),phonology,!4, 2o3, 2o4; ergat;vity, 225 Bzyp (Abkhaz diale.t), status,r99; phonotogy,2o3 Caucasian,terminology,xiii; genetic, ro-tr, r97, r98;typology,12,t4 typologicalparallelswith Indo-European,
Language Index 25f.,35; r67. I80. 2o6L;bilingualism, culture, r7; orthography,r98f.; consonanrsystems. xi. 14.2oo-3.2o4f.rvowel nounclass.2o79: case. syslems.203-7; 2OgF r r; pronoun,2r r; adj€ctive,2lrf.; adverb,2t2;numeral,2l2;verb,2 t 3-22; negation,212f.;word order.I2, 2I2, 223;ergalivily, 2o9, 223-7:subordination, 2r r, 2r3, 227-30;relaliveclause, 2tt, 227-230 North,genetic,t I, I97, I98i Caucasian, typology. r4, 34; nonfinitesubordination,228-30 genetic.I r. r9?. Crucasian.Norlh-Central. r98i phonoloCiy,2o4f.;noun class,2o?f., 2 tl; case,2o9.2to; pronoun,2r t; adjective,2r rf.; verb,2r3. 214;ergativity, 223, 226f.trehtive clause,228, 229 Caucasian.North-Easl, genetic.I I. I97, r98: typology, r4 useof Arabic alphabet,23; phonology.20lf., 2o5: noun class,2o7f.,2r3f.;case,2o9f.;pronoun. 2r r, 2r4; verb system,2r3[.;ergativity, 223, 225-1;relativeclause.2281 Caucasian. North-wesl.genetic.t97: consonants,2o2f.:vowelst2o5 7; noun class.2o9;pronoun,2r r; adjective, 2r rfl; adverb,2r2; verb,2r8 22;nonfinite subordination,220; relativeclause, 229 Caucasian, Soulh,genetic,lr, I9?; typolog). r4. 2o?iinfluence on Bals.2rr: no noun class,2o8l; case,2lof.; pronoun,2l I; adverb,2t2; verb,2t4-t8; suborergaririry. obliquesubject.223f.i dination.2rJ. 2r6: relaliveclause.2271 Celtic, r43 Chagalay,46 Chamalal(aamalinskij),genetic,r9?i noun class.2o8 Chan (aanskij),seeLaz genetic.I9?; status, Chechen(deaenskij), nounc)ass, 30, r98; phonology,2o4f.; negat2o8;adjective, 2r2: adverb,212; ion, 2r3: verb,2r3; ergativity,223, 226f.;relativeclause,229;loan in Ossete,!6? Cheremis,ree Mari Cherkes,4, 50, seea./soKabard-Cherkes influence on Uygur,52;influence Chinese. on Manchu,57; seer/so Dungan
306 Chukchi (aukotskij),term. xiii, 24t; genelic, rr, 24oitypology,14:culture,24; status,2?. 242:Russianloans,34;orthography,33, 28?;consonantsystem, 24Jt WOmens pronuncialion.2441vowel harmony, 244f.:nominal morphology, 246f.;verb agrcemenl,transilivity, 24?; negalion,247;word order,25r;ergativ244i. 25ot; subity. .248: incorporution. on Eskimo, ordination,25ri; innuence 254-7 passim:IexI, 274f., 287 Chukotian, seeChukotko-Kamchatkan Chukotko-Kamchatkan.genetic,to, t I, 4of., 239,24o; phonology,I4, 243-6; vowel harmdny.244-6;nominalmorph24?; ology, 246f.;verb-agreementt synl^x, 12. 247-52 Chulym Tatar 0azyk Culymskixtatar). genetic,44, 46: status.53 generic. Chu!ash(cuvasskij). 7. 42. 45.46 status,r6, 2r,48;Christian,47;orlhography.23;case. 8I; nounsumx order, 75; contactwilh Uralic, 47. 75. ro2, ro?; contactwith Russian,t7 circassian,spokenby Ubykh, I96i phe verb,2r9, nology,2oJ,2o7;case,2o9; 22o. 22r ; finite/nonfinite,22o;ergativity, 225;relaliveclause,229f.; seealso Adyge, Kabard-Cherkes Crim€anTatar (krymsko-tatarskij),genetic, 43, 44, 46; status,27, 30, 50 Cuman,45 Curonian, t4? Czech.r44
Dagestanian,seeCaucasian.North-East Dagur, 55 Dardic,r55 Dargva (darginskij).gen€tic,l9?, I98; status,29. t98; phonology,2oo; noun class,2o8idecimalnumbersyslem,2r2; verb,2r3, 214,2r9; ergativity,225f.;see ,/so Kubachi Dari (varietyof Persian), r63 Dido (language)(didojskij),genetic,I9?; phonology,2o5;nounclass,2o8 gcnetic.r97 Dido (language-group). Dolgan (dolganskij)(Yakut dialect?),7, 24, 53 Dravidian,I I
