Articles
New data on the etymology of the Ainu word kamuy
Alexander Akulov, Tresi Nonno
Previously it was shown that Ainu is a relative to the Sino-Tibetan family. The Ainu word kamuy is a compound of two roots: ka and muy. The component ka correlates with the Proto-Sino-Tibetan *kăŋH – “tie”, and *Kat – “adhere” (in historical Ainu exists the word ka “thread” “string”). The component muy correlates with the Proto-Sino-Tibetan *meɫ – “face” (in historical Ainu exists the word mau “state” / “condition”). Thus, ka means “tie” / “double”; muy means “state” / “figure” / “condition”. The word ka-muy literally means “double figure” / “double nature” / “two figures” / two natures”. Two natures mean: masculine and feminine natures, i.e.: kamuy is somebody/something that combines masculine and feminine natures. Kamuy is an androgyne. In the case of kamuy the ability to join two natures is an indicator / a measure of divinity. In other words: a deity is as deity as resembles an androgyne.
Keywords: kamuy; etymology; cultural anthropology; Ainu; Ainu language; Ainu religion
Some lexical correspondences between the Ainu languageand the Sino-Tibetan family
Alexander Akulov, Tresi Nonno
In 2016 through an analysis of grammar has been shown that Ainu is a relative of the Sino-Tibetan languages. Although grammar is more important than lexis, but lexical similarities are also very important, so the current paper is aimed to demonstrate some lexical correlations between Ainu and Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) / Proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB). In this article are shown 34 reconstructed lexical items of Late Jōmon Ainu (LJA) that can be correlated with certain lexical items of PST or PTB. The most illustrative correlations are the following: “child” LJA *po ~ PST *pōk / *poj, copula / “to be” LJA *ne ~ PTB *nay, “deer” LJA *yuk ~ PTB *d-yuk;“to dwell”LJA *ʔun ~ PTB *ʔum; “face” LJA *nan ~ PST ŋār, “to go” LJA *paye ~ PTB *pay, LJA “to be high”, “elevation” – *ri ~ PTB “mountain” – *ri; “I” LJA *ku ~ PTB *ka; “woman” LJA *mat ~ PTB *ma.
Keywords: Ainu language; Sino-Tibetan family; comparative linguistics; Ainu-Minoan stock
Akulov_Nonno_Ainu-Sino-Tibetan
Think pieces
Etruscan is related to Hurro-Urartian
Alexander Akulov
Etruscan is a quite close relative of Hurro-Urartian languages. Etruscan and Hurro-Urartian have no prefixes, and all grammatical meanings are expressed by suffixes. The present active voice in Etruscan is often expressed by an unmarked root, and in Hurrian the present tense is morphologically unmarked. In some forms the present tense active in Etruscan is marked by the –e ending, that correlates with the Hurrian –ēd- / -ed- suffix that is sometimes considered as a marker of the imperfective aspect. The etruscan jussive marker –a correlates with Hurrian markers of jussive –en / –an. “One” Etruscan thu ~ Hurrian šukko / šuki; “two” Etruscan tsal ~ Hurrian šini; “three” Etruscan ki ~ Hurrian kike; “eight” Etruscan ketsp ~ Hurrian kiri/kira; “to be” Etruscan am ~ Hurrian mann; “to give” Etruscan al ~ Hurrian ar; “mother” Etruscan ati ~ Hurrian ašte “wife”, ašti “woman”; “daughter” Etruscan – sek/sekh ~ Hurrian *šala.
Keywords: Etruscan language; Hurro-Urartian languages; comparative linguistics
Hurro-Urartian are not Dene-Caucasian
Alexander Kitaev
The idea that Hurro-Urartian languages seem to be a part of the North Caucasian family was popular until 2000s. Within the North Caucasian family Hurro-Urartian were considered as closely related to the East Caucasian branch. This idea was shared by various scholars, including S. A. Starostin. Since 2010 the representatives of the Moscow school of comparative linguistics started to reject this idea and proposed to interpret Hurro-Urartian as a separate family within the Dene-Caucasian macrofamily. In 2008 J. D. Bengtson published materials for a comparative grammar of the Dene-Caucasian languages. From this we can see the Dene-Cuacasian character of Hattic and even Sumerian, but not Hurro-Urartian. The grammar of Hurro-Urartian is not Dene-Caucasian at all.
Keywords: comparative linguistics; grammatical criteria of classification; Hurro-Urartian languages; Sino-Caucasian (Dene-Caucasian) languages; Para-Nostratic languages; methodology of science
The actual troubles of comparative linguistics (Part 3)
Alexander Kitaev
The so-called Nostratic theory proposed by the Moscow school of comparative linguistics and some other groups is an illustration of possible consequences of the blind usage of the lexical / etymological comparisons with ignoring of the grammatical criteria. Actually, we have a heap of different stocks. It is possible to reconstruct many common stems, but not common grammar. In other words: we can reconstruct this grammar, and we can suppose that it has been changed more quickly, in a rather more serious manner than vocabulary, but such scenario is fantastic and unreal. Thus, we should try to find another explanation of the Nostratic macrofamily and only after that we can find traces of more distant relationship.
Keywords: comparative linguistics; grammatical criteria of classification; Nostratic languages; Para-Nostratic languages; methodology of science
Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics 