On the Loss of Vowel Harmony Systems in Some Chukotian Languages
Joseph H. Greenberg
pla y s
T y pology
He ha s g i v e n
re se a rc h.
th e
t he
to
l a n g u a ge
of
dir e c tl y
n or m s of
l a te r
der i v e d
d i a c hr ony
in
P rofessor
due weight
to
both
to
we wish
Syn ch r onic ally
ro l e
a c e n tra l
a tte s te d
l a n g u a ges,
language
should,
in
a g e n e ra l i z e d
fro m
changes from
the
turn,
conform
of
to
typol ogi cal l y
conforms
w hi l e
know l edge
aspects.
and di achroni c
synchroni c
a system w hi ch
re c o n s tru c t
comparati ve
Gamkrel i dzers
proto-
the
pri nci pl es
to uni versal
processes
of
l i ngui sti c
process
of
di achroni c
ch a n g e .
pr es e n t
t he
In
in
ch a n g e by whic h
of
l a n g u a ges
th e
in
s om e d i a l e c ts ,
down.
T h e s tu d y
b y w hic h
if
u n i ve rs als
pos s ibl e ,
w i th i n
si tu a tion
Chuk c hi
Chuk c hi
is
of
at
b ro a der
fa l l
c l e arl y
a rri v e
of
form a seri es
it
in
stages
has compl etel y
by a w i der
compari son
such a broader
the
l oss
about
general i zati ons
w e compare
study,
vow el
of
empl oyi ng
harmony systems
the
in
di achroni c
hu m a n l a n g u a g e .
of
T he Chuk ot ia n
co n ta i ns
to
In
1 969).
i n s ta n ees
degree
the method I have cal l ed
be extended
and should
to
and K erek,
A l i utor
for
functi oni ng
a somew hat l esser
K oryak
of
e x h i bi ts
th e re fo re
independent
his t or ic ally
o rd e r,
d i a l ects
me th o d (Gre e n b e rg
i n t er genet ic
o th e r
v a ri o u s
especially
c o mp a ri s o n "
"i n l ra g enet ic
th e
in
and to
C h u kchi ,
of
harmony reconstructi bl e
L972) and sti l l
a n d Dol gopol ski j
in
fo rm
o ri g i n a l
c an b e fo u n d
Ka mchadal,
b ro ke n
it s
in
a group
namel y C hukoti an,
vow el
a system of
S i b e ri a ,
the
fami l y,
l i n g u i sti c
(G o l o v a s ti k o v
p r ot o- language
b a si cally
a p a rti c u l a r
nor th e a s l e rn
w i th
b e c oncerned
I will
s tu d y
languages
a n d K o ry a k ,
a re mi n o r
v er y
d i ffe re n t
while
and do not
in
th e
other
reach
K o ry a k
i nto
of
consi sts
the
w hi ch
tw o branches.
l eve1
has ni ne
of
One of
K amchadal .
di al ect
these
D i fferences
di fference.
di sti ngui shi bl e
di al ects
The
v ar y
w h i ch
at
f r om
o n e s w i th
one extreme,
co mp l et ely
while
to
In
th i s
r ny c ons idera ti o n
b ri e fl y
of
des c r ibed
vo we l s
ar e
a n d II,
of
div ide d
r es pec t iv e l y .
b a ck and t hes e
will
which
o ri g i n a l
to
tw o l e v e l s ,
Each level
II
Figure 1.
will
will
not
be restri cted
to
I and II
vow el
C hukchi .
A s can be seen i n
(e.g.
P al an)
system
is
be i ncl uded,
a few for
w hi ch
w hi ch
c o n t ai ns
three
vow el s,
1,
2,
will
Fi gure
1, the
be desi gnated
front,
central ,
as I
and
and 3.