Language Index Dungan(dunganskij),genetic,ro. 238, 273;vocabularyloans.273f.;tOne.2?3; Iabialisalion. palalalisation. 274 Durangi (Avar dialecl).decimalnumber system.2r2 Dzhek (dZekskij),see Kryz Enets(dneckij).genetic.g4i status.ro8i glottalslop. rog, r to English.loansin Siberianyupik Eskimo, 258 Erzya(erzjanskij),generic,94;starus,r02; sumxeddefiniteanicle, I l9i dennite objectconjugation, r26, r27 Eskimo(iskimosskij), genetic, to. 238, 253f.;phonology.255inominalmorph_ orogy.255:ergative conslruction. anti_ passive. 255[.:non6nitcfinilesubordr_ nation,256f.:polysynthesis, 257; Chukchi influence.242.257i English. Russianinllucnce,2571'. Eskimo-Aleut, genelrc.ro. 2J9.252 t\tonran (estonskij,. genetrc. 94. 9d. roof.; s l a t u st.5 . 9 8 . r o o J. o t : c u l l u r et:? . 9 : . dialects,96. 99t; orthography,xvi, xvu, 32. I t6; contactwith Baltic,r3o. r47, I54; phonology,rog. r to! r r4-r7; corF sonanl.vowelgradation.r t4.t7: mor_ phologicalrypology, I r8f.; morphology, tt9-2t passtm;word order, I2o_4 pas_ srr; subject,direct object, r25, t2?-3o pdssm: impersonalpassi\e.I Jo: negat_ ton, t25, 1321.pttssiht.t37; inferential. r25;nonfinitesubordinalion, r 23f.. r34f..136;text 136-8 Estonian,South, 99f. Even (dvenskij).genelic,58i starus,57f_; vowel harmony,691; case,possessive sumxes.751a ributeagreement. ?8 Evenkitevenkijskij). genetic. 58; srarus. 5?f.;vowelharmony,?o, 7r; agglut_ ination,7r. 72. 73;Iocativepostposition, 74: c,opula,76; adjective-nounorder, 7?; atlfibuleilgreemenl. con_ 78:possessive slruclion,79; nonfinitesubordindlion, 83f.:negation,ti4; contactwith yakut, 39 Finnish,genetic.94.969 passlrr:in U.S.S.R.. 93. 97f.;cuttufc.93;dialccts. 96: vowclhltrntony.ro9l,,r I t. I rl cor-
307 sonanlgraoatton,t t3-r? prssimtmor, phologicaltypology,r r8; morphology, trg-21 passlth;negatjon,rJrf. passim Finno-Ugric.genetic.94; contactwith Russian,t9 Cagauz(gagauzskij),generic.46; status, 49; Christian.47: consonantharmony, 631; SVO order. 80 Cagauz.Balkan,42 Ceorgran(gruzinslij).lcrm, xiii: generrL. I r, r97;status!r8, 2r. r98f.:lingua franca.3.9. 36;culture.r?; alphabet, 23,32,33,t64, r98f.,289;loan in Russian,t3r; Ioanin Ossete,r67i pho_ nology.zoo,2ot. 2o3icas€.2roL;ad2|2t negatton. Jecnve, 2t3; verb,2r5_lg passim; ergatiyity, t4, 224. 225:,relati,,/e clause.zr r. 22?;text.23r-3. 2g9 Georgian.Old. status,r98: phonology, 2oo;refatrvepronoun. 2l r: \/erb.2t7, 22t; efgattylty,224 German,gcnetic,r84: statusin U.S.S.R., 8. 16,2t, 28. jo, r84i inffuence on Balto-Finnic, I l3; on Estonian,loo, I z4; on Hungarian,ro7 Germanic.genetic,r4j. t84; influence on Uralic, t2. r22; strong/weakadjective, t44 Gilyak, seeNivkh Ginlkh (ginuxskij), genetic,t97l noun class.2o8 Godoberi (godoberinskij),genetic.r97, r98 Cold, seeNanay Creek, genetic.r43; Balkan sprachbund, r 2 . r 8 ? f . i;n U . S . S . R . . 8r 4 , 2 ;l o a ni n Tuva.47; in Romany,r57;in Romanian-Moldavian, r87f. Greenlandic(varietyof Eskimo).255 Gujarati.r56 Gunzib (gunzibskij).genelic,r97; noun class,2o8 Cypsy. 4, 163.seea./soRomany Hebrew,genelic,r86f.,272; alphabet,32, 49i influenceon Karaim, 49; on yiddish, I84f.. r87 Hellenic,.rccGreek I l i n d i ,r 5 6 llungarian.gcnctic,94, r04, r05, to7;in t J . S . S . Rl i...9 1 , r o T lc u l t u r c . 9 2 , 9 3 i
Language Index Language Index loan in Romany' l5?: vowel harmony' COn_ tog, IlI, I I2i Case'I19; pOSSeSSiVe struction. t2l; wold order' lz2, 124ioe' finit€ obj€ctconjugation' 125[; negat134 ion, I32;subordination, Dungan see Hwei. Hyperborean,JeePaleosiberian Ib€ro-Caucasian''ee caucasian Indic, genetic,155f. lndo-Aryan.seeIndic genetic.tof' 4of' t43: lylndo-European. on pology.I2-14 prssir' l l8; influence ano typology Uralic, 92; phonological Caucasian,2o6f. Indo-Iranian.genetic't43, 155 Ingrian (iZorskij),term, 95; genetic,94' 96; status,3, 19, 26' 35' 9E;negatlon' 132' r33 genetic,t97i stalus'lo' Ingush{in8usskijl. rgEl phonology.2oo.2o4l noun class' 2oE;verb,2t3 Inuit (Eskimo language),253f' Iiupiaq, seeInuit Iraniafl, genetic'I43' 155' 159-ol' I?9; status. I55; culture, I7f: phonology' r66f.; morPhologicaltypology' I3; pro_ nominal morphology' 167-?2;clltlc