Table Of ContentMartine Robbeets/Hubert Cuyckens (edd.): Shared Grammaticalization.With special focus on
the Transeurasian languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion
Series Vol. 132), XIV, 360 pp.
Reviewed by Stefan Georg, University of Bonn
No
practitioner
of
the
language
sciences
will
need
to
be
reminded
that
the
study
of
grammaticalization
developed
into
one
of
the
most
prominent
fields
of
comparative
linguistics
over
the
past
two
decades.
Attitudes
toward
grammaticalization
vary,
with
some
hailing
it
as
nothing
less
than
the
cornerstone
of
a
new
theory
of
language
change
and
others
taking
more
cautious
positions.
The
latter,
while
acknowledging
the
phenomenon
and
its
importance
for
the
understanding
of
language
variation
and
change
as
such,
tend
to
warn
against
overemphasizing
it
at
the
expense
of
tried
and
proven
methods
of
describing
and
explaining
language
change
and
its
outcomes1.
This
fine
collection
brings
together
leading
practitioners
of
historical
linguistics,
many
of
whom
are
well
known
for
major
and
often
seminal
contributions
to
all
aspects
of
grammaticalization
(whether
within
a
"grammaticalization
theory"
framework
or
not),
under
the
general
scheme
of
"shared
grammaticalization"
-‐-‐
defined
in
the
opening
paragraph
of
the
editors'
introduction
(M.
Robbeets/H.
Cuyckens:
Towards
a
typology
of
shared
grammaticalization,
1-‐20)
in
a
very
clear
and
straightforward
way
as
"(...)
a
state
whereby
two
or
more
languages
have
the
source
and
the
target
of
a
grammaticalization
process
in
common".2
The
subtitle
of
the
volume
"With
special
focus
on
the
Transeurasian
languages"
prepares
the
reader
to
find
here
(mostly,
not
exclusively)
papers
dealing
with
one
or
several
of
the
"Altaic"
languages
(Turkic,
Mongolic,
Tungusic,
Korean,
and
Japanese).3
Most
of
the
papers
do
in
fact
deal
with
these
languages,
and
some
of
them
provide
very
valuable
and
welcome
insights
into
interesting
-‐-‐
and
sometimes
intriguing
-‐-‐
phenomena,
whether
in
the
narrower
context
of
grammaticalization
or
not.
It
goes
without
saying
that
it
will
not
be
possible
to
do
full
justice
to
all
the
fine
and
highly
instructive
papers
in
this
volume
here,
so
it
must
suffice
to
give
short
1
For
a
very
clear
and
convincing
-‐
and
much
less
polemical
than
the
title
might
lead
one
to
expect
-‐
argumentation
in
favour
of
a
sober
and
non-‐iconoclastic
use
of
the
concept
of
grammaticalization
cf.
Joseph
2004.
2
This
formulation,
clear
as
it
is,
may
attract
the
attention
of
some
observers,
since
it
raises
the
question,
whether
grammaticalization
can
be
regarded
as
a
"process"
in
the
first
place.
While
it
may
seem
to
be,
at
least
prima
facie,
counterintuitive
to
deprive
anything
which
can
be
defined
in
terms
of
a
"source"
and
an
"outcome/target"
of
the
label
"process",
Joseph
(2001)
argues
precisely
in
this
direction.
The
important
nuance
here
is,
of
course,
whether
"grammaticalization-‐as-‐process"
means
that
the
phenomena
described
by
this
term
constitute
(a)
unique
kind(s)
of
"processes",
which
bypass
(or
are
not
describable
in
terms
of)
well-‐known
and
well-‐understood
mechanisms
of
language
change.
Joseph's
answer
to
this
question
is
negative
(and
for
very
good
reasons).
If
a
particular
discussion
does
not
focus
on
this
subtle
(but
important)
distinction
between
the
two
uses
of
"process"
("a
grammaticalization
process
is
a
process
like
no
other"
and
"grammaticalization
is
the
outcome
of
diachronic
processes,
which
are
understandable
and
describable
in
terms
of
well-‐understood
mechanisms
of
language
change"),
there
is
of
course
no
need
to
avoid
the
"process"-‐metaphor
at
all
costs.
3
The
term
"Transeurasian"
is
obviously
meant
to
replace
the
time-‐honoured
name
"Altaic"
(which
is
reserved
by
some
authors
in
this
volume
for
the
grouping
-‐
whether
viewed
as
genetic
or
areal
in
nature
-‐
without
Korean
and/or
Japanese).
I
find
this
new
name
unnecessary
and
even
misleading,
and
would
not
advocate
that
it
be
used.
Linguists
not
particularly
familiar
with
the
language
map
of
Asia
will
be
directed
away
from
the
-‐
still
ongoing,
and
still
undecided
-‐
debate
on
the
validity
of
Altaic
(whether
in
its
"Micro"-‐
or
"Macro"-‐form),
and
may
easily
come
under
the
impression
that
everything
which
was
not
fine
with
"Altaic",
is
now
perfectly
in
order
in
"Transeurasian"
-‐
which
it
certainly
is
not.
Second,
the
term
bears
an
uncanny
(and
certainly
unwanted)
resemblance
to
(i.a.)
J.
Greenberg's
"Eurasiatic"
(a
giant
"lumping"
endeavour,
going
way
beyond
even
the
various
versions
of
"Nostratic").
And,
last
but
not
least,
I
see
little
reason
to
insert
the
syllable
"eur-‐"
into
a
term,
when
its
purpose
is
to
draw
attention
to
the
fact
that
a
language
grouping
(traditional
"Altaic"
-‐
Turkic,
Mongolic,
Tungusic),
which
has
(if
only
marginal
and
recent)
extensions
to
Europe,
is
now
augmented
by
two
languages/small
families
in
East
Asia.
characterizations
of
each
-‐
however,
in
one
case
some
more
words
are
in
order,
and,
I'm
afraid,
these
will
have
to
be
rather
critical.
After
the
editors'
introduction,
A.
Y.
Aikhenvald
opens
the
series
of
papers
with:
Areal
diffusion
and
parallelism
in
drift:
Shared
grammaticalization
patterns
(23
-‐
41).
On
the
basis
of
two
quite
different
linguistic
areas,
for
both
of
which
Aikhenvald
is
a
leading
expert
and
author
of
widely
acclaimed
grammars
(Northern
Arawakan
Tariana
in
contact
with
unrelated
Tucanoan
languages
in
Northern
Amazonia,
and
the
results
of
areal
influence
on
Manambu
(Ndu-‐Family,
Middle
Sepik
Area,
Papua-‐New
Guinea)
from
(unrelated)
Kwoma
and
related,
but
"long
disconnected"
Ambulas).
The
preliminary
hypotheses
(p.