1
e
u
e
a
o
Chukchi Vowel Harmony
are often
called
lower the vowels of level
if
harmony system may be
and l ow ,
level
the same series.
harmony
C hukoti an
is that
will
vowel
K amchadal branch
The general rule
it
the
h i gh
s e ri e s
I
I,
harmony systems
l
be called
The two levels
vow el
d i a l e cts
re fe re n c e
i n to
in
th e
K o ry a k
th e
w i th
other
s tu d y
in fo rma ti o n .
T he es s ent ia l s
fu n c ti o ni ng
on the
Kerek
abs en t.
I h a v e f uller
fu l l y
weak and strong,
respectively.
there is even one vowel which belongs basically
II
to
to the corresponding low vowels of
Both strong and weak vowels can occur in either
stems or
inflections.
F r om t he
u n ch a ngeable
ab o v e ru l e
and a l w a y s
it
fo l l o w s
a p p e a rs
me mb er of
lev el
I,
h o w e v e r,
me mb er of
lev el
II
is
p re s e n t
will
in
th at
th e
a vow el
same form.
w hi ch
bel ongs
A vow el
h a v e tw o vari ants,
a n d a c h anged (l ow ered)
the
to
w hi ch
unchanged
vari ant
l evel
is
is
II
basi cal l y
(fri gfr)
w hen i n
the
if
a
no
same
words as a vowel of the strong or second level.
In addition,
variable
its
all
in quality
the Chukotian languages have a neutral
which will
usual orthographical
be discussed briefly
ser ies
be designated here by y,, the transliteration
designation
2.
and -n is an absolutive
rby means of the net. t
suffix.
If,
its
basic low vowel of series
level
fI.
Either
words in Chukchi consist
some behave like
the ablative
inherently
is suffixedl
dictionary
while
in that
it
entirely
all
case which is
be ga-
will
2 has lowered. both the
of vowels of level
I or of
examples of I are phonetically
e.g. milger
(1937) carefully
distinguishes
for all
and none have a lowering effect.
the gun.t
(fgOf z 36, footnote
in his description
strong and weak y does not exist
vowels, but it
is
Bogorasl
instances of y whether it
'rstrong'r X is probably a red.uced form of strong A (of
(1934(a):89)
For example,
I vowels of a stem to which
tgnnr but melgar-gvpvrfrom
Skorik
weak vowels.
only of neutral
lowers the basic level
belongs to leve1 I or 1eve1 II.
Stebnitskij
kupre-te
corresponding members of
strong vowels and some like
case ending -gypy consists
strong
be
type may be accompanied by -Xr the reduced vowel.
However, in Chukchi at least,
similar,
singular
2, giving
and suff ix -nar the result
E-
g of
case, the stem will
is in the associative
g=- and the two vowels of the stem to their
Thus, all
I,
is in the absolutive
In the lnstrumental
however, it
kopra-ma, in which -ma with
I.
nature will
contains vowels of basic level
Here the form eited
formed by a simultaneous pref ix re,-
level
Its
by a few examples
by -te which also has a basic high vowel of series
suffixed
it
orthographies.
of the system can be illustrated
The word kupren Inetr
3 and e of series
prefi*
in Cyrillic
of
later.
The basic functioning
from Chukchi.
vowel, short and
level
36) says that
If).
According to
of Kamchadal, a distinction
in Koryak or Kamchadal i.e.
of
they are all
In more recent Russian descriptions,
weak
f has
a sa n o n- phonem ic pr e d i c ta b 1 e v o w e 1 e x c e p tp e rhapsforC hukchi .Thus,W
rh o u set
( abs olut ive
w ri tte n
nm nm .
help
to
s i n g u l a r)
im p e rm i s s i b l e
inf lec t e d
d i ffe rent
H owev er ,
Thus,
Koryak.
a re
t he
p l u ra l
co mp l e t ely
wit h
th e
of
th e
in
q u e s ti o n ,
an int e re s ti n g
We now turn our attention
them according to certain
respectively;
partial
in all
These dialects
w hi ch
posi ti on
i ts
plural
is
di sti ncti on
nymnvm-u,
Zhukova 1967);
not
Stebnitskij
in
Thi s
further
agrees
is
detai l
some dialects
I believe,
(1937: 292) was
phonetic differences,
among which the fact
instances where the other dialects
subsequent discussion
are called
a-kaiushchij
generally
division
as Western and A- dialects
of Koryak dialect
and e-kajushchij,
as Eastern.
parts of Koryak territory
Kerek, a dialect
information
of
However, the whole
Stebnitskij
himself
found in the above-cited passage labels
to assign Chavchuven, a dialect
his table
realized.
use e
in
notes that
have more widespread a-kan'ie than others.