qSf i noun. r72;ezaf€'r44' 167-'lr, verb, l?2-8; ergativity, 14, 173-7;word order, 12' t78f.; relativeclause'I?2 Iranian, East,Phonology.160' 166 Ishkashim(i5kasimskij),genetrc'loI; stalus, t65; Phonology,l66f' Italic, genetic,r43; seealso Romance gen€tic Itelme; (itel'menskt)' term, 24lf; 24ol stalus.241:dialects 24of: consonanl system.244; vo\'velsystem alte' nations.244 lack of dual' 246;synlax' 248; no ergative,249f; no incorporar_ ron,25O Izhora, seeIngrian of genetic.1o.39:assimilation Japanese. with parallel typological 219; Ainu, Nivkh,269 Jew, 3, 4. t6. 21. 30. 163' r84-?' seealso Karaim, Yiddish Juchen.57
309
308 Kabard, 4. 3o. 50' scea.lsoKabard_ Cherkes Kabard-Cherk€s(kabardino-'erkesski.i)' senelic,197;stalus.4.I98i orlhography' i99: phonology.2o2.2oJ,206;verb' 221 Kafiri, seeNuristani 4l' 56; Katmyk(kalmyckijlgenetic. staius.3o. 56: vowel harmony' 68: vowel sumx' ?51 orthography'69; poss€ssive subjectagreement,76 Kamas (Turkic; Khakas dialect)' 53. Kamas (kamasinskij)(Uralic), genetrc'94; status,15,53, Io8 Kamchadal.seeltelmen Kapuch (kaPuEinskij).sec Bezhti Karachay.4. 50. seer/so Karachay-Balkar (karaCaevo-belkarskij)' Karachay-Balkar genetic,46; status'4' 50 Karagas(Turkic), seeTofa Karagas(Uralic)' to8 Karaim (karaimskrj),genetic,46; status'2' harnony' 49; Judaism'4?: consonant 63i Ka;kalpak (karakalpakskij),genetic'46; stalus,5r Karata (karatinskij).genetic'I97 9b' 9?' Karelian(karelskij),genetic.94' status,3, t9, 23' 26' 97f; vowel harmony. I I l; consonantgradation' l I3f; agglutination,l18; spatialcases'I2o; negatlon,132 Kartvelian. seeCaucasian'South Kazakh (kazaxskij)'term, 44; genetic'46; status,30, 5I ; Arabic, Persianloan' 47f Kerek (kerekskij),genetic,24q status'243 Ket (ketskii),genetic'lo, 238f' 26If'; typology, I t, 238, 26ll; status,2621tone' i4, z6z; noun cla.s, 262' 263; internal fleclron.z6z, 263:verb structure'2oJ 5i syntax,265f; contactwith Khanty' l09 Ketsik, seeChulym Tatar Khakas ()skasskij),genetic,46; status'53' bY Shor' 53 54; Buddhist,4?; used Khaladzh.42' 49 Khalkha (Mongolian dialect)'term' 55: genetic,40, 56; vowel harmonY'68' 69 Khanty (xantyjskij)'genetrc'94' lo5l stat;s, 7. 24, Io5f.; dialects'?' 24' 106: culture, 93; case' I I9i contactwltn Selkup. Io9; with Ker.262: seealso Vakh (Uralic)
2o9i deicticPronoun,2t l; decimal Khinalug (xinalugskij),genetic,I97, l9E; numbersystem.2l2l \ero. 2r3, 214 useof Azerbaydzhan.5. 2?; phonology' genetic,l9?, l9E Lak-Dargva. 2O8 nOUn ClaSS. 2OO,2O2; Lamul, seeEven Korchin (Mongolian dialect),56 Lapp (saamskij).term. xiii. 95i genetrc.92. Khotanese,,'eeSaka 93,941status.23. 26,93. Iolf.; culture' Khoton.42,43 gradation.I I3, I l6f.; l8: consonanl t65 dialect), (Rushan Khuf l3f.; nominalmorphagglutination, Khunzakh (Avar dialect),24, 199 l2o. I zr; word order.Iz2i I I9, ology, phogenetic, I9?; (xvarsinskij). Khvarsh 126 direct object, subject. nology, 2o5i noun class.-2o8 decimalnumber (Svan dialect). Lashkh l60 Khwarezmian, system.212 Kirgiz (kirgizskij).term. rg; genetic,46; langua8e Latgal {Lalrian dralecl).vr'ritten harmonY, vow€l 16, status, 30, 54: t41 T2.?3;locative 59{1,63: agglutination. Latin. genelic.I I. I8?i influenc€on Hunsuflix. 75i cases.74; cas€.possessive garian.r07 order of senlenceconstiluenls'80 (latysskij).genelic,I47; stalus. Lalvian gene{komi{-zyr'janskij)). Komi(-Zyryan) l46f.r assimilationof Uralic' 35. r42f., tic. t r. 94. Iol. l04: itatus.17.2?. l04 xvi. loof.icullure.16. l7: orthography. physicalappcar.lnce,I05; case'possest5t: I48f.. tone. 14. r54; xvii,3z. sivesullix,l2o; negation.132.I33 nominalmorphology,I43. I48. l5l; Komi-Permyak(komi-p€rmjackij).genetic, directobjecl.I52;indirecl nominative 94, rO3.lO4;status,Io4:case,I 19 spcech.inlerential, l53f Kondoma Talar, seeShor r9?, l98i stalus'196l Laz (lazskij).8enetic. K o r e a n , 8 I. o , 3 9 phonology.2oo. 2o3;verb. 215;ergativ_ Koryak (korjakskij).term. 241; gen€tic, 'ty,234 24O;Status,24, 2?. 