Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Some North American indigenous languages have names for ‘common nighthawk’ (Chordeiles minor)’, ‘robin’, and ‘bird’ that are strikingly similar phonetically and have served to advocate long-distance genetic relationships among language families. While the Algonquian proto-form for ‘nighthawk’ has a rather straightforward pedigree, this is not the case for Siouan languages. Despite their phonetic resemblance, the ornithonyms for ‘nighthawk’ in half a dozen Siouan languages are unrelated; some are mimetic innovations and others are borrowed. This article analyses how and why ornithonyms are problematic in the application of the comparative method, a reality that affects the validity of long-distance claims, and offers alternative ways to deal with this issue. While ornithonyms can be inherited and undergo all the regular sound changes (or not) like other words, they are also problematic in many respects. First, they can be onomatopoetic and imitate the cry or call of the bird in question – a feature that accounts for their cross-linguistic similarity. Second, they can undergo ad hoc mimetic reshaping or become lexically contaminated based on phonetic similarity with other ornithonyms or words with which they are associated culturally. Third and last, they can be borrowed internally or externally. However, despite these comparative pitfalls (i.e., that some phonetically similar forms in a language family are not cognates), the analysis shows that our understanding of ornithological nomenclature can be enhanced by considering elements of ornithology, mythology, ethnographic knowledge, sayings, and puns pertaining to birds.
Some North American indigenous languages have names for ‘common nighthawk’ (Chordeiles minor)’, ‘robin’, and ‘bird’ that are strikingly similar phonetically and have served to advocate long-distance genetic relationships among language families. While the Algonquian proto-form for ‘nighthawk’ has a rather straightforward pedigree, this is not the case for Siouan languages. Despite their phonetic resemblance, the ornithonyms for ‘nighthawk’ in half a dozen Siouan languages are unrelated; some are mimetic innovations and others are borrowed. This article analyses how and why ornithonyms are problematic in the application of the comparative method, a reality that affects the validity of long-distance claims, and offers alternative ways to deal with this issue. While ornithonyms can be inherited and undergo all the regular sound changes (or not) like other words, they are also problematic in many respects. First, they can be onomatopoetic and imitate the cry or call of the bird in question – a feature that accounts for their cross-linguistic similarity. Second, they can undergo ad hoc mimetic reshaping or become lexically contaminated based on phonetic similarity with other ornithonyms or words with which they are associated culturally. Third and last, they can be borrowed internally or externally. However, despite these comparative pitfalls (i.e., that some phonetically similar forms in a language family are not cognates), the analysis shows that our understanding of ornithological nomenclature can be enhanced by considering elements of ornithology, mythology, ethnographic knowledge, sayings, and puns pertaining to birds.
In this paper, up to twenty-eight new Yukaghir etymologies are described as Eskimo borrowings into the Yukaghir languages and dialects of far northeastern Siberia, with phonological and semantic considerations for each suggestion. These findings provide new insights into the historical phonology of these ancient borrowings as well as fairly clear etymologies for a number of isolated Yukaghir words. The chronology of the borrowings is also considered, and various factors reveal two different competing hypotheses: the Yukaghir correspondences have either resulted from chronologically different borrowing layers through the ages, or the correspondences actually represent the remnants of an ancient genetic language affiliation between the two, a hypothesis supported by the very divergent phonological shapes and semantics of the correspondences. It is argued that the Eskimo correspondences are invariably of the Yup’ik variety (instead of the Inuit variety), and that Yup’ik language(s) were spoken in much earlier times around the Kolyma River, where Yukaghir is still spoken, and in particular close to the Tundra Yukaghirs. The semantic categorization of the borrowings places most of them as elementary phenomena, actions, and perceptions, and if not actually describing an actual genetic language relationship, this at least suggests very intense linguistic contacts between Yup’ik and Yukaghir under bi- or multi-lingual conditions, such as through tribal marriages and where code-switching was the norm for generations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.