His original
in all
here.
In doing Sor he also
breakdown of the vowel harmony system.
wsy, as is,
in
wytwlrt
and thi s
di cti onary.
pursued
but
process of the loss of the system is too complex to be simply represented
this
in
exi sts
and a-kanje as against e-kanie is regarded as an indication
or full
is
of Koryak.
use a in certain
is prominent and has figured
C hukchi
C hukchi
to enumerate the dialects
dialects
classif icat.ion.
1939,
to Koryak.
classified
the
has the
buL it
the first
certain
and y may shi ft
that
Bo gorasr
apparently
that
K oryak
s a me w ord.
(K o rs a kov
i n d i c a ti o n s
of
vow el s
L
cl usters
nymnun rhouser
w y tw y t-o
di al ect
y are mere transi ti on
of
s o me i n d i c a ti o n s
Chavchuven
rl e a ffhas
o b vi o u s ly
consonant
fo rm s
t he re
C havchuven (standard)
th e
s o me i n s ta n c e s
D o u b tl e s s
av oid
in
on i t.
It
It
should be noted that
spoken by perhaps more than half
to either
group.
he does not wish
of the Koryak
Also, he does not include
spoken in the extreme northeast
clearly
e- dialects
in
because of lack of
belongs to the a- group and I have, therefore,
in
reproducing his table
division
included
of Kor yak dialects
it.
With this
modification
based on Stebnitskij
we have the following
(Figure z) z
(e)
WESTERN
EASTERN(C)
1.
Palan
4.
(Kerek)
2.
Paren
5.
Aliutor
3.
Itkan
6.
Karagin (with e influence)
7.
Apukin
8.
Kamenskoje
9.
Chavchuven (not assigned)
tr'igure 2
Koryak dialect
The western-eastern
justification
of the dialects
division
be called
division
might on geographical
southern-northern.
is shown schematically
grounds with equal
The relative
geographical position
in Figure 3.
Kerek
Apukin
Itkan
Kamenskoje
Aliutor
Paren
Pa l a n
Figue
A classification
Koryak
of Koryak dialects
Zhukova 1968(a), p. 292.
considered an e dialect
3.
K aragi n
ft
di al ects
into e and a types is also given in
agrees with Stebnitskij
except that
Chavchuven is
instead of remaining unassigned; and Karagin is
cl a ssif ied
as an e d i a l e c t
influence.
Aliutor
w i th
l a rg e
4 i nfl uence
rather
and Kerek, which would surely
than
a w i th
be a dialects,
e
are not
considered probably because Zhukova considers them separate languages and
not
merely dialects
of Koryak.
In the body of this
dialects
study,
I will
consider the following
for which there is reasonably adequate published
Chavchuven' Kamenskoje, Aliutor,
illustrate
and Kerek.
five
data.
Koryak
They are palan,
These are arranged in this
order to
the process of the loss of the vowel-harmony system so that
conservative
comes first
and the least
Before considering
the details
conservative
particular
it
will
be possible
vowel has several
last.
concerning each of these dialects,
modified form of Figure I with additional
Figure 4, so that
the most
notation
will
to distinguish
different
functions
be introduced
a
in
instances in which a
within
the system of vowel
harmony.