242:consonant Lentekh(Svandialect).preverb,2t 5 system,243i vowel harmony,245f. t9?l stalus.29. Lelgr(lezginskij).8enelic. Kott, 238f.,262 r98;no nounclass,2o8lverb.213'214, Koybal, to8 222i ergativity.223:relativeclause.229 Kryz (kryzskij),genetic,r9?; noun class. Lezgian.genetic.197. l98l phonology.2oo; 2o8 pronoun.2ll; verb'213 nounclass.2oE; Kubachi(kubaiinskij)(Dargvadialecl:) Lithuanian(litovskij),genetic'I47i slatus' 2l o; genetic,198;phonology,2ol;case! i42f.. I46f,;culture.16.I7i orthnegativepronoun, 2l I.;adjective'2l l: ography,xvi.xvii.32, I54;tone,14. negation,2 r 3; vcrb,214 typology,I3. I4li-51;morphological Kiierik, seeChulym Tatar r48. r5rf.: definiteadjective.r43f.l Kumyk (kumykskij),genelic,46; status. nominativedirecl obj€ct, 152;rionlinite 29,4gf. indirect verb forms. switch_reference. Kurdish(kurdskij),genetic.r60, l6t; I52l speech. phonology. r6tf.: I53, 158, status,8,27, slalus.rool : Liv (l'vskij).genelic.94.96i xvii. r66, r67i nominalmorphology. tone.14. Iooi l4?i inffuence. Latvian J5, ergali!verb forms. pronoun. t72: r7of,: no consonanlgradation. I l3i negalion, ity, r73f.; word order, I78f r33 Kurmandzhi(Kurdish dialect).see Livvikovskij, seeOlonets Kurdish Low German.loan in Eslonian. Ioo KuznetskTalar. seeShor Lud (Kareliandialect).97 Luoravetlan.seeChukchi. ChukotkoKamchalkan Lahnda.I56 lgai stalus' 29. r97l (lakskij).8enclic, Lak M.rccdoniln.144.t87f. phonology.:oo: nounel$s. zolllca'c
Language Index Magyar, seeHungarian Maldivian, r55 Manchu, genetic,5?; script,45; influenc€ on South Tungusic,5?; male-female pairs, 74; Senitive,74; no Possessive sufrx, 75; no subjectagreement,?6 Manchu-Tungusic,s6eTungusic Mandarin, 14,238, t73f,, seea./sqDungan Manegir (subdivisionof Evenki), 5E Mansi (mansijskij),gen€tic,94, r05; status, rooi; cuhure, 24, 93, Io5: possessive construclion,t2r; definiteobjectconjugation, 126;accusative,r28; passive, r3r; negation,I32 Marg| 2o2 Mari (marijskij),genetic,94,Io2; status,7, ro3; influenceofTurkic, ro2; of Chuvash.47. ?5; vowelharmony.I t2f.: agglutination,I I8; postpositions,I2I; r29rnegalSOV order.| 221accusative. ion, r33 Median,I59 Megrel, seeMingrelian M€let Tatar, seeChulym Tatar Mingrelian(megrel'skij),genetic,I97, r9E;status,3; usedby Abkhaz, 9; phonology.2oo.2o3:relaliveptonoun.2l Il adjective,z! r; v€rb, 215, 2t6; ergativity, 227f. 223, 224i rel^tive CIAII.SE, Moghol.55 Moksha (moklanskij),genetic,94 status, sonants,.Iro; agglutro2; voiceless tnalon, I 19 Moldavian (moldavskij).genetic.8. l8?f. status,8, 16, l8?f. Mongol, seeMoghol Mongolian (family), geletic, ro, 39-42, 54-6; Buddhism,!8; influence'onYakut, j3; vowel harmony, 14,59, 67-9 morphology,j4-j passim,8r; possessive, ?5, ?E, r2o; postverbalsubj€ct,80; nonfinite constructions,E3 Mongolian {language).lerm. 54f.: genetic. suffix,75; 40, 56; scriPt,55; Possessive postverbalsubject,8o; ablativesubject,EI script451influence Mongolian.Classical. on other languages,18,4?, 52, 55, 56; vowel system,harmony,6?; Postverbal subj€ct,80; ablativesubject,Et Monguor. genetic.j5: subject-agreement. 16
3ro Monglor (also altenatr:ve for Moghol, q.v.) Mordva (mordovskij),genetic,94, Io2; status,lo2f.; assimilationby Russians, clus3,9, 15,19,35, Io2f,;consonant ters, r ro; sumxeddefinitearticle, I 19; agglutination,r 19;SVO order, It2; definite objectconjugatioll, r25f., r27 Mras Tatar, seeShor Munii, r 6r, 165