25)
are
that,
in
a
contact
situation
between
unrelated
languages,
the
recipient
language
can
be
expected
to
acquire
traits
that
are
rather
unusual
for
the
family
it
belongs
to
("change
against
the
grain"),
whereas
the
second,
more
complicated
(and,
needless
to
say,
more
interesting)
situation
features
genealogically
related
languages,
which,
after
"long
separation",
may
show
"parallelism
in
drift",
by
which
their
"typological
unity
and
similarity"
will
get
reinforced.
One
example
of
such
a
"drift"
process
is
the
grammaticalization
of
a
lexical
verb
meaning
"put"
to
a
(bound)
directional
marker,
which
has
seemingly
happened
in
Manambu
and
Ambulas
independently.
In
the
Amazonian
area,
an
example
is
the
(again,
parallel,
since
the
languages
are
related
but
"long
separated")
development
of
a
verb
"to
stay"
into
a
durative
marker
in
Tariana
and
Piapoco,
which
(p.
37)
"maintain(s)
a
certain
uniformity
within
the
subgroup".
Had
the
author
left
it
at
that,
these
examples
could
well
be
taken
as
convincing
examples
that
"areal
diffusion"
will
indeed
more
likely
than
not
produce
"change
against
the
rain",
whereas
"parallelism
in
drift"
will
tend
to
level
out
the
typological
profile
of
a
language
family
(and,
to
take
this
one
step
further,
that
the
very
fact
of
the
genealogical
relationship
of
the
languages
involved
will,
in
some
enigmatic
way,
have
something
to
do
with
it).
This
is
in
essence
what
the
editors
of
this
volume
seem
to
read
in
Aikhenvald's
paper,
saying,
p.
13f,
that
Aikhenvald
"proposes
a
criterion
to
distinguish
contact-‐induced
grammaticalization
from
genealogically
motivated
grammaticalization".
Such
a
"criterion"
could,
in
the
hands
of,
say,
macrocomparativists
constantly
on
the
lookout
for
such
"shortcut"
criteria
for
determining
languages
as
related
when
other
methods
fail,
certainly
do
more
harm
than
good,
but
fortunately
this
is
not
what
Aikhenvald
proposes.
While
the
phenomena
discussed
are
of
course
valid
and
do
confirm
the
initially
formulated
expectations,
the
explanation
of
"parallel
drift"
is
by
no
means
easy,
and
Aikhenvald
is
at
pains
to
point
out
the
biggest
potential
pitfalls
of
jumping
to
conclusions
here,
neatly
summarized
as
(p.
38)
"But
can
we
exclude
some
prehistoric
or
ancient
contacts
between
the
populations
speaking
genetically
related
languages?
We
cannot."
And
another
caveat
is,
of
course,
that
the
features
under
discussion
"may
in
fact
have
been
present
in
the
proto-‐languages
and
may
well
be
interpretable
as
parallel
genetic
inheritance"
(ibid.)4.
The
theme
of
"Sapirian
drift"
is
of
course
already
present
here
(and
duly
mentioned
in
the
paper),
which
elegantly
opens
the
stage
for
B.
Joseph's
brilliant
study
Demystifying
drift.
A
variationist
account
(pp.
43
-‐
65).
Using
examples
from
Germanic
and
Indo-‐
Iranian,
he
goes
a
long
way
towards
removing
the
ominous
"invisible
hand"
(p.
43)
from
the
discussion
of
Edward
Sapir's
famous
"drift",
or
"independent
but
parallel
developments".
The
rationale
he
proposes
-‐
and
illustrates
with
a
rich
set
of
phonological
and
morphological
examples
-‐
is
largely
sociolinguistic
in
nature,
and
4
The
problem
can
only
be
to
(try
to)
decide
between
post-‐proto-‐language
contact
or
the
"going
underground"
of
inherited
features,
which
may
later
"bubble
up"
in
separated
languages
in
the
sense
of
Joseph
(this
volume,
p.
43,
63)
-‐
using
such
phenomena
for
phylum
recognition,
i.e.
for
an
attempt
to
justify
a
genealogical
grouping
in
the
first
place,
would
be
putting
the
horse
before
the
cart.
summarized
on
p.
63
as
(omissions
mine):
"There
was
a
variation
in
a
proto-‐language
(...)
and
the
variation
can
be
inherited
into
later
stages
as
continued
variations,
but
it
can
be
modified,
e.g.
generalized
(...),
or
it
can
be
"submerged",
e.g.
sociolinguistically
restricted,
for
a
while
before
re-‐surfacing,
'bubbling
up
to
the
surface'
(...)",
or,
shorter,
as
"parallel
resolutions
of
proto-‐language
variation"
(ibid.).
If
we
add,
as
Aikhenvald
implies,
intra-‐
branch
contacts
(which,
in
some
cases,
may
have
escaped
historical
records),
we
may
be
gradually
filling
up
a
toolbox
that
allows
us
to
deal
with
many,
if
not
most,
cases
of
"Sapirian
drift"
-‐-‐
without
mystical
"inherited
forces5".
B.
Heine
and
M.
Nomachi:
Contact-‐induced
replication:
Some
diagnostics
(67-‐100)
are
concerned
with
the
question
of
how
language
changes
may
be
identified
as
contact-‐
induced,
even
when
no
"form-‐meaning
units
and
no
phonetic
substance
are
involved"
(p.
68).
They
propose
a
series
of
"diagnostics"
(all
illustrated
by
ample,
and
mostly
well-‐
chosen,
examples),
none
of
which,
they
stress,
can
be
"in
itself
(...)
entirely
sufficient
to
'prove'
language
contact,
but
the
more
critical
criteria
apply,
the
stronger
the
case
for
contact-‐induced
grammatical
change"
(p.
71).
These
are:
Intertranslatability,
Genetic
patterning
(meaning
that
some
feature,
common
to
languages
A
and
B,
is
common
or
widespread
in
dialects
and/or
family
cousins
of
A,
but
isolated
in
B),
the
involvement
of
Rare
grammatical
categories
(admitted
to
be
a
rather
"relative
notion"),
Paired
structural
similarity
(i.
e.
shared
polysemy
patterns),
Demographic
variables
(the
restriction
of
certain
changes
to
speaker
groups,
for
which
contact
situations
are
more
frequent,
as
opposed
to
a
lack
(or
weaker
representation)
of
such
features
in
more
isolated
groups),
Differences
in
grammaticalization
("the
more
intensive
the
contact
is,
the
more
grammaticalized
the
contact-‐induced
elements
will
be"
(paraphrase
mine)),
Rare
grammaticalization.
The
last
criterion
is
said
to
help
in
determining
the
direction
of
the
transfer,
and
is
labelled
Degree
of
grammaticalization,
postulating
that
"If
two
languages
have
undergone
the
same
process
of
grammaticalization
as
a
result
of
language
contact
but
one
of
them
exhibits
a
high
and
the
other
a
low
degree
of
grammaticalization,
then
the
former
is
more
likely
to
have
provided
a
model
of
replication
than
the
other
way
round"
(p.