II
€2,
"L-2
F i g u re
This
th re e
not at ion
v ar iet ies
belongs
to
vo we l
of
lev el
si n ce
it
belongs
n -o m-gen
t hot r r
a d j e cti ve- f or m
e,
set
fo r
I,
e x a mp l e ,
i n h e re n tl y
the
s u ffi x
e is
qin
o-,
th e
th e
l o w er
because
which
)
e of
!
re mai nt
to
"L'2
a
vow el
by exampl es
h a rmo n i z l n g w i th
rn p e l a tv k ' to
1.
u
C h u k oti an
c a n b e i l l u s tra te d
of
v owel
4.
e1
o c c u rs
it
harmonv
from
the
the
e of
the
l evel
contai ns
the
the
is
To take
= 1 si nce
same w ord w hi ch
domi nant
w i th
C hukchi .
peni ntformert
in
1-)
o^ '
fi rst
is
syl Iabl e
2 an4 never
l ow ered
vari ant
stem -om seen i n
the
the
it
al so
is
a
e2
changes.
of
the
absol uti ve
In
form
of
qen is,
noun omom I heat. I
the
of course , 02.
The o of
An example of
(absolutive),
because of the basic a of the last
The Palan dialect
representative
animalt
of the initial
like
that
of Chukchi and is therefore
stage of Koryak and, for
the prefix
Specifically,
is fixed
in form in contrast
that matter,
Proto-
and represents
T he s ec ond d i a l e c t
lit er ary
g ra mm ar ( Z huk ov a
to
b e c o n s i d e re d
ft
1972) and in
A s was n o te d
d i a l e ct s
int o
t ho s e
th e
e a rl i e r,
w i th
suggest that
from the Paren dialect
this
is also
dialect
the same stage as Palan.
language,
(L 9 6 7 ) .
of vowel harmony,
The few forms cited
(fg:Z)
Thus, (Zhukova
qaj.
to Chukchi g"-i-
a-kanie
of a particular
offspring
tyoung of an eagler is in violation
in Bogoras (1917) and in Stebnitskij
conservative
rsmall,
q.i-
instead of the expected qej-tilrmvng.
K or y ak
in Zhukova (1gAO) has a
However, even Palanr &s compared to Chukchi, shows a slight
1980: 38) qa.'i-tilrmvng
th e
syllable.
of Koryak, described in detail
system of vowel harmony essentially
tendency.
tby ust
9L-2 is found in morgynan
in which o has been lowered from basic u as found in muri twet
(instrumental)
Chuckotian.
n-om-
is
C havchuven,
is
qui te
ful 1y
d i c ti onari es
Ste b n i ts ki j ,
e -k a n i e
in
a n d a-kanj e,
w hi ch
attested
both
of
K orsakov
hi s
ori gi nal
does not
forms
in
the
regard
(tq:q)
to
and Zhukova
di vi si on
assi gn
of
basi s
of
K oryak
C havchuven to
e i th e r.
T he r elev ant
th a t
t he
s y s t em a s s u c h fu n c ti o n s
i n d i ca t ions
is
that
"1 .
a kvk
a re
of
in
imp o rta n t
a considerable
W e m ay c it e
r s ont
als o
c h a ra c te ri s ti e s
ins t anc e s
ekyk)
C havchuven i n
a l most
m o d i fi c a ti o n s
number of
as examples
( Chuk c h i
of
compl etel y.
in
stems,
the
I fatt
harmony i s
are
there
The most obvi ous
shows a where
Chukchi
summert (C hukchi
(n, ) (C hukchi
s u c h a s C h a v c h u v e n w ej emrri verr
vow el
system.
Chavchuven
the
to
H ow ever,
ori gi nal
C h a v c h u v en al akri n
and achan
regard
echyn).