Nakh, seeCaucasian,North-Central Nanay (nanajskij),genetic,58; status,24, 58f.; vowel harmony,70; syllable structure,7r; conjugationclasses, ?4; resumx, ?5; subjectflexivepossessiv€ posagreement.76: alienable/inalienable session,79 Negidal (negidal'skij),genetic.58; status, 3, 57t. Nenets(neneckrjl.genetic.94i status.t08; glottal stop, rro, rr?; vowel altemation, r ro; negation,r33f. genetic,94; Nganasan(nganasanskij), status,ro8f. Nivkn (nivxskij), ro, 239, 266; ltatus, 24 266; typological parallels to Japafts€, 266, 269; phonemc system,267; initial consonant mutation, 267f.; noun moaPholo8y, 268f.; numeral classifier,269; lregation, 272 word order, 259; coordidation, noofi rdte subordinaton, 27o-2i text,276[. Nogay (nogajskij),genetic,46; status,5I; inffuenceon Trukhmen, 43 Nostratic, r I Nuristani,r55 Nymylyan, seeKoryak
Ob'-Ugric, genetic,94, r05; culture,93; I r7i dual. r r9i accusarive. agglutinarion. genitive,l 19;definiteobject conjugation, r25f.; word order, ro9, r22; nonfinite subordination,r34 Odul, seeYukagir oguz, Old, 45 Oguz-Turkmen.seeOguz, Old Olcha, seeUlcha Old Church Slavonic,r44
Language Index Olonets(Karelian dialect),92 Ordos (Mongolian dial€ct),56 Oroch (oroaskij),genetic,58; status,58f.; vowel harmony,7ol Orochon (suMivision of Evenki),58 Orok (orokskij), genetic,58; status,58f.; nonfinitesubordination,E4;text, 89f. Oroshor (orolorskij), genetic,r6ri status, r65 Osmanli, seeTurkish Ossete(osetinskij),genetic,160, 16r; status,164;culture, 17, r58; dialects,24, 264;parallelswith other languagesof Caucasus,167, r8o; stable/unstable vowels,r6e ejectives,167;nominal morphology, r1r, t72; clitic pronoun, I72: postposition. r79:loan in Hungarian, ro? Ostyak, seeKhanty Ostyak Samoyedic,seeSelkup Ottoman Turkish, 45 Oryat. genetic.56i contactwirh Altay. 54. seealso Kalmyk Oryot, seeAltay Paleoasiatic,JeePaleosiberian Paleosiberian, genetic,ro, 238i Pamir, genetic,16r; status,r65f.; useof Tadzhik.3. 5, lo. j5. r59. 163:ergative construction,r 75-7; inferential,t28 Pao-An,genetic,55; subjectagreement,76 Parthian. 159 Parya(par'ja), genetic,r55f.;status,r55f; gender,t 56; ergativity, 156 Pashto,158,16r Pecheneg,46 Pehlevi,seePelsian,Middle Permic,genetic,94, ro3f.;culture, ro5; contactwith Chuvash,75; case,possessive'sumx,r2o; SVO order, r22; nonfinite subordination,r34 Permic,Old, ro3fPersian,genetic,160, 16r; varielies,9, r58t, 163;in U.S.S.R.,159;influence on Turkic, 47t, 64f-, 84f.; influenceon Dungan, 2?3;phonology,r66; morphologicaltypology, r6.lf,, seealso Tadzhik Persian,Midlle, l59f., 163, 166 Persian,Old, r59 Polabian,t44
3tr Polish,genetic,r44 in U.S.S.R.,E, 20, 2E, r44f.; in Lithuania, !48; influenceon Yiddish, r85 Polovets,iee Cuman Prussian,Old, 14? Punjabi, r56 Rajasthani,r56 Romance,genetic,r87f.; seea/so Italic Romanian,relationto Moldavian, 8, tE?f.; Balkan sprachbund,12;influenceon Romany, 15? Romany(ciganskij),genetic,rS5, 156; status,8, r57; dialects,r57, r5E;innuenceof other languages,r57 Rushan(rulanskij),g€nelicj t6r; status, I65i ergativity, r?5f.; causative,r78 Russian(russkij),genetic,r44f.; status,r, 4, rS, 2rf., z1t.,3r-?, 3or; lingua franca,2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 22, 3or; alphabet, 286; nominativedirect object, r3o; lol influence of Russian on individual languag4-group)s. consult the individual languag4-gtoup) Rutul (rutul'skij), genetic,r97; phonology, 2O5;nOUnclass,2oE Saame, see Lapp Saka, 160 S^l^r, 42. 43,44 .Samoyedic, genetic,93f., ro7f.; typology, I3f.,92; culture,93; nominalmorphology, r l9F2r parsn; direct object, r29; definiteobjectconjugation,125f.: word order. l09. r22; nonfinite subordinatron, 134 Samoy€dic,Northem, genetic,94, ro8; glottal stop, ro9 Sangleai, 16r, 165 Sanskrit,influencethrough Buddhism,42 Santa,55 Sari-Uygur.see Uygur, Yellow Sarikoli,r58, 16l, 165 SayanSamoyedic,JeeKamas (Uralic) Scandinavian,influenceon Balto-Finnic, 13; on Lapp, ro2 Scythian,seeAlan SeldzhukTurkish, 45 Selkup(sel'kupskij),genetic,94, t09; status, IoE, ro9; text, r39f. Selonian,r4?