89f.).
This
catalogue
of
criteria
is
very
useful
(and
summarizes
many
of
the
criteria
that
have
been
and
are
routinely
-‐-‐
if
often
tacitly
-‐-‐
used
by
many
practitioners
of
historical
and
comparative
linguistics),
and
the
author
backs
them
up
with
theoretical
and
factual
observations
and
data.
I
do,
however,
have
some
problems
with
some
of
the
examples
presented.
Thus,
on
p.
75
Fn.
6,
the
grammaticalization
of
the
verb
for
"to
come"
into
a
modal
auxiliary
for
the
expression
of
necessity
in
Estonian
is
identified
as
the
model
for
the
same
phenomenon
in
Latvian.
In
Fn.
6,
however,
it
is
mentioned
as
an
alternative
that
Russian
may
be
the
culprit,
which
may
have
passed
this
grammaticalization
to
all
of
the
languages
involved
(i.e.
Finnish,
Estonian,
and
Latvian,
with
which
Russian
is
in
contact6).
But
which
Russian
model
construction
is
meant
here?
Moreover,
structure-‐
changing
language-‐contact
between
Russian
as
donor
and
Finnish
as
recipient
language
is
marginal
at
best,
in
spite
of
Finland
having
been
a
Russian
possession
for
some
centuries
-‐
there
was
never
any
Russian
settlement
in
Finland
to
speak
of,
and
the
official
language
of
the
territory
was
Swedish,
never
Russian.
The
ultimate
donor
5
As
invoked
by
Robbeets
(this
volume,
p.
170),
thus
"remystifying"
drift
in
spite
of
this.
6
And
not
with
Lithuanian,
which
should
explain
the
absence
of
this
feature
in
this
language.
But
this
is
hardly
correct;
it
may
look
like
this,
if
one
looks
at
a
modern
map
of
the
region,
which
will
show
the
Belorussian
language
as
the
"neighbour"
of
Lithuanian
-‐
overlooking
the
fact
that,
nevertheless,
it
was
("Great-‐,
East"-‐)
Russian
(the
language
of
the
Muscovite
state
and
its
successors)
which
exerted
much
more
linguistic
influence
on
Lithuanian
than
any
variant
of
Belorussian
ever
had
the
chance
to
-‐
and,
what
is
more,
Belorussian
is,
historically,
nothing
more
than
a
variant
of
the
East
Slavic
dialect
continuum.
like
Russian
itself
-‐
given
that
the
time-‐depth
of
the
contact
situation
involved
here
is
neither
mentioned
nor
discussed,
the
contact
may
as
well
date
from
a
period,
in
which
the
notions
"Russian"
and
"Belorussian"
were
indeed
still
meaningless.
language
for
Latvian
was,
in
all
likelihood,
not
Estonian,
but
Liv
-‐
by
a
substratum
relationship
(the
historical
Liv(onian)
territory
is
largely
coextensive
with
that
of
the
East
Baltic
dialect,
which
developed
into
Latvian)
-‐-‐
the
polysemy
of
"to
come"
and
"necessity
auxiliary"
is,
indeed,
present
in
Liv
as
well
(cf.
Sjögren
1861,
118).
Another
example
on
which
I
have
to
express
some
disagreement
is
an
instance
of
shared
polysemy
between
Azeri
and
Persian
(p.
79);
here,
the
polysemy
of
the
Azeri
verb
goy-‐
("to
put",
but
also
"to
let,
allow")
is
explained
as
due
to
influence
from
Persian,
where
the
verb
gozāštan
shows
the
same
semantic
range:
"Since
this
particular
kind
of
'polysemy'
is
hard
to
find
in
other
languages,
but
occurs
in
these
neighbouring
languages
known
to
share
a
long
history
of
contact,
there
is
reason
to
assume
that
it
is
due
to
language
contact."
But
this
is
not
rare.
It
is
widespread
in
the
Turkic
language
family
and
found,
e.g.,
in
East
Turki
("Modern
Uyghur"),
Uzbek,
Kumyk,
Kirgiz,
Karakalpak,
and,
while
some
of
these
languages
show
a
certain
degree
of
direct
(but
most
of
them
rather
indirect
and
literary)
influence
from
Persian,
this
is
certainly
excluded
for
Karaim,
for
which
cf.
Baskakov
et
al.
1974,
329)7.
So
it
needs
to
be
added
that,
while
using
a
set
of
diagnostic
criteria
as
the
one
presented
here
by
Heine
and
Nomachi
will
certainly
be
useful,
and
we
have
all
reasons
to
thank
them
for
presenting
it
here
in
an
exceptionally
clear
and
stimulating
way,
it
can
never
replace
the
one
criterion
(which
may,
it
is
true,
not
always
be
available)
that
should
precede
every
purely
linguistic
(typological,
grammaticalization-‐theoretical,
or
other)
reasoning:
the
thorough
knowledge
of
all
available
(and
retrievable)
data
on
the
languages
studied
and
the
phenomena
under
scrutiny.
Opinions
offered
without
such
an
inevitable
backing,
and
exclusively
based
on
secondary
literature,
all
too
often
turn
out
to
be
ill
founded
after
some
checking
of
data
is
done.
Also,
the
authors'
quite
adamant
insistence
that
the
Ukrainian
synthetic
future
is
definitely
based
on
the
grammaticalization
of
the
verb
"to
take"
(which
would
make
it
a
rare
grammaticalization
and
the
fitting
model
for
a
similar
development
in
some
Romani
dialects
in
Russia),
against
B.
Joseph's
objections
(cited
as
"p.c.")
that
this
may
just
as
well
represent
a
(by
no
means
rare)
"have"-‐future,
invites
opposition.
The
authors'
comment
that
the
synthetic
Ukrainian
future
cannot
be
based
on
the
"have"-‐verb
maty
is
correct,
but
anachronistic.
It
is,
of
course,
based
on
the
diachronically
precedent
(and
now
obsolete)
verb
iměti 8
(attributable
to
at
least
East
Slavic
-‐
i.e.
Pre-‐
Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian,
and
further
to
Proto-‐Slavic),
with
a
range
of
meanings
between
"bringing
oneself
into
the
state
of
possessing"
(i.e.
"to
take")
and
"being
in
this
state"
(i.e.
"to
have").
Since
even
Old
Church
Slavic
(=
Old
Bulgarian)
bases
a
(periphrastic)
future
on
this
verb
(where
it
definitely
departs
from
"have"-‐semantics),
there
is
little
justification
to
justify
the
cross-‐linguistically
rarer
"take"-‐interpretation
over
the
(more
widespread,
Romance-‐like)
"have"-‐scenario
for
the
Ukrainian
synthetic
future.
L.
