Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
- BettyCross
- Sanci
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:44 pm
- Location: NC Research Triangle
Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
For 150 years, Sumerian has been cited as a classic example of a language isolate. Yet, in recent years, a Sumerian-Uralic hypothesis has been proposed. For the link, click here.
I'm not saying I agree with this and I'm not saying I disagree. I just want people's opinions.
Betty Cross
I'm not saying I agree with this and I'm not saying I disagree. I just want people's opinions.
Betty Cross
May the odds be ever in your favor.
Oi sî đât sort điri
ever be-SUBJ the odds 2S-DAT
Oi sî đât sort điri
ever be-SUBJ the odds 2S-DAT
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:38 am
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
I don't really know much about Sumerian but I'm pretty sure that it will never be found to be a Uralic language. Sumerian may be a sister to it though. Alan Bomhard has tentatively included it in the proposed Nostratic macro-family (which includes Uralic). A couple thinkgs make me suspicious of this article though. First, Proto-Uralic is not reconstructed with labio-velar stops. The brain word is *ojwa. The Hungarian word agy comes from *ajNi "temple" (it may be that *ojwa and *ajNi are somehow related though). Second, the author should be comparing Sumerian words to Proto-Uralic rather than Finnish and Hungarian. However, the author may wish to stick with comparing Sumerian to attested languages, which is perfectly reasonable, in which case he should be using more than just Finnish and Hungarian.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Mushrooms. Weird ones. Too many of them. Smoking them.
Is there any language family of which nobody says that Sumerian was related to it?
Is there any language family of which nobody says that Sumerian was related to it?
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:41 am
- Location: NY, USA
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
I thought Sumerian was descended from Sanskrit, just like Basque.
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:50 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
And Quechua!hito wrote:I thought Sumerian was descended from Sanskrit, just like Basque.
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:27 pm
- Location: London
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Piotr Michalowski wroteBettyCross wrote:Yet, in recent years, a Sumerian-Uralic hypothesis has been proposed.
"Over the years various unsuccessful attempts have been made to link it with ... Chinese, Tibetan, Hungarian, Turkish, and Indo-European. These attemps have sometimes been flavored with nationalalist fervor. More recently, some scholars have tried to include Sumerian within the hypothetical Nostratic ... while others have excluded it..."
"The phonology of the language is not well understood, and it is fair to say it will never be fully recovered."
"... it is extremely difficult to establish a reliable grammar or lexicon ... there is still much disagreement about basic grammatical facts..."
This just about sums it up! I can't see any elements in Sumerian that would suggest a Nostratic connection. The adjacent language families were Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Caucasian, and Kartvelian. Sumerian pronouns don't suggest any connections with any of them.
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Technically, no, as Ruhlen at least has long claimed that all languages descend from Proto-World. (Kind of surprisingly, though, he throws it in the Unclassified bin.)WeepingElf wrote:Is there any language family of which nobody says that Sumerian was related to it?
But my impression is that the long-range comparers and cranks alike seem to avoid Niger-Congo and Australian languages.
- Ser
- Smeric
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
- Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Joseph Greenberg worked on the former!zompist wrote:But my impression is that the long-range comparers and cranks alike seem to avoid Niger-Congo and Australian languages.
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
I don't really understand all the flak that the long-range comparers are getting.
Other than the shortage of material to work with, I see nothing inherently flawed with the idea of long-range comparison. In theory, you should be able to apply the comparative method indefinitely and end up at the beginning.
But, real life isn't theory. Random, sporadic mutations, which the comparative method can't deal with, happen all the time, and we can only recover so much of those. The rest are gone forever. Over time these build up and obscure relationships even further.
Because of this little bit of non-ideality, the comparative method has the chronological limits that it does, and going beyond 5000 years or so is a stretch. That's not to say we shouldn't try, though. Just don't get your hopes up.
Other than the shortage of material to work with, I see nothing inherently flawed with the idea of long-range comparison. In theory, you should be able to apply the comparative method indefinitely and end up at the beginning.
But, real life isn't theory. Random, sporadic mutations, which the comparative method can't deal with, happen all the time, and we can only recover so much of those. The rest are gone forever. Over time these build up and obscure relationships even further.
Because of this little bit of non-ideality, the comparative method has the chronological limits that it does, and going beyond 5000 years or so is a stretch. That's not to say we shouldn't try, though. Just don't get your hopes up.