Language Index semigallian,seez€mgalian Semitic,ro, tr, 238,2i2f. Serbo-Croat,g€netic,I44; definiteadjective, r43f. shapsug(Adygedialect),phonology,2o3 Shor (Sorskij),genetic,46; status,53 genetic.16I, 165; Shugn(Sugnanskij), status,165,166 genetic,165;phonology, Shugn-Rushan, 166f.;nominal morphology, I68f., t?2; ergativeconstruction,t75f.; causative, I7E Sibo (Manchu dialect),57 Sino-Tibetan,lo, 238 Sindhi,r56 Sinhalese,I55 Sireniki (iazyk sirenikskixdskimosov) (Yupik Eskimo dialect?),254 148;inslavonic,genetic,I43f.; poss€ssive, fluenceon Yiddish, t85; on RomanianMoldavian, r87; on Uralic, 12, 122;on Hungaaian,lo? Slavonic,East,genetic,I45f.; status,15; culture, 19;alphabet,23 Slovak.genetic,I44rin U.S.S.R..t07. I44 Slovene,genetic,r44; definiteadjective, 143 Sogdian,!60 Solon, 58 Sorbian,Lower, r44 Sorbian,Upper, I44 Sovietpeople,5 Suomi, geeFinnish Svan(svanskij),genetic,I9?; phonology, 2O9,2lO;pronoun,2ll; 2O3f.; CaSe, 2OO, adjective,2I t; decimalnumber system, 2r2; verb..rt5. 2I6, .2l?.22ti ergativity. 224, 225 Swedish,usein Finland, 2I, 96f.; influerce on Balto-Finnic,r24 sfiac, 2l2l genetic,l9?; Tabasaran(tabasaranskij), status,r9E;phonology,2oI; noun class, 20& case,2o9; verb, 2r3,2I4 Tadzhik (tadrikskij),genetic,Ef., I58f., r60, r63:status,t6,2I, I63f.,30r; lingua franca, 3, 5, 9, 26, 35, I55, 165, 166;contacl with Uzbek,9, 4r, 47, 5r, 163;influenceon Pamir languages,t69, l7r;phonology.| 66;analylicity.l67f.i
3r2 clitic pronoun, I72i lossofergativity' l7?; verb system,includingnonfinite forms, inf€rential,presuppositional' l?7f., r92; word order, I?8f.; text. I9I Talysh (talysskij),genetic,16I; status' 158, vowels,166: r 62: stable/unstable nominal morphology, t69; ergativecon_ structron,I74, I75 Tapanta(Abaza dialect),I9E Tat (tatskij), genetic,16I; status,158, 164; phonology, 166;analyticity, l6?f. Tatar (tatarskij),term, 43f.; genetic,46; status,19,27, 30, 50, I45; influenceon Volgaic, to2, Io3; vowel harmony,63' 65; stress,67;agglutination'13;direct object,8of.; aspect,76, 86; word ordel' ?8; nonfinitesubor77, 79i; possessive, dination,12,8t 3,86; text' E5-7 Tavgi Samoyedic,seeNganasan Temirgoy (Adygedialecl).relaliveclause. 229f. Tibetan, infllence through Buddhism'47 Tindi (tindinskij),genetic,I9?, I98 Tofa (tofalarskij),genetic,46: status'52 Tom:Kuznetsk Tatar, seeShor Trukhmen (truxmenskij)(Turkmen dialect?),genetic,43 Tsakhur (caxurskij),genetic,197;phonology, 2o5;noun class,2oE;case'2o9 Tsez (cezskij), Jee Dido Tung-Hsiang,55 Tungus, seeEvenki Tungusic(Tungus-Manchu).genetrc.Io. rr, 39-42, 51,5E;substratein Yakut, Dolgan, 53; phonology,69 7I; vowel harmony, t4, 59, 69171,74 morPhology, 7 4-1 passim|'possession,including alienable/inalienable, ?Ef.iword order, 79, 83i Turkic, genetic,7, Io, II, 39-46;status, 2t; cuhure,17,18,4G8;alphabet,23; loan in Russian,3I; contactwith Uralic, g2f., ro2, ro7, I12, I22; with Samoyedic. lo8; with Dungan,273;typology' 12' 13' 14 pho0ologY,includingvowel harmony, 5F66; direct object' 8of.; possessive,75,78,I2o, I2I, t68; subjectagreement,?6; infere[tial, I54; word order, ?9i Turkic, old, 45 Turkic, Runic, 45
Language Index Turkish, genetic,40, 46; influenceon other languages,lo7, rE3, rE7, 196;on P€rsian,84; vowel harmony,61 4 pass/n ; morphologicaltypology, 74 relative clause,E2 Turkmen (turkm€nskij),genetic,46; status, 16,49;linguafranca,162,r6j; vowel harmony, 64; seea./soTrukhmen Tuva (tuvinskij),genetic,46; status,52: Buddhist,47; conjunctionborrowed from Russian,34f.