Johanson:
Isomorphic
processes:
Grammaticalization
and
copying
of
grammatical
elements,
101-‐109)
undertakes
to
clarify
the
author's
thinking
on
grammaticalization
and
especially
on
the
mechanisms
by
which
grammaticalization
phenomena
can
come
to
be
shared
between
different
languages.
He
underlines
most
emphatically
that
grammaticalization
processes
cannot
be
copied
(his
terminology
for
borrowed),
and
that,
in
such
cases,
everything
that
is
copied
is
the
output
of
the
process9
(p.
105).
The
same
7
To
this
should
be
added
that
attestations
of
this
verb
with
both
meanings
abound
in
Middle
Turkic
(14th
century).
8
Cf.
Žovtobrjuch
et
al.
1980,
214.
9
Recall
the
discussion
of
"grammaticalization
as
a
process"
mentioned
above;
for
Johanson's
purposes,
it
is
of
course
quite
impossible
to
avoid
the
term
"process"
here,
in
the
most
general
sense
of
the
"X",
which
combines
two
temporally
distinct,
but
diachronically
identical,
states
of
affairs
(this
phrasing
is
mine,
and
may
or
may
not
represent
Johanson's
thoughts
correctly).
holds
for
the
"inheritance"
of
grammaticalizations10.
Here,
too,
there
can
be
no
talk
of
"processes"
being
copied;
only
"elements",
not
"processes",
can
ever
be
the
undergoers
of
copying.
Johanson's
paper
is
not
accompanied
by
much
language
data,
and
the
example
he
does
mention
I
find
somewhat
surprising.
This
is
the
author's
dictum
that
Chuvash
and
Yakut,
two
"non-‐mainstream"
Turkic
languages,
do
not
show
the
grammaticalization
of
the
numeral
*bir
"one"
to
an
indefinite
article,
whereas
all
other
Turkic
languages
do
(with
implications
for
the
history
of
the
whole
family).
But
this
is
simply
not
correct
-‐
it
is,
on
the
contrary,
not
at
all
difficult
to
find
instances
of
the
respective
Chuvash
(pĕr)
and
Yakut
(biir)
numeral
in
exactly
this
function,
cf.:
Chuvash:
ǝlǝk
pǝr
pujan
śin̮
pulnǝ̂
earlier
1/INDEF
rich
person
was
Once
upon
a
time,
there
lived
a
rich
man.
(Paasonen
194911,
175).
Yakut:
Bılır
manna
biir
ėmėėxsin
olorbuta
ühü
earlier
here
1/INDEF
old.woman
lived
(hearsay)
In
former
times,
an
old
woman
lived
here,
it
is
said.
(Ubrjatova
1982,
177).12
Biir
küölü
aastıbıt
1/INDEF
lake-‐ACC
we
passed
We
passed
a
lake
(ibid.)
V.
Gast/J.
van
der
Auwera:
Scalar
additive
operators
in
Transeurasian
languages:
A
comparison
with
Europe
(pp.
113-‐145)
deals
with
the
semantics
and
the
distributional
properties
of
adverbs
with
meanings
like
German
"sogar"
or
English
"even",
which
(p.
114)
"indicate
that
a
given
focus
value
(...)
ranges
higher
on
a
scale
of
'pragmatic
strength'
than
any
alternative
value
under
discussion".
The
paper
builds
on
and
expands
the
authors'
findings
presented
in
Gast/van
der
Auwera
2010,
where
European
languages
were
in
focus,
by
taking
a
closer
look
at
some
Altaic
languages,
namely
Turkish,
Gagauz,
Azeri,
Kumyk,
Tatar,
Modern
Uyghur,
Uzbek,
Yakut,
Ewenki,
Udihe,
Khalkha
Mongolian,
Japanese,
and
Korean.
Their
contribution
is
a
welcome
addition
to
an
area,
which
is
certainly
not
well
studied,
and
the
typology
around
the
dimensions
scalar/nonscalar,
upward/downward
entailing,
negative/non-‐negative
they
develop
is
highly
interesting.
10
On
a
more
abstract
level
-‐
with
all
due
caution,
and
certainly
without
wishing
to
downplay
important
and
salient
differences
-‐
it
could
be
said
that
(lateral)
"borrowing"
and
(vertical)
"inheritance"
are
but
two
variants
of
the
same
phenomenon
-‐
in
both
scenarios,
linguistic
elements
(to
use
the
broadest
possible
term),
are
"copied"
-‐
both
have
a
"Model
Code"
-‐
the
"donor"
language
in
a
borrowing
scenario,
the
"ancestral"
language
in
an
inheritance
scenario;
while
direct/vertical
inheritance
is,
then,
characterized
by
the
absence
of
a
pre-‐existing
"Basic
Code"
-‐
this
code
is
produced
by
the
process
-‐
individuals
(in
this
case
first
language
learners)
certainly
"copy"
linguistic
behaviour/elements
from
a
"Model
Code"
(that
of
the
linguistic
community
they
grow
up
in).
11
These
folklore
texts,
collected
in
1900,
literally
abound
in
clear
and
unambiguous
instances
of
pĕr
in
indefinite
article
function,
in
narratives,
riddles,
and
songs
-‐
they
are
present
on
every
single
page
of
the
book.
12
It
may
be
true
that,
in
Yakut
(certainly
not
in
Chuvash),
this
function
is
"less
obligatory/frequent/widespread"
or,
then,
less
"grammaticalized"
than
in
other
Turkic
languages,
but
whether
this
is
an
archaic
or
innovative
trait
of
Yakut
is
less
than
clear.
I
found
a
further
surprising
statement
on
bir
as
indefinite
article
in
Turkic
in
Fn.
2
(p.
11)
of
the
editors'
introduction:
"The
presence
of
the
grammaticalization
pattern
in
Tatar,
in
spite
of
being
under
Uralic
influence,
suggests
that
the
absence
of
the
indefinite
article
in
Yakut
and
Chuvash
is
due
to
genealogical
rather
than
areal
factors".
The
non
sequitur
of
this
statement
(and
the
error
on
Chuvash
and
Yakut)
apart,
Tatar
is
not
"under
Uralic
influence".
It
is
spoken
in
the
vicinity
of
some
Finno-‐Ugric
languages
(which
are
definitely
more
influenced
by
Tatar
than
the
other
way
round),
Cheremis
and
Mordvin,
and
both
of
these
(especially
the
former)
do
show
the
numeral
"one"
in
indefinite
article
function,
a
host
of
examples
can
be
found
in
any
text
collection,
as
e.g.
in
Genetz
1895,
passim.
The
editrs'
quote
is,
thus,
at
the
very
least,
confused
and
raises
the
question,
whether
they
really
feel
comfortable
in
the
realm
of
Altaic
linguistics.
