Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T02:39:04.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nostratic Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

A. Treloar
A. Treloar*
Affiliation:
The University of New England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Nostratic Theory was first proposed by the Danish scholar, H. Pedersen, at the beginning of this century. He had observed certain similarities between Indo-European and Semitic and saw these two families of languages as belonging to our territory around mare nostrum and hence his name for this group.

Speakers of Finno-Ugrian languages were surprised that Indo-Europeanists after working on the comparative philology of IE should turn next to Semitic, but the interest in Arabic as the preserver of Greek mathematics and science and Hebrew as the language of the Old Testament inevitably suggested that Semitic had an interest for Philology as well as Theology. But there is a closer resemblance of Finno-Ugrian to Indo-European than there is between Indo-European and Semitic. Moreover, Finno-Ugrian has been in contact with and a close neighbour to the North of IE since prehistoric times. Burrow lists over 20 words of Sanskrit origin borrowed by Finno-Ugrian languages in the prehistoric period when both families of languages were in contact probably in south Russia. Strangely enough they include the Sanskrit svásar- ‘sister’ giving Finnish sisar, Mordvin sazor ‘younger sister’, Cheremis suzar id. where the survival of the sibilant is a clear indication of borrowing before the Aryan branch split into Indian and Iranian with the characteristic Iranian sound change to h as in Av. xvanhar-. It is surprising to find ‘sister’ among these loan words.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 33 , November 1999 , pp. 99 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agesthialingom, S.A Grammar of Old Tamil with special reference to Patirruppattu. Annamalainagar 1979.Google Scholar
Beames, S.A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. New Delhi 1970.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, C.Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Olms, Hildesheim 1966.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K. und Delbrück, B., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indo-germanischen Sprachen. 5 vols in 9, Berlin und Leipzig, 1930, >2e Bearbeitung.Google Scholar
Burrow, T.The Sanskrit Language. Faber, London, 1955 and later editions.Google Scholar
Caldwell, R.A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages. New Delhi, 3rd ed., 1974.Google Scholar
Cartmill, M. ‘The Gift of Gab’. Discover. November 1998, 56–64.Google Scholar
Chatterji, S.K.The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. 2 vols., London, 1970.Google Scholar
Collinder, B.A Handbook of the Uralic Languages. 3 vols., Hamburg. 2nd rev. ed. 1977.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge U.P. 1987.Google Scholar
Csoma de Koros, A.Grammar of the Tibetan Language. Budapest, 1984.Google Scholar
Daniels, P.T. and Bright, W., The World's Writing Systems. Oxford U.P., 1996.Google Scholar
Décsy, G.Sprachherkunfisforschung. Band i, Wiesbaden, 1977.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, D.C. and Pullum, G.K., Handbook of Amazonian Languages. 3 vols, (to be continued). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam, 1986-1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.The Languages of Australia. Cambridge U.P., 1980.Google Scholar
Dolgopolsky, A.The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Cambridge, 1998.Google Scholar
Elcock, W.D.The Romance Languages. Faber, London, 1960 (4* impr. 1967).Google Scholar
Foley, W.A.The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge U.P., 1986.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J.Hethitisches Elementarbuch. 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1960.Google Scholar
Gabelentz G., von der. Chinesische Grammatik. Berlin, 1953.Google Scholar
Gardiner, A.Egyptian Grammar. 3rd ed. rev. Griffith Institute, Oxford, 1957 (repr. 1982).Google Scholar
Goddard, I. and Bragdon, K., Native Writings in Massachusett. 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1988.Google Scholar
Illič-Svityč, V.M.Opyt Sravnenija nostratičeskikh Jazykov. 3 vols., Nauka, Moscow, 1971-.Google Scholar
Jensen, H.Altarmenische Grammatik. Winter, Heidelberg, 1959.Google Scholar
Kellogg, S.H.A Grammar of the Hindi Language. Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1st Indian ed., 1972.Google Scholar
Krause, W. and Thomas, W., Tocharisches Elementarbuch. 2 vols., Winter, Heidelberg, 1960-1964.Google Scholar
Lambton, A.K.S.Persian Grammar. Cambridge U.P., 1953 (repr. 1976).Google Scholar
Launey, M.Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques. L'Harmattan, Paris, 1978 (to be continued).Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C. and Muysken, P., Mixed Categories—Nominalization in Quechua. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1988.Google Scholar
Lesiau, W.Comparative Dictionary of Ge'ez. Wiesbaden, 1987.Google Scholar
McAlpin, D.W.Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications. Philadelphia, 1981.Google Scholar
Mallory, J.P.In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Thames and Hudson, London 1989 (repr. 1992).Google Scholar
Miller, R.A.Japanese and the other Altaic Languages. University of Chicago Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Platts, J.T.A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language. Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1967.Google Scholar
Poebel, A.Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik. Rostock, Selbstverlag, 1923.Google Scholar
Steever, S.B.The Dravidian Languages. London/New York, 1998.Google Scholar
Tschenkéli, K.Einführung in die georgische Sprache. 2 vols., Amirani Verlag, Zürich, 1958.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M. L.The Sumerian Language. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen, 1984.Google Scholar
Tucker, T.G.Introduction to the Natural History of Language. London, Blackie, 1908.Google Scholar
Wright, W.A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 vols., 3rd ed., Cambridge U.P., 1955.Google Scholar
Zvelebil, K.V.Dravidian Linguistics: An Introduction. Pondicherry, 1990.Google Scholar