http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(367)T...0Nostratic.pdf
(La branche nord afrasienne comprend le berbere,l'egyptien et le semitique)
Cette constatation parrait assez logique vu que la branche afrasienne vieille de 10.000 ans est la plus ancienne branche nostratique,alors que la branche altaique(turc,mongol,tunguz)est vieille de 3000 ans et la branche indo-europeene(français,hindi,armenien,grec,bengali...) est elle vieille de 6000 ans.
cad la branche afrasienne est celle qui a le mieux conservee les caracteristiques nostratiques originelles.
Voila le chapitre traitant la morphologie du proto nostratique(lire pages 9-10 du papier)et pour une personne familiere avec les langues afrasiennes la similarite saute aux yeux:
Voila maintenant un exemple semitique du passage en rouge.
proto nostratique/semitique(akkadian)/proto indo-europeen
1.
Independent pronouns;
1st person singular: proto nostratique *Ãke-na/proto semite an-aku (arabe a-na,akkadien an-aku) proto indo-europeen egho/mi (grec egho,germanique ik,persan man,français je....)
2nd person singular: *sÃ-na/an-ta (arabe an-ta,akkadien a-ta) proto indo-europeen se/te (grec es,persan to,français tu...)
1st person plural: *naHe-na/na-hnu (arabe na-hnu,akkadien ni-nu) proto indo-europeen wi/ni(français nous...)
2nd person plural: ?
2. Forms of the subject of verbs:
1st singular: proto nostratique *a-/proto semite a- (arabe a-lbis,akkadien a-lbush) proto indo-europeenweso =je (me) vetis
2nd singular: " " "*ta-/" " " ta-(arabe ta-lbis,akkadien ta-lbush) " " " ie weses =tu (te) vetis
1st plural: " " "*na-/" " " na- (arabe na-lbis,akkadien na-lbush) " " " ie weson =nous (nous) vetons
2nd plural: ?
*=voire dans la page 3 de ce papier
http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(202)T...0nostratic.pdf
,la racine lislakh du nombre 2.6 ou on decouvre que la racine indo-europeene pour vetement,se vetire est "wes" qui correspond a l'afrasien "wbs" qui elle aussi veut dire se vetire
egyptien:"hbs"
semitique:"lbsh"(arabe lbs,akkadien lbsh)
berbere:"lsh"
(La branche nord afrasienne comprend le berbere,l'egyptien et le semitique)
Cette constatation parrait assez logique vu que la branche afrasienne vieille de 10.000 ans est la plus ancienne branche nostratique,alors que la branche altaique(turc,mongol,tunguz)est vieille de 3000 ans et la branche indo-europeene(français,hindi,armenien,grec,bengali...) est elle vieille de 6000 ans.
cad la branche afrasienne est celle qui a le mieux conservee les caracteristiques nostratiques originelles.
Voila le chapitre traitant la morphologie du proto nostratique(lire pages 9-10 du papier)et pour une personne familiere avec les langues afrasiennes la similarite saute aux yeux:
Morphology
Illic-Svityc never published his views on Nostratic morphology during his lifetime.
However, his notes were gathered together and published by Vladimir Dybo in 2004 in the
proceedings of the Pécs Centennial Conference, edited by Irén Hegedus and Paul Sidwell.
According to Illic-Svityc, Proto-Nostratic was an inflected language, apparently of the accusative
type. It had both nouns and adjectives. Nominal declension was only available in the singular.
Adjectives were declined only if they were substantivized and used independently. Illic-Svityc
reconstructs the nominal paradigm as follows:
1.
Nominative-accusative: *-Ø (zero); used for subject and unmarked object;
2.
Marked object: *-mÃ; used if the object had to be topicalized in the sentence if the possibility
existed for an ambiguous interpretation of the phrase and if a definite object was indicated;
3.
Genitive (connective): *-n; possessive, etc.;
4.
Instrumental: *-tÃ;
5.
Local cases: lative *-"a; ablative *-da; and essive (locative) *-n.
Plurality was primarily indicated by a special marker: *-t. Illic-Svityc also reconstructs
an oblique plural marker *-j, though he notes that this is less certain.
Illic-Svityc reconstructs the following types of personal pronouns:
1.
Independent pronouns — specifically for indicating the pronominal subject;
2.
Forms of the subject standing by a verb, primarily in a position preceding a noun;
3.
Forms of the direct object of a verb, primarily in a position preceding a noun after the form
of the subject;
4.
Possessive forms next to nouns, primarily in a position after a noun.
Only the first and second person singular and plural pronouns were represented in these four
types.
Illic-Svityc reconstructs the following stems for these types:
1.
Independent pronouns; these stems could be extended by a facultative emphatic element
*-na:
1st person singular: *Ãke-na;
2nd person singular: *sÃ-na;
1st person plural: *naHe-na;
2nd person plural: ?
2. Forms of the subject of verbs:
1st singular: *a-;
2nd singular: *ta-;
1st plural: *na-;
2nd plural: ?
3. Forms of the direct object:
1st singular: *mi-;
2nd singular: *k-;
1st plural: ?
2nd plural: ?
4. Possessive forms:
1st singular: *mi-;
2nd singular: *si-;
1st plural: *mÃn;
2nd plural: *sÃn.
Illic-Svityc also posits the following demonstrative stems (fulfilling the function of 3rd
person pronouns): *ta-, *šä-, *mu-; the following interrogative stems: *"o ‘who?’, *mi ‘what?’;
and the following interrogative-relative stems: *ja, *na (?).
Illic-Svityc’s views on verb morphology were not as well developed. He reconstructs an
imperative as well as the following two opposing verb categories: (1) The first designated the
action itself (transferred to the object in the case of transitive verbs). This was used with the
subject pronoun and (in the case of transitive verbs) with the object pronoun. Here, the nominal
direct object was the marked form, and the verb stem coincided with the infinitive. (2) The other
verb form was a derived noun ending in *-a. It indicated the state of the subject. If the verb
were transitive, it contained only the prefix of the subject, and, in this case, the object noun could
not be marked and thus always appeared in the subjective-objective case. Finally, Illic-Svityc
suggests that there existed a temporal (or aspectual) distinction between these two basic verb
categories, which was probably realized with the help of deictic particles of pronominal origin.
Dolgopolsky’s views on Proto-Nostratic morphology differ from those of Illic-Svityc.
According to Dolgopolsky, Proto-Nostratic was a highly analytic language. Dolgopolsky notes
that Illic-Svityc, although recognizing the analytical status of many grammatical elements in
Proto-Nostratic, still believed that some of them were agglutinated suffixes, specifically, the
marker of oblique cases *-n (= Dolgopolsky’s *nu ‘of, from’), the formative of marked
accusative *-m[Ã] (= Dolgopolsky’s *mA), the plural marker *-NA (= Dolgopolsky’s *n¯
[ä], used
to mark collectivity and plurality), and several others. Dolgopolsky points out that Illic-Svityc’s
position is unacceptable inasmuch as the Proto-Nostratic formants in question still preserve the
following traces of their former analytic status: (1) mobility within a sentence (a feature of
separate words rather than suffixes); (2) the fact that several particles are still analytic in some of
10
the Nostratic descendant languages; and (3) the fact that Proto-Nostratic etyma with grammatical
and derivational function are sometimes identical with “autosemantic words”.
Though Bomhard mostly agrees with Dolgopolsky that Proto-Nostratic was originally an
analytic language, he maintains that, in its latest stage of development, several of the particles
were beginning to develop into bound relational markers.
Bomhard devotes two chapters in his book to Proto-Nostratic morphology. In the first
chapter (Chapter 16), he presents the evidence, while, in the following chapter (Chapter 17), he
attempts a systematic reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic morphology.
Illic-Svityc never published his views on Nostratic morphology during his lifetime.
However, his notes were gathered together and published by Vladimir Dybo in 2004 in the
proceedings of the Pécs Centennial Conference, edited by Irén Hegedus and Paul Sidwell.
According to Illic-Svityc, Proto-Nostratic was an inflected language, apparently of the accusative
type. It had both nouns and adjectives. Nominal declension was only available in the singular.
Adjectives were declined only if they were substantivized and used independently. Illic-Svityc
reconstructs the nominal paradigm as follows:
1.
Nominative-accusative: *-Ø (zero); used for subject and unmarked object;
2.
Marked object: *-mÃ; used if the object had to be topicalized in the sentence if the possibility
existed for an ambiguous interpretation of the phrase and if a definite object was indicated;
3.
Genitive (connective): *-n; possessive, etc.;
4.
Instrumental: *-tÃ;
5.
Local cases: lative *-"a; ablative *-da; and essive (locative) *-n.
Plurality was primarily indicated by a special marker: *-t. Illic-Svityc also reconstructs
an oblique plural marker *-j, though he notes that this is less certain.
Illic-Svityc reconstructs the following types of personal pronouns:
1.
Independent pronouns — specifically for indicating the pronominal subject;
2.
Forms of the subject standing by a verb, primarily in a position preceding a noun;
3.
Forms of the direct object of a verb, primarily in a position preceding a noun after the form
of the subject;
4.
Possessive forms next to nouns, primarily in a position after a noun.
Only the first and second person singular and plural pronouns were represented in these four
types.
Illic-Svityc reconstructs the following stems for these types:
1.