Needless
to
say,
even
this
long
paper
can
only
scratch
the
surface
of
this
matter,
and
it
is
certainly
not
the
authors'
fault
that
they
could
obtain
quite
a
number
of
examples
only
from
their
colleagues
("p.c."),
rather
than
from
available
and
good
studies
of
these
operators
in
grammars
or
linguistic
literature13.
I
have
several
problems
with
the
contribution
of
one
of
the
editors
of
this
volume,
M.
Robbeets:
Genealogically
motivated
grammaticalization
(147-‐175).
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is
clearly
(and
chiefly)
to
convince
its
readers
-‐
once
more
-‐
that
the
"Altaic"
languages
(Turkic,
Mongolic,
Tungusic,
Korean,
and
Japanese,
here
renamed
as
"Transeurasian")
form
a
valid
genealogical
family,
and
not,
as
critics
of
this
hypothesis
maintain,
a
grouping
of
languages,
whose
(undoubted)
commonalities
are
due
to
areal
consolidation
of
originally
unrelated
languages.
M.
Robbeets
has
devoted
a
long
series
of
books
and
papers
to
this
question
before,
some
of
which,
as
this
one,
concentrate
on
what
she
claims
to
be
morphological
evidence
in
favour
of
the
genealogical
interpretation.
The
core
of
the
argumentation
here
is
a
list
of
13
morphological
comparanda,
adapted
from
earlier
lists
with
varying
membership
(yet
around
a
somewhat
stable
core),
presented
by
the
author
on
numerous
occasions.
This
is
now
accompanied
by
a
set
of
criteria,
all
centered
around
the
concept
of
grammaticalization,
which
allegedly
allow
one
to
determine
whether
the
comparanda
are
more
likely
to
be
due
to
common
heritage
from
a
proto-‐language
("genealogically
motivated")
or
rather
motivated
by
chance,
general
tendencies
or
principles
of
language
change
("universal
factors"),
or
borrowing.
It
is
not
surprising
that
she
finds,
in
most
cases,
the
criteria
to
be
fulfilled
and,
consequently,
yet
another
case
for
the
genealogical
scenario
to
be
successfully
made.
Robbeets'
seven
criteria
for
shared
grammaticalization
phenomena,
which
are
said
to
strengthen
the
case
in
favour
of
an
ultimate
relationship,
are
the
following:
(1)
The
shared
grammaticalization
is
global
(fulfilled,
when
source
and
target
of
the
grammaticalization
are
shared
by
the
languages
involved
both
in
terms
of
semantics
and
form,
the
opposite
being
a
"selective"
grammaticalization).
An
immediate
reaction
to
this
line
of
argumentation
is
that
this
criterion
is
rather
artificial
-‐
why
should
the
source
of
a
grammaticalization
be
present
in
the
first
place?
All
too
often,
elements
are
lost
in
the
course
of
language
change
(or
alter
their
meanings),
so
why
should
such
a
loss
or
alteration
play
a
game-‐changing
role
for
linguistic
assessments
of
past
processes14?
But
there
are
more
problems
with
this,
of
a
more
fundamental
nature.
Thus,
looking
at
Robbeets'
list
of
"shared
global
grammaticalizations",
it
quickly
becomes
clear
that
the
very
claim
that
we
are
dealing
with
cases
of
grammaticalization
here
in
the
first
place
is
built
on
shaky
grounds
at
best.
Instead
of
using
the
core
definition
of
grammaticalization,
which
is
used
to
describe
the
development
of
erstwhile
lexical
elements
to
bound
grammatical
markers
(with
semantic
bleaching,
loss
of
phonetic
substance
etc.),
the
term
is
expanded
here
to
include
the
development
of
elements
from
"less
grammatical
to
more
grammatical
status"
(p.
156).
This
is
certainly
defendable
(and
widespread
practice
in
grammaticalization
theory),
but
it
has
to
be
mentioned
that
the
examples
presented
here15
are
almost
exclusively
of
this
kind
and
do
raise
serious
doubts
whether
they
really
fit
into
the
framework
of
grammaticalization.
To
wit:
what,
13
The
Azeri,
Kumyk
and
Uzbek
example
sentences
Nos.
49,
50
and
54
("p.c.")
come
directly
from
standard
Russian-‐
based
dictionaries
of
these
languages,
and
are
all
findable
there
under
the
lemma
entry
даже
(for
future
studies
along
these
lines,
and
with
these
languages,
it
may
be
hoped
that
primary
sources
will
play
a
greater
role
than
isolated
and
normative
dictionary
examples).
14
Apart
from,
of
course,
making
the
linguist's
life
a
bit
more
difficult.
15
With
the
exception
of
No.
(4):
"do,
make"
-‐-‐>
causative
marker,
and
possibly
(12)
and
(13):
negative
verb
-‐-‐>
negation
marker.
Both
of
these
are
not
discussed
with
examples
by
Robbeets
in
this
paper,
and
can,
consequently,
not
be
discussed
here,
since
it
would
entail
too
much
guesswork
to
know
what
she
really
has
in
mind.
then,
is
"more
grammatical"
in
a
"loan
verb
marker",
as
opposed
to
its
function
as
a
general
verbalizer16?
The
same
question
can
be
asked
for
the
causative-‐passive
polysemy,
which
is
indeed
found
in
some
Altaic
languages
(but
also
elsewhere:
Johanson,
this
volume,
p.
108,
mentions,
a
bit
vaguely,
Caucasian
languages17),
but
again,
there
is
no
need
to
invoke
the
concept
of
grammaticalization
here
-‐
Johanson18
explains
Altaic
causatives/passives
as
instances
of
the
category
of
transcendence,
without
any
allusion
to
grammaticalization
(or,
then,
any
category-‐changing
"process")
at
all19.
And,
finally,
the
"pathway"
from
non-‐finite
to
finite
use
of
some
affixes
invites
similar
comments.
Neither
here,
nor
in
other
publications
of
hers
on
these
markers20,
is
a
convincing
argumentation
given
for
why
any
grammaticalization
should
be
involved
in
the
fact
that
(most)
verbal
nouns
in
(most)
Altaic
languages
can
be
used
for
finite
and
non-‐finite
purposes.
Once
a
language
(say,
Mongolian)
has
reached
(whether
through
areal
consolidation
or
not)
the
stage
where
all
(or
most)
verbal
nouns
can
invariably
be
used
in
finite
and
non-‐finite
(adnominal,
relativizing
etc.)
function(s),
this
language
can
accommodate
such
verbal
nouns
from
a
donor
language
(say,
Turkic)
with
exactly
this
set
of
functions
(whether
these
are
the
results
of
grammaticalization
in
the
source
language
or
not)
into
its
system,
without
anything
in
the
way
of
grammaticalization.
This
possibility
is,
needless
to
say,
systematically
overlooked
in
Robbeets'
approach
(see
further
on
this
below
on
Malchukov's
paper).
