Two principles of genetic reconstruction

Hetzron, Robert

doi:10.1016/0024-3841(76)90074-7

Cited by 90 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The dashed line leading to Arabic reflects the fact that log BF tests were equivocal in the placement of Arabic, so we placed Arabic in Central Semitic based on previous linguistic studies (e.g. Hetzron 1976;Faber 1997). The topology is rooted with Akkadian, which is preferred by our log BF analyses, and follows the constraints of the standard model.…”

Section: Results (A) Genealogy Of Semitic Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The field of Semitic linguistics has generally coalesced around a model that places the ancient Mesopotamian language Akkadian as the most basal lineage of Semitic (Hetzron 1976;Faber 1997). This standard model divides Semitic into East Semitic, composed of the extinct Akkadian and Eblaite languages, and West Semitic, consisting of all remaining Semitic languages that are distributed from the Levant to the Horn of Africa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second comparison concerns the placement of Arabic and compares the standard model, in which Arabic is placed within Central Semitic (e.g. Hetzron 1976;Faber 1997), with a single topological modification that places Arabic within South Semitic. This comparison showed little preference for a model with Arabic within Central Semitic over one with Arabic within South Semitic (log BFZK0.438).…”

Section: A Kitchen Et Al Bayesian Analysis Of Semitic Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of languages provides a unique opportunity to study human population history. The origin of Semitic and the nature of dispersals by Semitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding of the ancient history of the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Semitic populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban civilizations in the region, which gave rise to some of the world's first major religious and literary traditions. In this study, we employ Bayesian computational phylogenetic techniques recently developed in evolutionary biology to analyse Semitic lexical data by modelling language evolution and explicitly testing alternative hypotheses of Semitic history. We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago.

show abstract

Section: Results (A) Genealogy Of Semitic Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Kitchen Et Al Bayesian Analysis Of Semitic Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To be sure, it is not only in the IE domain that the protolanguage reflects the morphological type of the daughter languages. Hetzron (1976) uses a morphological pattern of the root and pattern kind precisely to establish the major subdivisions of Proto-Semitic. This pattern involves the formation of tense/aspect specific stems and is found throughout the Semitic languages (just as is the so-called broken plural).…”

Section: Languages Without Morphology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the “isolating protolanguage hypothesis” in the evolution of morphology

Dubé¹

2011

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While reduplication occurs across the family, this process has a universal tendency to denote iteration/intensiveness. a{a) and gemination of a medial consonant, on the other hand are morphologically arbitrary (in the sense of Hetzron 1976) and hence their appearance as a marker of intensiveness not only in Cushitic, but, in Semitic, Berber and Chadic as well, point to pan-phylum phenomena. The isoglosses, as Zaborski notes, point "in all directions".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Afrikanistik

2000

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

um einen Satzfehler für fudutong (Generalleutnant, Divisionskommandeur; Brunnert/Hagelström, Nr 658.3) zu handeln. Nr 80-82: Inenggidari sahangge be isamjame gisurehe bithe. Die drei Texte werden als "student's translations" bezeichnet. Da der Ubersetzer indes der hebei amban von Uljasutai war und der Text in drei Abschriften vorliegt, ist die Kennzeichnung wohl etwas zu streng. Nr 134: Manju-i acanaha bithe aus dem Besitz von Antonio Montucci. M. besaß zwei Exemplare des Werkes (vgl. Borgia Cinese 425 der Vatikanischen Bibliothek), wobei das eine Unklarheiten (im Druck) des anderen erläutern sollte. Möglicherweise ist das vorliegende Exemplar vom Vatikan als Dublette ausgeschieden worden. Allerdings ist es auch denkbar, daß Montucci selbst das zweite Exemplar veräußert hat, um die Mittel für den Schnitt seiner chinesischen Zeichensätze aufzubringen. Nr 162: Der Begriff kalam für Feder ist zwar dem Arabisten geläufig, dürfte aber manchem Leser unklar sein. Nr 163: In der japanischen Transkription muß es nichi statt ni heißen. Hier ist Rez. zu tadeln, dem dieser Fehler in seiner Titeihste von 1976 unterlaufen ist. Nr 171: Als bibliographischer Hinweis ist zu ergänzen: Field (Catalogue of Chinese rubbings in Field Museum) 1611. Nr 172: Field 1635. Nr 173: Im Titel der Inschrift lies Zanla statt Zangla. Die Erwähnung der beiden Zeichen Yugao im Kopf des Steins ist ungewöhnlich. Mit Wahrscheinlichkeit handelt es sich (der Titelfassung entsprechend) eher um Yuzhi. Nr 176: Field 1557. O. Franke/B. Laufer: Lamaistische Klosterinschriften aus Peking, Jehol und Si-ngan. Berlin, Hamburg 1914 (Epigraphische Denkmäler aus China. 1-2.), Taf. 20. Nr 177: Die Inschrift ist 1753 zu datieren. Vgl. die Reproduktion bei Franke/Laufer, Taf. 17-18. Nr 179: Die dreisprachige Gründungsinschrift des Gelben Tempels (Franke/Laufer, Taf. 8-9) ist übersetzt von Herbert Franke inZDMGWA. 1964, 391-412. Eine Reihe von Transkriptionsfehlern (Nr 79: Shenyu statt Shengyu; Nr 92: Guanxu statt Guangxu, usw.) erklären sich aus der russischen Praxis. Afrikanistik Griefenow-Mewis Catherine and Rainer Voigt (Eds.): Cushitic and Omotic Languages.

show abstract

Two principles of genetic reconstruction

Cited by 90 publications

References 3 publications

Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East

Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East

Reconsidering the “isolating protolanguage hypothesis” in the evolution of morphology

Afrikanistik

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About