Independent pronouns; these stems could be extended by a facultative emphatic element
*-na:
1st person singular: *Ãke-na;
2nd person singular: *sÃ-na;
1st person plural: *naHe-na;
2nd person plural: ?
2. Forms of the subject of verbs:
1st singular: *a-;
2nd singular: *ta-;
1st plural: *na-;
2nd plural: ?
3. Forms of the direct object:
1st singular: *mi-;
2nd singular: *k-;
1st plural: ?
2nd plural: ?
4. Possessive forms:
1st singular: *mi-;
2nd singular: *si-;
1st plural: *mÃn;
2nd plural: *sÃn.
Illic-Svityc also posits the following demonstrative stems (fulfilling the function of 3rd
person pronouns): *ta-, *šä-, *mu-; the following interrogative stems: *"o ‘who?’, *mi ‘what?’;
and the following interrogative-relative stems: *ja, *na (?).
Illic-Svityc’s views on verb morphology were not as well developed. He reconstructs an
imperative as well as the following two opposing verb categories: (1) The first designated the
action itself (transferred to the object in the case of transitive verbs). This was used with the
subject pronoun and (in the case of transitive verbs) with the object pronoun. Here, the nominal
direct object was the marked form, and the verb stem coincided with the infinitive. (2) The other
verb form was a derived noun ending in *-a. It indicated the state of the subject. If the verb
were transitive, it contained only the prefix of the subject, and, in this case, the object noun could
not be marked and thus always appeared in the subjective-objective case. Finally, Illic-Svityc
suggests that there existed a temporal (or aspectual) distinction between these two basic verb
categories, which was probably realized with the help of deictic particles of pronominal origin.
Dolgopolsky’s views on Proto-Nostratic morphology differ from those of Illic-Svityc.
According to Dolgopolsky, Proto-Nostratic was a highly analytic language. Dolgopolsky notes
that Illic-Svityc, although recognizing the analytical status of many grammatical elements in
Proto-Nostratic, still believed that some of them were agglutinated suffixes, specifically, the
marker of oblique cases *-n (= Dolgopolsky’s *nu ‘of, from’), the formative of marked
accusative *-m[Ã] (= Dolgopolsky’s *mA), the plural marker *-NA (= Dolgopolsky’s *n¯
[ä], used
to mark collectivity and plurality), and several others. Dolgopolsky points out that Illic-Svityc’s
position is unacceptable inasmuch as the Proto-Nostratic formants in question still preserve the
following traces of their former analytic status: (1) mobility within a sentence (a feature of
separate words rather than suffixes); (2) the fact that several particles are still analytic in some of
10
the Nostratic descendant languages; and (3) the fact that Proto-Nostratic etyma with grammatical
and derivational function are sometimes identical with “autosemantic words”.
Though Bomhard mostly agrees with Dolgopolsky that Proto-Nostratic was originally an
analytic language, he maintains that, in its latest stage of development, several of the particles
were beginning to develop into bound relational markers.
Bomhard devotes two chapters in his book to Proto-Nostratic morphology. In the first
chapter (Chapter 16), he presents the evidence, while, in the following chapter (Chapter 17), he
attempts a systematic reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic morphology.
proto nostratique/semitique(akkadian)/proto indo-europeen
1.
Independent pronouns;
1st person singular: proto nostratique *Ãke-na/proto semite an-aku (arabe a-na,akkadien an-aku) proto indo-europeen egho/mi (grec egho,germanique ik,persan man,français je....)
2nd person singular: *sÃ-na/an-ta (arabe an-ta,akkadien a-ta) proto indo-europeen se/te (grec es,persan to,français tu...)
1st person plural: *naHe-na/na-hnu (arabe na-hnu,akkadien ni-nu) proto indo-europeen wi/ni(français nous...)
2nd person plural: ?
2. Forms of the subject of verbs:
1st singular: proto nostratique *a-/proto semite a- (arabe a-lbis,akkadien a-lbush) proto indo-europeenweso =je (me) vetis
2nd singular: " " "*ta-/" " " ta-(arabe ta-lbis,akkadien ta-lbush) " " " ie weses =tu (te) vetis
1st plural: " " "*na-/" " " na- (arabe na-lbis,akkadien na-lbush) " " " ie weson =nous (nous) vetons
2nd plural: ?
*=voire dans la page 3 de ce papier
http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(202)T...0nostratic.pdf
,la racine lislakh du nombre 2.6 ou on decouvre que la racine indo-europeene pour vetement,se vetire est "wes" qui correspond a l'afrasien "wbs" qui elle aussi veut dire se vetire
egyptien:"hbs"
semitique:"lbsh"(arabe lbs,akkadien lbsh)
berbere:"lsh"
Commentaire