Criterion
(2)
concerns
the
rarity
of
some
grammaticalization
patterns
-‐
this
is
certainly
a
quite
subjective
parameter
(and
greatly
dependent
on
the
observer's
-‐
or
then
the
discipline’s
-‐
current
and
available
knowledge
of
what
is
rare,
and
what
is
not).
But,
again,
I
find
a
more
fundamental
flaw
in
this
way
of
thinking,
since
a
geographical
clustering
of
phenomena
(globally
rare
or
not)
will
always
lead
to
a
suspicion
of
areal
interaction,
if
the
languages
involved
are
not
in
an
inspectionally
obvious
way
related
or
otherwise
(by
traditional,
non-‐"shortcut"
methods)
confirmed
as
members
of
a
true
family21.
To
make
them
look
a
bit
"rarer",
loan-‐verb
markers
(on
which
see
above)
are
said
to
be
non-‐existent
in
Uralic
languages,
but
they
do
exist
in
some
of
them22.
The
3rd
criterion,
which
stipulates
that
"globally
shared
grammaticalization
(which)
concerns
two
or
more
instances"
strengthens
a
case
for
relationship,
is
of
a
quantitative
nature
and
stands
and
falls
with
the
item-‐by-‐item
assessment
of
the
validity
of
the
elements
discussed
(see
below).
16
The
ubiquitous
verbalizer
*-‐la-‐
(in
Turkic,
but
also
in
Mongolian),
can
be
used
to
verbalize
virtually
everything,
which
is
semantically
suited
to
make
a
verbalization
useful
for
the
users
of
the
language,
including,
of
course,
the
subset
of
"everything",
which
is
made
up
by
borrowed
verbal
roots.
Promoting
this
use
to
the
status
of
a
special
case
of
grammaticalization
is
tantamount
to
hypostasizing
what
is
at
best
a
co-‐function
of
a
functionally
already
quite
broad
morphological
element
in
order
to
obtain
just
another
"grammaticalization
process"
(and,
importantly,
these
are
counted
in
the
end
to
make
the
case
appear
more
convincing).
This,
and
the
other
cases
named
here,
are
classic
examples
of
reification
by
inflating
nomenclature.
17
Some
Uralic
languages
could
be
mentioned
here,
too.
18
1990,
211
with
an
exceptionally
clear
formulation,
also
1974.
19
Johanson
carefully
avoids
the
"grammaticalization"
metaphor
for
this
in
this
volume
(108)
as
well,
and
not
without
reason.
20
As,
e.g.,
in
Robbeets
2009,
where
the
allegedly
different
functions
of
the
morphological
markers
are
demonstrated
either
from
the
same
chronological
layer
of
the
respective
language
or,
sometimes,
even
with
an
example
for
a
putative
source
of
a
grammaticalization
in
later,
and
the
target
of
this
in
an
earlier
layer
(e.g.
p.
70,
with
two
misinterprations
of
Mongolian
morphology,
see
Georg,
forthcoming).
21
Both
criteria
do,
of
course,
not
hold
for
the
Altaic
languages.
If
the
typological
rarity
of
features
could
play
an
independent
role
for
lowering
the
scales
in
favour
of
genealogical
inheritance
as
opposed
to
areal
consolidation,
most
"Balkanisms"
could
be
taken
as
immediate
evidence
for
the
relationship
of
the
languages
involved
-‐
which
they
cannot
(notwithstanding
that
Balkan
languages
are
ultimately
related,
of
course;
they
are,
but
for
different
reasons).
22
E.
g.
in
Ostyak
and
Vogul,
cf.
Kálmán
1961,
109-‐111,
Ganschow
1965,
107-‐109;
Robbeets'
characterization
of
Uralic
languages
as
"exceptional
in
this
respect"
(p.
169)
is
an
artefact
of
Wohlgemuth's
(2009,
her
source)
sampling,
which
did
not
include
these
languages
for
Uralic
-‐
are
generalizations
of
this
kind
really
made
so
quickly
these
days?
Number
(4)
says
that
a
good
criterion
is
fulfilled,
when
the
phenomena
are
"not
restricted
to
contact
zones".
This
is
true
as
far
as
it
goes
(and
also
holds
for
lexical
and
other
commonalities),
but,
again,
some
caveats
here:
since
the
languages
involved
are
Proto-‐Languages
in
the
first
place,
what
are
the
contact
zones
between
Proto-‐Turkic
and
Proto-‐Mongolic,
then?
Can
we
locate
them
in
space?
While
some
would
say
that
we
can,
others
(the
present
writer
included)
maintain
that
we
cannot
-‐
at
best
we
can
make
more
or
less
educated
guesses
on
this.
When
Robbeets
repeatedly
mentions
"low
contact"
between
the
members
of
our
grouping
(pp.
156,
168)
this
obviously
refers
to
the
location
of
all
these
languages
on
a
modern
map
-‐
a
grave
error
in
this
context,
since,
which
is
often
overlooked,
both
hypotheses
-‐
that
of
the
genealogical
unity
of
the
Altaic
languages,
and
the
areal
consolidation
scenario
-‐
operate
with
the
assumption
that
all
of
them
were
once
spoken
in
much
closer
geographical
proximity
than
in
modern
(or
documented)
times
(the
genealogical
hypothesis,
by
virtue
of
being
itself,
even
has
to
assume
historical
identity,
i.e.
locate
the
five
protos
at
one
point
in
time
and
space,
with
a
distance
of
zero
between
them,
gradually
moving
apart
from
there)23.
The
5th
criterion
ascribes
a
higher
"genealogical
value"
to
grammaticalization
patterns,
which
move
already
bound
elements
from
higher
to
lower
grammatical
status
(i.e.
not
involving
lexical
sources),
because
bound
morphemes
are
"more
resistant
to
code-‐
copying"
than
independent
lexemes.
The
value
of
this
criterion
is
again
limited,
since
it
can
be
(and
has
been)
repeatedly
shown
that
bound
morphemes
may
indeed
get
borrowed
somewhat
less
frequently
than
words,
but
that
their
"copy-‐proofness"
is
an
illusion
at
best
-‐
if
the
contact
situation
is
intensive
enough,
bound
morphemes
can
and
will
move
from
language
to
language
(cf.
Georg
2011
for
more
on
this).
The
6th
criterion
says
that
a
strong
point
in
favour
of
relatedness
is
scored,
when
"the
globally
shared
grammaticalization
spreads
over
more
than
two
(proto-‐)
languages".
Interesting
as
such
situations
may
be,
I
can
see
no
reason
why
they
should
be
of
any
special
value
for
the
argument
at
hand.
Robbeets
mentions,
by
way
of
an
example,
the
Old
Chinese
verb
得
(*tʿək,
Mandarin
dé)
"to
obtain",
borrowed
into
Vietnamese
as
được,
with
the
same
meaning,
both
also
grammaticalized
as
a
passive
marker.