Ubykh, genetic,r9?; status,r96: phonology, 2o2f. passim,2o5,2ol: finite/nonfinite,22o;ergativity,225; re" Iativeclause,229 Udege(uddgejskij),genetic,58; status,59 Udi (udinskij),gen€tic,r97. t98; phonology, 2o5: no noun class,2o8:case, 2ro. 224:adjective. 2 r r: verb.2 r3. 2r4 ergalivity , 224 Udmurt (udmurtskij),genetic,94, r03; status,ro4[. Ugric. genetic,94, Io5; possessive, i2o, r2r; negation,r32 Ukrainian (ukrainskij),gen€tic,r44; status, r5.2r, r42. t45f.;Russianinffuence, 146;in Poland,20, r45; loan into Russian,3I; alphabet, 23 Ulcha (ul'askij),genetic.58; status,58f. Ulta, seeOrok Uralic,genetic,ro, rr, 39,4o1,92,93 5; typology, t2-r4 passifi, 34, 92f., rogf., culture, 92f.; inffuenceof IndoEuropean.rJ.34l vowelharmony.ro9. gradation.I tJ-t7; t to t IJ: consonant sandhi,I 17;morphology,r 17 2r; word order, 92f., I ro, r2r-4; subject,direct object, 126-3t; verb-agreement, 125f.; voice,I29-3r; negation, xi, r3t 4 Uralo-Altaic, r t Urdu, r56 Uygur (ujgurskij),term, 44: genetic,46; script, 45; vowel harmony,65f. Uygur, Karakhanid,45f. Uygur, Old. 45 Uygur, Yellow (Mongolian).55 Uygur, Yeflow (Turkic), 42, 43,44 Uzbek (uzbekskij),gen€tic,43. 46; status, 16,5rf.;dialecls,25.43;contaclwilh
3I3 Tadzhik, 9, 4r, 4?, 66, I?7f.; loan from Persian,48, 84: contactwith Karakaf pak, 5l; with Kirgiz, 54; vowel system. 64, 65f.; syllablestructure,stress,67: morphology,?2, 75, 76: inferential.??; relativeclause.8z Vakh (lranian) (vaxanskij),genetic,I6r. 165;status.r65f.;phonology,I66f.; subnominalmorphology.t7t:
3r4
Language Index Yiddish (evrejskij),term,4 I86f.; genetic' r84: status,8,9,t5,2?, It6, 187 inf,uenceofolhcr languagps,lE4f.; orthography, 32, l8? Yukagir (iukagirskij),g€netic'Io' !r' 239' r58; status,4, 258;phonology,morPhology, word order, z58li nonfinitesubordination, 2fu; focus' 260l; text, 275f'
Yupik (Eskimo language),seeEskimo Yurak SamoYedic,s€e N€nets Zan (zanskij), r98, seearso Mingrelian' Svan Zebaki,16r, 165 Zarr.galian, r41 Zyryan, see Komiczyryan)
S U B J E C TI N D E X Authors listed in the References are not further indexedhere,For topics relaling to individual languages,the LanguageIndex should also be consulted,elpeciallyfor more sociologicaltopics. Scmicolonsseparatercferencesin differentchapte$. All refercnces are to pa8es.
4.O, 29a284 A.S.S.R.,27, 29f.i 28tf. active(aktivnyj) conitruction, 224 Ajni, Sadriddin, r64 antipassive,225-?i 248f.,256 aspect,?6,86; r25, r27f., 133f.;156,r82; 2r5,2r1, t2r, 224, 225-7; 268 aspiration,52; 156,r6j, rSoi 2q, z6j attribute agrcement,jjf,: t2r; rSoi 2rrf.: 25r, 256 autonomy,local, 2t, 29-3t: 2E2-5 bilingualism,9, 251, 28, 32, 35-?; 3or birth-ratc, 16; 3or biuniqueness, 66 Buddhism,18; 47, 56; 160 case,74f.;rr9f., r28f.i 167, r6g-12i 2og-tt;246f., 2St, zSS,258,263,268: seeaiso ergativity cas€,locative,24 rrgf.: 2ro,235f. census,2, 28, 36 census(r97o), xiii: r,2-9 passim,28:, 279-85 c€nsus(r9?9), xiii; 3oI-3 Christianity,42, 49; t6o, t64;272f. clitics, 156, 172-1 passim,t93 Codex Cumanicus, 45 consonantharmony, 49, 63f., 70 consonantsystems,complex,14; 2oo-3; 244, 255 coreferenceacross clauses,82f., 84; r52f.i 252, 2561.,26c, z1tf, Crisp, S., 226 culture, tfaditional, rzf,, 33i Cyrillic alphabet,23, 321; 55, j6; r4jl, 162, 164, r88; t9g, 2661.,2j4:, 2E6f,