At, casteda dus des ometh coisen at tusta o diédem thum čisbugan. Ai, thiosa če sane búem mos sil, ne?
Also, I broke all your metal ropes and used them to feed the cheeseburgers. Yes, today just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Also, I broke all your metal ropes and used them to feed the cheeseburgers. Yes, today just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Also, the comparative method presupposes that proto-languages are largely homogeneous entities, failing to take into account the role of sociolinguistic and situational variation even within a single speaker properly. Much of this variation evens out statistically if the population is sufficiently large, but still, the development of dialectal divisions in reality seems to be best described not with the classic "tree model", but with a "bush model" with a lot of undergrowth. A large percentage of those "random, sporadic mutations" that Bedelato mentions are most easily explained with dialectal and/or sociolectal mixing.Bedelato wrote:But, real life isn't theory. Random, sporadic mutations, which the comparative method can't deal with, happen all the time, and we can only recover so much of those. The rest are gone forever. Over time these build up and obscure relationships even further.
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:41 am
- Location: NY, USA
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
"Other than having only one data point, I see nothing inherently flawed with extrapolation..." The lack of data is the whole problem. People can't even agree on the exact details of PIE (prove what the laryngeals are, win a cookie), despite having decent data from... what, eight? more? languages, including huge corpora from Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit. Reconstructing less-well-known language families is an exercise in futility.Bedelato wrote:Other than the shortage of material to work with, I see nothing inherently flawed with the idea of long-range comparison.
Beginning of what? Only one beginning? Which beginning? At some point it's just more reasonable to stop and say that two families are unrelated.Bedelato wrote:In theory, you should be able to apply the comparative method indefinitely and end up at the beginning.
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
I actually took Parpola's Sumerian course a couple of years back, and he had a habit of suggesting Finnish cognates for some of the Sumerian words we encountered. At first I thought that would be interesting, but soon it became all to clear that he hadn't really even tried to establish systematic sound correspondences, not to mention the fact that quite a few of his "cognates" were semantically rather, uh, unfalsifiable, to put it nicely. For instance, according to him, Sumerian dur 'to bake bricks' "just might be" cognate with Finnish töhry 'smudge'. I think I was pretty much on the verge of tears at that particular moment… For all his expertise in assyriology, he just doesn't really seem to understand the comparative method, nor does he seem to have a problem with rewriting quite a lot of what we know about the history of the Uralic languages in order to make it fit his hypothesis. I'd take this with a truckload of salt.
However, at some point I met a student who had, inspired by Parpola's hypothesis, done some of his own research into the matter. He had (reasonably, IMO), gotten rid of Parpola's idea of Sumerian being a daughter of Proto-Uralic and instead looked at a possible sibling relationship, and he at least claimed to have found about two dozen phonetically systematic and semantically reasonable word pairs to support this idea. As he even admitted himself, though, that amount of data just isn't enough to prove anything conclusively; furthermore, I later realized that the guy's understanding of Proto-Uralic phonology was several decades out of date (specifically, I recall him having a couple of cognates where Sumerian /a/ corresponds to Finnish /A/, even where the latter actually descends from Proto-Uralic */M/).
So, to boil it down: There just might be a connection, maybe - but even if there is, I very much doubt we can find enough evidence to prove it.
However, at some point I met a student who had, inspired by Parpola's hypothesis, done some of his own research into the matter. He had (reasonably, IMO), gotten rid of Parpola's idea of Sumerian being a daughter of Proto-Uralic and instead looked at a possible sibling relationship, and he at least claimed to have found about two dozen phonetically systematic and semantically reasonable word pairs to support this idea. As he even admitted himself, though, that amount of data just isn't enough to prove anything conclusively; furthermore, I later realized that the guy's understanding of Proto-Uralic phonology was several decades out of date (specifically, I recall him having a couple of cognates where Sumerian /a/ corresponds to Finnish /A/, even where the latter actually descends from Proto-Uralic */M/).
So, to boil it down: There just might be a connection, maybe - but even if there is, I very much doubt we can find enough evidence to prove it.
[quote="Funkypudding"]Read Tuomas' sig.[/quote]
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:38 am
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Largely because of shoddy work by Ruhlen, Greenberg, and Starostin. It's tainted the field. Also there's the bizarre idea floating around that you can't demonstrate family relationships beyong 8000 years (sometimes this number is higher or lower). Oddly, this number is derived from lexicostatistics, a la Swadesh, which has long been discredited. The meme remains powerful though.Bedelato wrote:I don't really understand all the flak that the long-range comparers are getting.