On
p.
156
we
read,
quite
apodictically:
"Vietnamese
has
(not)
globally
copied
its
verb
'to
receive'
and
subsequently
transferred
the
grammaticalization
of
'to
receive'
into
a
passive
marker
to
any
third
language".
But
similar
verbs,
with
similar
grammaticalizations,
can
be
found
elsewhere
in
(un-‐
or
distantly
related)
languages
in
South-‐East
Asia,
too
(cf.
Matisoff
1991,
420-‐425),
to
wit:
Thai
thùuk,
Yao
(Hmong-‐Mien)
tùˀ,
and
possibly
Khmer
trǝw24.
And,
what
is
more,
this
criterion
can
exert
its
convincing
power
only,
when
the
23
Modern
language
geography
can
(and
should,
of
course)
play
a
role
in
our
discussion,
but
in
a
different
perspective:
elements
only
present
in
historically
attested
or
directly
observable
contact
zones
(cf.
Pakendorf,
this
volume),
and
absent
from
other
parts
of
the
territory
a
given
family
occupies,
may
strengthen
the
suspicion
that
contact
is
the
culprit,
but
this
cannot
be
simply
reversed,
as
it
seems
to
happen
here,
much
less
so
in
the
case
of
reconstructed
proto-‐languages
with
no
known
localization
in
space
or
time,
let
alone
any
robust
information
about
the
possible
details
of
their
putative
geographical
subdivisions
("Western
Proto-‐Mongolian
stood
in
more
intensive
contact
relations
with
Eastern
Proto
Turkic
than
with
Southern
PT").
Note
that
the
absence
of
any
information
of
this
kind
sets
boundaries
for
the
speculations
of
both
camps
-‐
the
differentiation
of
"low"
vs.
"high"
contact
zones
is
meaningless
for
any
reconstructed
proto-‐language.
24
The
Khmer
verb
may
as
well
not
belong
here
for
phonological
reasons,
and
the
Thai
verb
does
not
show
the
expected
lexical
(source)
meaning
("hit,
touch,
be
right").
Add
here
Laha
(Kra,
in
Northern
Vietnam)
hôp1
"obtain,
passive
marker"
for
a
"non-‐global"
grammaticalization
along
the
same
lines
as
in
Chinese
and
Vietnamese
(Solncev
1986,
69).
Whatever
the
ultimate
solution
to
the
questions
around
these
SE-‐Asian
words
may
be,
there
is
no
need
to
assume
that
the
elements
(and
their
grammaticalized
functions)
were
necessarily
passed
successively
from
one
language
to
the
next,
as
Robbeets'
formulation
implies.
The
early
contact
situation(s)
in
Altaic
may
(and
will)
have
been
just
as
complex
and
non-‐linear
as
in
this
case.
The
(expectable)
objection
that
this
example
misses
the
criterion
of
"globality"
is
of
less
importance
for
this
comparison,
since,
contrary
to
Robbeets'
claims,
the
Altaic
examples
in
her
paper
fall
short
of
this
criterion
as
well
(and,
as
mentioned,
most
of
them
do
not
even
involve
grammaticalizations
in
the
first
place).
comparanda
adduced
to
underpin
it
have
been
vindicated
as
valid
-‐
which
is
far
from
achieved,
despite
repeated
claims
to
the
contrary
(this
holds,
of
course,
also
for
the
seventh
and
last
criterion,
which
involves
that
a
"specific
pathway
of
grammaticalization
is
recurrent
in
more
than
one
cognate
set");
to
this
may
be
added
that
a
given
grammaticalization,
say,
from
deverbal
noun
to
converb25
(and
which
may
or
may
not
be
contact-‐induced)
may
spawn
further
similar
grammaticalizations
in
the
language
by
pattern
extension,
without
any
further
input
from
any
donor
language,
which
further
reduces
the
diagnostic
value
of
"shared
grammaticalizations"
for
discussions
of
genealogical
descent.
Finally,
Robbeets'
list
of
comparanda
itself
cannot
be
passed
over
in
complete
silence
here.
Impressive
as
it
may
look
at
first
sight,
there
are
serious
problems
with
it,
some
of
which
have
been
mentioned
in
the
literature
before
(obviously
without
any
consequences
for
the
authors'
confidence
in
them
-‐
one
would
be
interested
to
learn
why).
Of
the
thirteen
comparisons,
only
four
are
presented
in
some
detail26
,
which
allows
(especially
non-‐specialist)
readers
to
form
some
opinion
(*-‐lA-‐,
*-‐dA-‐,
*-‐i,
*-‐rA);
for
all
the
others,
the
reader
is
referred
to
previous
publications
of
the
author
(without
detailed
references).
All
these
comparisons
should,
however,
be
scrutinized
from
different
angles,
to
see
how
many
(and
which)
of
them
really
hold
water.
Readers
familiar
with
the
discussion
on
Altaic
will
certainly
not
be
surprised
to
hear
that
I
insist
that
this
list
be
rigorously
sifted,
and
that
many
of
the
elements
present
on
it
will
have
to
be
eliminated,
because
known
and
demonstrable
facts
of
the
history
of
the
languages
involved
do
not
allow
for
many
(I
dare
say
the
majority)
of
the
reconstructions
and
functional
descriptions
given
by
Robbeets.
I
do
not
expect
any
reader
of
these
lines
to
simply
take
my
word
for
this.
Knowing
that
underpinning
such
a
claim
with
concrete
data
is
an
absolute
necessity,
I
may
use
the
opportunity
to
announce
a
book
I
have
currently
in
preparation,
in
which
I
intend
to
discuss
Robbeets'
(and
other
Pro-‐Altaicists')
morphological
and
other
comparanda
in
all
due
completeness
(and
I
feel
justified
to
claim
serious
reasons
of
space
for
not
doing
it
here)27.
I
have
added
some
comments
on
a
similar
list
by
Robbeets
in
Georg
2011.
On
this,
Robbeets
comments
here
(p.
148)
that
the
present
writer
"(has)
attempted
to
explain
these
correspondences
in
terms
of
borrowing".
This
is
wrong.
I
have
done
nothing
of
the
kind
there,
I
expressly
said,
in
what
I
hoped
to
be
comprehensible
English,
that
I
do
not
think
what
she
says
I
do,
and
that
my
approach
to
these
comparisons
-‐
which
I
indeed
view
as
not
indicative
of
any
genealogical
relationship
between
these
languages
-‐
is
at
least
a
trifle
more
complex.
I
will
of
course
welcome
each
and
every
objection
or
rejoinder
to
anything
I
ever
say
or
imply
(and
I
certainly
do
not
claim
infallibility),
but
a
misrepresentation
of
expressed
views
by
180
degrees
falls,
I
may
be
allowed
to
say,
somewhat
short
of
proper
academic
conduct28.
