Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Volume 1. Grammar

344 Pages·2000·22.181 MB·

by  Joseph H. Greenberg

JOSEPH H. GREENBERG

INYI0L

EUROPEAN

AND ITS

CLOSEST
RELATIVES

The Eurasiatic Language Family
“This is a very important book by a man whose work has
been central to discussions of comparative linguistics
throughout the second half of the twentieth century. The
position of Indo-European among the world’s languages
in prehistoric times is one of the two or three cutting-edge
issues in historical linguistics today. Greenberg not only
presents new material but organizes familiar material in a
clear and provocative way, one that will stimulate debate in
the popular and scientific press and further research among
specialists.”
—Carol Justus, University of Texas, Austin
Books of Related Interest
On Language
Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg
Edited by Keith Denning and Suzanne Kemmer
1990
Language in the Americas
Joseph H. Greenberg
1987

ISBN 0-8047-3812-2
L
Stanford University Press
WWW.SUp.org a‘h,mm.l
Indo-European
and Its Closest Relatives

Volume 1. Grammar

Indo-European
and Its Closest Relatives
The Eurasiatic Language Family

Volume 1. Grammar
Joseph H. Greenberg
=
Stanford University Press
Stanford, California 2000
Stanford University Press
Stanford, California
©2000 by the Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior University
Printed in the United States of America
CIP data appear at the end of the book
1o my wife, Selma

Preface
The present work is the first volume of a projected two-volume work
on the Eurasiatic language family. It is devoted to the grammatical
evidence; the second volume will present the lexical items that are, in
fact, every whit as extensive and cogent as the grammatical evidence.
This grammatical evidence is quite sufficient in itself to estab-
lish the validity of the Eurasiatic family. I have chosen to present it
first for several reasons. One of these is that in spite of the frequent
affirmation of the importance of such evidence, it is almost lacking
in present-day attempts to delineate broader and deeper linguistic
stocks. The second major reason is that, despite all the facts regard-
ing the presentation of evidence for linguistic stocks in my previous
work, the myth persists that I only take into account vocabulary
evidence.
A third reason is the inherent interest and fascination of this
type of linguistic evidence in its own right. In particular, gram-
matical comparison of related forms in stocks of chronological depth
provides rich material for diachronic typological study, both of the
earlier stages of grammaticalization and of the later stages of the
history of categories. Here typological and genetic studies are mu-
tually fruitful. The study of later stages, leading in many instances
to functionless survival, lexicalization, and functional reinterpreta-
tion, at once informs diachronic typology and leads to the identifica-
tion of related forms in only distantly related languages whose basic
connection is reinforced by dynamic typological considerations.
viii PREFACE
In the course of the preparation of this work, which began at
least twenty years ago, I accumulated many indebtednesses that I
am pleased to acknowledge. First, I should mention the staff of
the Green Library Reference section at Stanford, whose helpfulness
and willingness to go to extraordinary lengths to excavate from the
Stanford library itself, or to procure and often reproduce materials
essential to the present study, I acknowledge with profound grati-
tude.
Of these I first mention the reference librarians proper. I note
here only those who were present during a major portion or all of the
time I was at work on the present volume. Without exception, the
many others, whose names are omitted for practical reasons, were
equally cheerful and helpful. |
Special gratitude is owed to Richard Fitchen, the director of
the Reference section. I should also like to thank, among others,
Eric Heath, Barry Hinman, Elisabeth Green, Kathryn Kerns, Rose
Adams, and Joanne Hoffman. Especially important was the great
service rendered by the Interlibrary Borrowing division, especially
Sonia Moss, its head, and Olga Katz. I am especially indebted
to John Rawlings, the linguistic and anthropological bibliographer
at Green Library, and to Wojciech Zalewski, who expended great
effort to obtain, on his collecting trips to Eastern Europe, doctoral
dissertations and other materials often very difficult or impossible to
obtain in this country. I would also like to express my indebtedness
to Norris Pope, the director of Stanford University Press, and Muriel
Bell, the editor of the Social Science division, for their help and their
facilitation of the publication of the present work.
A number of scholars read earlier drafts of particular chapters
of this manuscript and made valuable comments and criticism that
have been incorporated in the present volume. I mention here es-
pecially Vyacheslav Ivanov, Richard Dasher, Carol Justus, Allan
Bomhard, and Paul Kiparsky.
Finally, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Merritt Ruhlen,
who, with his unique combination of gifts, designed and typeset the
present volume, provided many critical comments, made the maps,
and saw it through the press.
J.H.G.