The data isn't really all that scarce though. Part of the problem is that there is no standard by which we can say that a relationship has been demonstrated. It's easy to dismiss something as being unconvincing when the goalposts can be so easily moved.Other than the shortage of material to work with, I see nothing inherently flawed with the idea of long-range comparison. In theory, you should be able to apply the comparative method indefinitely and end up at the beginning.
Sometimes words are lost in all daughter languages which also creates a limit.But, real life isn't theory. Random, sporadic mutations, which the comparative method can't deal with, happen all the time, and we can only recover so much of those. The rest are gone forever. Over time these build up and obscure relationships even further.
The problem is that 5000 is an arbitrary number. For all we know the limit is 50,000 years.Because of this little bit of non-ideality, the comparative method has the chronological limits that it does, and going beyond 5000 years or so is a stretch. That's not to say we shouldn't try, though. Just don't get your hopes up.
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Having actually read a little bit of Ruhlen and Greenberg, I think the problem people have with them is not the basic idea of long-term comparison, but rather the particular methodology they use. This includes selective sampling, using multiple languages in the same family as multiple points of evidence, and positing ludicrous sound changes without applying them universally.
[quote="Nortaneous"]Is South Africa better off now than it was a few decades ago?[/quote]
- Åge Kruger
- Lebom
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:33 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
I don't think it's all that arbitrary. Latin is well attested in written sources, and yet we can't reconstruct it perfectly or purely from it's descendants. We can get close to Vulgar Latin, but there is a certain amount of error in our reconstruction. If we then take several reconstructions, and compare them, then we're just multiplying the error. We can use this to make a good estimate of the margin of error over time and comparisons.Count Iblis wrote:The problem is that 5000 is an arbitrary number. For all we know the limit is 50,000 years.
[quote="Soviet Russia"]If you can't join them, beat them.[/quote]
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
There is a crank whose name is not Glenn Campbell, but something similar whose speciality it is to claim that language X is a Niger-Congo language. I have also seen cranks who believe that Sumerian is a Bantu language because 1) they are both agglutinating and b) they think noun prefixes and determinants are the same thing.zompist wrote:Technically, no, as Ruhlen at least has long claimed that all languages descend from Proto-World. (Kind of surprisingly, though, he throws it in the Unclassified bin.)WeepingElf wrote:Is there any language family of which nobody says that Sumerian was related to it?
But my impression is that the long-range comparers and cranks alike seem to avoid Niger-Congo and Australian languages.
There are also some non-cranks working on linking Niger-Congo with other language groups. Specifically, there is one scholar who argues that Niger-Congo is a subgroup of Nilo-Saharan. The African phyla themselves are pretty long-range, and I once read an off-hand remark of a historical linguist of I thought Asian languages who said that Africanists are generally lumpers compared to other historical linguists and the evidence for the African phyla would never convince most people outside Africanist circles.
- Niedokonany
- Lebom
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:31 pm
- Location: Kliwia Czarna
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Isn't Sumerican what those Mormon lost tribes used to speak?
uciekajcie od światów konających
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
And it's likely the error grows exponentially, right?Åge Kruger wrote:I don't think it's all that arbitrary. Latin is well attested in written sources, and yet we can't reconstruct it perfectly or purely from it's descendants. We can get close to Vulgar Latin, but there is a certain amount of error in our reconstruction. If we then take several reconstructions, and compare them, then we're just multiplying the error. We can use this to make a good estimate of the margin of error over time and comparisons.Count Iblis wrote:The problem is that 5000 is an arbitrary number. For all we know the limit is 50,000 years.
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Indeed. Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and certainly Khoi-San are probably not valid language families because their relationship has never been demonstrated to a satisfying degree. [citation needed]merijn wrote:There is a crank whose name is not Glenn Campbell, but something similar whose speciality it is to claim that language X is a Niger-Congo language. I have also seen cranks who believe that Sumerian is a Bantu language because 1) they are both agglutinating and b) they think noun prefixes and determinants are the same thing.zompist wrote:Technically, no, as Ruhlen at least has long claimed that all languages descend from Proto-World. (Kind of surprisingly, though, he throws it in the Unclassified bin.)WeepingElf wrote:Is there any language family of which nobody says that Sumerian was related to it?