(C hukchi
el ek),
H ow ever,
w ei em)
has
there
i n w hi ch
the
sh i f t
to
wh i c h
als o
a d. oe s n o t
e xa m ple,
nor
F ur t her ,
r t ear s t
o p e r at es
wit h
sa y t . hat t he
a l te r nat es
wit h
d i ffu s ion,
of
a,
th i s
" ess e n ti a l l y
a l l om or phs
h a ve i
in
el
a re
b a s ic ally
is
i ni ti al
all
l i mi ted
th at
to
S i nce
For
change,
a in
that
in
memyl ) and
seri es
the
I
adj ecti val -
rpertai ni ng
exampl es
the
to
the
rai nrl
show us that
" l -2
H encer w € ma y
change 92 >
preci sel y
e2 i s
the
an exampl e of
changes by w hi ch
in
- e of
become g ei ther.
w e have here
b y th ose
(C hukchi
i
i n muge-ki n
e1 does not
e x a m p l es.
s u g g e s ts
few .
eZ does not
Thus w e fi nd
These and other
Chavchuven is
in
The al ternati on
tot
I
s p ri n g .
in
whic hr
fn
p re fi x e s ,
v i o l a ti o n
i n stanc es
of
which
one of
of
to
nik i -ta
of
the
th e
n i g h trr
a d j e c ti v a l
w i thi n
seri es
e that
" l exi cal
certai n
2.
N one of
to
s u m m e rrr d e ri v e d
shoul d
morphemes
these
stems
for
i n s tances
of
c o m p ared w i th
-ki n
have l ow vari ants,
One of
P al an,
these
is
a for
fi xed
el
C hukchi
al a-al
of
them i n
is
the
in
ni ki -ter
a few
have
speci fi c
di mi nuti ve
prefi x
morphemes e.g.
in
w € have sporadi c
.L-2
C havchuven,
are
form.
across
w here -ken w i th
d i c ti onari es
w here there
P arti cul arl y
or use one of
h a rm ony.
fro m
a few i nstances
harmony occurs.
v ari ants
fo rm a n t
Z huk ov a a n d Ko rs a k o v rs
rp e r t aining
v ow el
a l re a d y
a fe w o th e r
ra t
in
th e re fore
vowel
€I S w e h a v e n o te d
addit ion
adv er b
c o m p l e x i ty
v i o l a ti o n
c o m p l e te l y
i n st anc es
in
the
b e di scussed.
analogical
a fu rth e r
high
g e ner aliz ed
Bo th
to
re p l a c e d
mo r phem e bound a ri e s ,
th e
harmony are
or u.
T her e
g "i -
to
occur
vow el
peni n).
me re mer).
W e h a v e s e e n th a t
a -k a n i e
does n o t
(i ntr.),
fp e rta i n i n g
-k e n
r p e rta i n i n g
bec om es a .
it
(C h u k c h i
-k i n
re v iver
(C h u k chi
a fe w e x c e p ti o n s
s uf f ix
a n d ano- k en
h e re
(n .)
of
c h a n g e s a s we see from memyl fseal t
?2 never
me i e m ei
n e v er
rfo rme rt
penin
in
>
v i o l a ti ons
tto
Ch a v c h u v e n e j u k
does it
fo rm ing
T h e c h a nge el
o r g s o th a t
have i
in
o c c u r.
w oul d
w e fi nd
rsummert (si ngul ar
be expected . .
al a-ki n
absol uti ve)
instead of the expected >talaken.
kanie,
)kelekin
since ala-
it
is possible
'
There is a tendency also for
generalize
to -U
in such cases that
in violation
word for
itself
-kin
derived from ele-
survives
by a-
from the earlier
the diminutive
form
- -pe1
to
suf f ix -E
rrivulet.r
of vowel harmony e.g. waiam-pil
again -P!f' could be a survival.
rriverf
is itself
Howeverr BS was noted earlier,
Here
the chavchuven
is weiem and not wa.jamby a_kan.ier So this
example is
surprising.
A parallel
suffix
usually
tendency for
-thuI
rbear'r
rpiece,
-thoI,
harmonizes e.g.
Zhukova we find
have a historical
which varies
the u variant
in all
This
meat, I but in both Korsakov and
tbear meatr
from kaingv-n
across a morphemebound,ary. ft
(never g) and that
i becomes i
we may once more
is significant,
with a has become a, but
"I-2
or-2 tends to be repraced by
of the same morpheme.