25
Examples
(10)
and
(11)
on
Robbeets'
list;
I
see
problems
with
both
of
them,
which
will
be
discussed
in
Georg
forthcoming.
26
"For
reasons
of
space"
(p.
159)
-‐
were
ten
more
pages
such
a
big
problem
in
a
self-‐edited
volume?
At
least,
clear
references
to
previous
publications
of
the
author,
where
more
details
could
be
found,
should
have
been
expected
as
a
minimum.
I
was
able
to
identify
most,
but
not
all
of
such
loci
in
Robbeets'
earlier
publications.
27
The
points
to
be
illustrated
there
include
that
the
Turkic
verbalizer
*-‐la-‐
can
be
shown
to
be
composite
(and
borrowed
into
other,
Altaic
and
also
numerous
non-‐Altaic,
languages;
some
substantial
objections
against
the
Japanese
comparandum
may
be
found
in
Vovin
forthcoming;
Turkic
*-‐(A)d-‐
"passive"
is
to
be
eliminated,
also
the
Mongolian
"passive
"
*-‐da-‐,
and
the
Mongolian
"converb
*-‐i
etc.
Not
each
and
every
single
element
will
have
to
leave
this
list,
but
the
proper
sifting
will
leave
it
considerably
reduced
and
way
less
useful
for
the
purpose
it
was
compiled
for.
28
What
I
do
there
instead
(Georg
2011,
29-‐33)
is
to
take
a
17-‐item
(that
is
four
items
more
than
on
the
list
presented
here)
list
of
M.
Robbeets'
Altaic
morphological
comparanda
and
to
show
that
for
all
morphemes
on
it,
functionally
and
formally
equivalent
comparisons
can
be
found
in
Volga-‐Finnic
languages
as
well
(fifteen
in
Cheremis
alone,
two
more
in
Mordvin).
Many
of
these
suffixes
are
clearly
borrowed
from
neighbouring
Turkic
languages,
but
many
clearly
are
A.
Malchukov:
Verbalization
and
insubordination
in
Siberian
languages
(177-‐208)
argues
in
favour
of
an
areal
propensity
of
Siberian
languages
for
the
so-‐called
insubordination
scenario,
by
which
finite
verb
forms
are
renewed
through
forms
of
non-‐finite
origin
(p.
177).
He
illustrates
such
patterns
(and
verbalizations,
i.e.
the
reanalysis
of
nominal
predicates
as
verbal
predicates
(201))
in
Tungusic
(no
other
Altaic
languages
are
discussed),
and
then
in
Chukchi,
Yukaghir,
Ket,
Eskimo,
and
Nivkh.
For
Ket
(which
is
cited
in
three
different
transcription/parsing
systems),
he
mentions
a
rather
marginal
and
very
confined
pattern
from
the
system
of
verbal
agreement
(the
so-‐
called
Vth
conjugation,
cf.
Georg
2007,
201f).
Actually,
Ket
lacks
clear
instances
of
"Altaic
type
verbal
nouns",
and
it
may
be
worthwhile
to
mention
that
the
areal
pressure
from
neighbouring
Turkic
languages
has
led
to
a
quite
interesting
process
in
this
language,
by
which
a
clearly
finite
verb
form
(with
the
hallmark
of
its
finiteness,
morphological
subject
reference,
intact)
can
get
case
marked
("Turkic
style")
to
allow
for
a
verbal-‐
noun-‐like
subordination
pattern,
as
in
(parsing
simplified,
cf.
Georg
2008,
163f.):
ǝ̄t
dǝ́ŋon-‐diŋal
qō
s!ḱ ŋ
ukon
we
we.went-‐ABL
10
year.PL
they.went
After
we
went
away,
ten
years
have
passed
This
is
completely
parallel
in
structure
to
the
following
Khakas
(South-‐Siberian
Turkic),
with
the
difference
that
the
predicate
of
the
subordinate
clause
is
a
"normal"
finite
verb
form
in
Ket,
while
a
verbal
noun
in
Khakas:
pis
par-‐γan-‐naŋ
on
žıl
irt-‐ip
par-‐dı
we
go-‐VN-‐ABL
10
year
pass-‐CV
go-‐PST
Thus,
while
Ket
certainly
participates
in
the
areal
mechanism
mentioned
by
Malchukov,
it
also
has
its
fair
share
of
opposing
trends,
which
are
also
operative
in
the
area
-‐
here,
Ket
"imitates"
a
canonical
Turkic
structure,
but
not
quite,
because
it
simply
does
not
have
the
morphological
means
for
a
perfect
emulation
of
it.
On
a
general
note,
I
have
to
say
that
I
find
this
phenomenon
here
(and
also
in
Robbeets
2009)
somewhat
"overterminologized"29.
The
use
of
this
("-‐ation")
term
implies
that
the
observed
phenomena
are
to
be
viewed
of
necessity
as
outcomes
of
a
(grammaticalization)
process
-‐
and
one
with
a
known
input
at
that.
This
is
not
necessarily
the
only
way
to
see
the
phenomena.
It
has
always
been
a
hallmark
of
(the
description
of)
"Altaic"
languages
that
their
verbal
system
can
be
subdivided
into
the
three
categorial
realms
of
(exclusively)
finite
markers,
converbs,
and
verbal
nouns30.
The
latter
are
mostly
(if
not
in
every
single
case
-‐
Mongolian,
with
its
lack
of
person
agreement,
is
a
prototypical
representative
of
this
type)
also
capable
of
being
the
sole
finite
verbal
element
in
a
sentence.
Now,
"Altaic"
languages
are
certainly
not
as
uniform
in
this
respect
as
traditional
scholarship
might
have
wanted
to
make
us
believe,
and
thus
it
is
absolutely
correct
and
important,
as
Malchukov
does,
to
explore
and
point
out
varying
degrees
of
"finiteness"
(which
seems
to
be
especially
fruitful
in
Tungusic,
his
section
on
The
noun-‐verb
continuum
in
Tungusic,
183-‐189,
is
particularly
interesting
in
this
context),
and
to
try
to
give
the
findings
of
such
research
a
diachronic
dimension
(in
not
(and
many
of
these
can,
further,
be
shown
not
to
be
of
Finno-‐Ugric
or
Uralic
age,
thus
the
possible
escape
route
to
an
expansion
of
Altaic
to
the
long-‐abandoned
Ural-‐Altaic,
let
alone
Nostratic,
remains
closed).
I
described
my
Cheremis/Mordvin-‐control
list
as
the
result
of
the
"conspiracy
of
inter-‐language
borrowings
and
chance
similarities"
(p.
34).
Similar
reasons
are
responsible
for
the
Altaic
comparanda
as
well,
not
more,
not
less.
29
With
the
imminent
danger
of
reification.
30
Often
referred
to
as
participles
in
the
literature.