But my impression is that the long-range comparers and cranks alike seem to avoid Niger-Congo and Australian languages.
There are also some non-cranks working on linking Niger-Congo with other language groups. Specifically, there is one scholar who argues that Niger-Congo is a subgroup of Nilo-Saharan. The African phyla themselves are pretty long-range, and I once read an off-hand remark of a historical linguist of I thought Asian languages who said that Africanists are generally lumpers compared to other historical linguists and the evidence for the African phyla would never convince most people outside Africanist circles.
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
You can cite R.M.W. Dixon, who went back to Greenberg's African work after his Amerind proposal got roundly criticized, and found it of the same (low) quality.Meštronu wrote:Indeed. Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and certainly Khoi-San are probably not valid language families because their relationship has never been demonstrated to a satisfying degree. [citation needed]
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
On the other hand, it mostly seems to be accepted by the experts. Not Khoisan, admittedly. But my understanding was that Niger-Congo was well-established, albeit vague (by which I mean that the exact internal structure and external limits are not well-defined, but that the core is generally agreed on).
I think the splitters are overly critical of the lumpers, because they assume the lumpers are just splitters who aren't good at being splitters. Whereas it seems more likely that they're actually trying to do something else entirely.
I think the splitters are overly critical of the lumpers, because they assume the lumpers are just splitters who aren't good at being splitters. Whereas it seems more likely that they're actually trying to do something else entirely.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:38 am
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
How did you decide that 5000 was a better estimate than, say, 10,000?Åge Kruger wrote:I don't think it's all that arbitrary. Latin is well attested in written sources, and yet we can't reconstruct it perfectly or purely from it's descendants. We can get close to Vulgar Latin, but there is a certain amount of error in our reconstruction. If we then take several reconstructions, and compare them, then we're just multiplying the error. We can use this to make a good estimate of the margin of error over time and comparisons.Count Iblis wrote:The problem is that 5000 is an arbitrary number. For all we know the limit is 50,000 years.
- Tropylium⁺
- Lebom
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:21 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
That'd be Roger Blench, and what I get from it is the impression that the standard of comparision used to demonstrate NC and NS in the first place can be applied to demonstrate them being related to each other just as well.merijn wrote:There are also some non-cranks working on linking Niger-Congo with other language groups. Specifically, there is one scholar who argues that Niger-Congo is a subgroup of Nilo-Saharan.
(NC and NS at their widest, that is… that stuff like Kru, Kwa, Benue-Congo etc. belong together is fully accepted IIUC.)
That would be assuming that all evidence of relationship is equally likely to be lost or muddled, which is not true. *m is more likely to stay put than *o is, a noun class system is more likely to stay put than a set of locative cases is, etc. A relationship 10K years old is going to be harder to recover than one 5K years old, but not squared-as-hard.Miekko wrote:And it's likely the error grows exponentially, right?Åge Kruger wrote:I don't think it's all that arbitrary. Latin is well attested in written sources, and yet we can't reconstruct it perfectly or purely from it's descendants. We can get close to Vulgar Latin, but there is a certain amount of error in our reconstruction. If we then take several reconstructions, and compare them, then we're just multiplying the error. We can use this to make a good estimate of the margin of error over time and comparisons.Count Iblis wrote:The problem is that 5000 is an arbitrary number. For all we know the limit is 50,000 years.
Not actually new.
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
Is it? So does the incidence of m increase over time? If not, why are you confident that m is so stable?Tropylium⁺ wrote:*m is more likely to stay put than *o is, [...]
- Tropylium⁺
- Lebom
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:21 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Is Sumerican a Uralic Language?
No, because sound changes that create /o/, or most other "more volatile" segments, are also common.zompist wrote:Is it? So does the incidence of m increase over time?Tropylium⁺ wrote:*m is more likely to stay put than *o is, [...]
List me three languages or language groups that have a sound change affecting original word-initial *m in any way? Or original intervocalic *m, for that matter.If not, why are you confident that m is so stable?
Next try listing a few languages that have a sound change affecting original initial-syllable *o?
(Or if you really need the point driven home, languages that have a sound change affecting word-initial *k — in any way, ie. palatalization, spirantization, uvularization, etc.)
Not actually new.