definire adjectives, 143f. definitearticle,sumxed,I19; r8I, r8?f. deportation,27, 30; 50, 56; I84 dial€ctand language,6-8, 8t'.,24tl direct object,73,8of.; t251.;t26-3o passrirr; r52, 168, r7g, rjr, r8r:226i 251, 2561,25E-6r passim,268:se also crgativity directionalprefixes,2rJ, 2r5, 2r8f. doubt on veracityof statement,t54 education, language of, 22, 26,27-9 pasr:'',36 €jectiv€s, 162, r8o: r99, 2oo; 244 ergativity, r4i r3of.; r55, 169,r?3-?, I8I; 2og, 2l:'1., 2t6f,, 2t71.,2t8, 22t, 223-j, 228: 247, 248-So, 255f., 26t, 264 ethnic group, 2f. ethnic group and language, z, 4-4 expansion,Russian,r9f. Firdousi, 163 focus,?7, 79f.; r22, r24, t:'t;26of. geDder,seenoun class gencticclassification, 9Fr! glottal stop, ro9, r ro, r r?; r99, 2oo,2o3; 243 gradatio[, consonant/vowel,rr3-r7, t 18 Gyarmathi,Semuel,94f. Halotti Beszed, rc1 llliE-SvitiI, V. M., r I pronouns,?512I I; 269 inclusive/exclusive incorporation,244. 245, zjof,, 251 indirect speech,r53f,
sub.iet Index inferential,?7; 178;seea./soindirect spe€ch,presuppositional iDtensiveconsonants, 2oo, 2o3 Islam, 16, r?f., 23; 4H; 160, 164 Jakovlev,I. Ja., 48 Judaism,47, 49i t64, t84-j passim Kraleninnikov, S. P., z4of. fabialisation,xvii; t67:,2or. 2021' 255, 274 language,in t97o c-ensus, 3-5 languageloyalty, 15,35-? languageof the U.S.S.R.,8f, languagepoliry, Soviet, xi: jf,, 8f,, 22-g languagepolicy, Tsarist,xi; 7f., 2rf. lateralconsonants,zor, zo:'; 243, 244 Latin alphabet, 23, 32, 33: 48, 56; t62, r54 166, r88 length,temary, xvii; roo, rt5-r7 literacy, r 6f., 2t, 32f. literary language,25 Mahmud al-Kashgari,45 Mesrop, r?9; 198f. morphologicaftypology, nt; 4t, 1r-4: rf7-r9r r48, r5rf.. r67-72,,172-17passtrn, r8o, r82;246, 258f,,262, 264t. N.O., 29; 284f. nasafisation,xvii; jr; 2o4, 2os nationality, Jecethnic'group neg4tion,r3r-4, r37i 2r2f., 22o| 247,217 neologisms,34 35 noun class,14;i3f.; lr8; 156, t68, t?o, rSoi 2o7J, 2r31, 2r8, 228f.i246f.,262, 263-5 passim, 269 numbers,146;212 [umeral classifiers, 269 obj€ct-agreement, n5t., rz7, r3o: 173-6 patsim; 2t3-tg passini 247,255f., 263-5 official language,22, 3r palatalisation. xviil 34 63; r85i 2orf.,2o4: 243, 274 partitive, r26Ji r48 passive,8o; r2f3t; r78, r82:,2r4 2So Peders€n,H., I I
3r6 pharyngalisation,xvii: 52: 166:2or, 2o3, 205 phasingout of languages,23, 26L, 28 polysynrhesis, 2I 8-22: 257 possession, ?5,78f.i r19, r2r; r48; r68f. passim,r:.t, rSIi: 216,222;255,258, 263, 265 possession, alienable/inalienable, 79; 222 presuppositional,r??fpaooouns,Nostralic, I r: 4o[. Protestantism,17; 14? reffexive75; r85, l9o; 219, 233 relativeclaus€,8rf.,8j:r23, |3'f.: rj2, r77t 2rr, 227-30,249 rhotics,xvii; t 80; 24r Roman Catholicism,r 7; r4z Rudaki,r63 Russianlanguageinstructiol, 2tf.. 28, 32 S.S.R.,se€Union Republic Saadi, 163 Sajnovics,Jdnos,94f, sandhi, r 17; 267f.,269 spnchbund, n sta[dard languagp, 24f. statusof lanSuage,!5-18, 27-9, 3r str€ss,67; r8o stump{ompound, 188 subject,83, 88; t261.;t7j; 224, 225,226: 252, 2561.,25t*6r passin, 27rf.: se a/so ergativity subject-agreemcnt, ?5f., 80; r25, rj2f.; 173-7 passimi 2I3-rE passim,22r, 224 7 Fssim, 24o,24j, 2SS-7.263-5. 21O,27| subordination,34;48, 84f.: t 34-6; rE3, t88: 2r3, 22j-8; 242, 2'rf ., 2Sj, 265 subordination,nonfinite, r2f.; 77, 8r-4: 123f.,t34-6 passimi rj2l, r77, r83. tgl; 22o, 227-!0; 252, 256f., 25gf., 26Ef., 27O-2 sumx order, 75; l2o syllablestructure,67, ?r; roo, llo, rr3-r? pasim: z@: 244 258, 266, 267 syntacticcalque,34f.; 47t, 48. 84f.; 97, r24; r57, r77f,, t8S tense,r2o, r33i 172-7passifi,t82;2t5, 22o: 259, 265, 27O tone, 14 roof., r 48-Sr..262,2j3, 2j4
Subject Index tongueroot advanc€ment/retraction, 70 transcription.xii, xvif. transliteration,xiif.i 286, 288, 289 lypology. r r-r4
3r7 I r8; r68. r70, r?3, r76. r?8, r85i 2o3f.. 2o7; 244, 262\ 263 vowef harmony, t4 59-66,6j-1r,72: rc{. I ro-rj; 244-6, 25o vowcl systems,simple, 205-7
Union Reptrbfic,Sf,,21f., 29;282t, ventricularbands,205 verb classes,74 voicelesssonants,Io3, I Io; 25j vowel alternation(nonharmonic),74, r ro,
word order, t2i 77-80,83;92f., ro9, r2o-4 r48, r?8f., r83: 2rz, 222,227j passimi 25t, 2 59, 265, 269 written fanguage,18,2r, 22-j, 2H