Kamenskoje, is,
by stebnitskij
.
namely a-kanie proper,
a, in effect,
rriverr
f reind.eer
(Korsakov kaing-t?ul)
It
as we have seen, classified
thing
to be noted is that
the change el >
is complete and occurs even in word.s which have i or
u so
has become a neutral
but nutanut
as an a-kan-.ie
forms the basis of Bogorasr d.escription of Koryak
(Bogoras L9L7, rg22), The first
that
oI-2 is found in the
of the meat of an animal. I
these cases el which varies
The next dialect,
dialect
to replace
is an example of a-kanig (chukchi kejngyn),
survival
with
especially
qo ja-thol
kajngv-thu1
Since this
however, that
the u alternant
vowel. Thus we have not only wajam
f land t (chavchuven,
chukehi nutenut)
and
.-iinga.ikin I f lies,
soarsr as compared to Chukchi ringerkin,
However g sti1l
survives
as part
of the vowel system. Thus the word. for
t tears' (n. t
) is me'iemei (Chavchuven mejemej , Chukchi meremer) with e2. The
alternations
there is still
i
e with
"r-2
and q
o with
o1-2 still
a vowel harmony system and phonetically
basicarly
survive
so
besides the reduced vowel
vowels. For example the verb t"ryr
y there are five
rlandr,
ewr found in this
in ewang the, she sayst.
in Chukchi and Chavchuven has an e variant
with the stem of nutanut
-
iw
tforeignerst.
iania-notalo
in which i is pref erred to
rsmall womanrr cf.
Kamenskoje nFawan-pil
rules
for
violations,
and u is pref erred to
"I-2
o-L-Z, o. B
Chavchuven ngawychngyn twoman.t These
change in Kamenskoje from the basic forms as they occur in Chukchi are
described carefully
by Bogoras (tgZZt
original
lowering
not,
So a1so,
Across morpheme
boundaries we do tendr 3s in Chavchuven and even Palan to find
always instances
form
a requires
but the distinction
would be the subject
distinctions
are'
67I-2).
To a large extent
from i to e, whereas a resulting
is breaking down. The details
of a special
investigation.
of course, difficult
it
appears that
from a-kanie d,oes
remain to be studied and
Such historically
to maintain,
and it
based
is clear
that
i and u
are favored over e and o,
T his
fu l I
whole
im plem ent at io n
Fo r ex am ple,
t he
h i sto ri c ally
to
ca se ( t appear
vo w e l s
Palan
th e
addit ion,
et gat y k ,
co mp a r ed t o
Al i u to r
P alan
would no t
is
true,
to
a t hr ee- v owel
In
vo we l
dual
as r
but
t he
Z huk ov ar s
is
of
th e
fu rth e r
a d vanced
a -k a n i e
c h ange el
a ffi x
a fte r
Chukchi
to
c o n sonant
p l u ra l
b e c a l l e d t)
c or r es pond i n g
In
to
p ro c e s s
is
Chukchi
a ffi x
g Z h a s b e c o me i
o,
as,
te
and nu
If
th e s e
only
h a v e c o mp l e te l y
o ri g i n a l
s y s te m o f
s y s te m g r
s k e tc h
phonem es w h i c h
of
i,
w hi ch
to
the
vow el s
-ti
consonant
and theressi vel
stems and -nu after
!g.
system of
a,
rto
i tgatyk
susmavyk rto
i ts
correspond,s
al w ays
changes w ere the
l ost
addi ti on
er
i,
daw nrr
prepare
w hol e
vow el
o,
compared
onesel f,
story,
then
harmony,
u w oul d
I
w hi ch
be reduced
g.
Al i u to r
s h e w ri te s
fi v e
is
exampl e,
a n d 0 2 h a s b e c o me u as i n
chochmavvk.
stems,
after
for
H ere i n
>
ti
a l w a ys' g
u
i n A l i utor.
a,
10
(1 96g),
i (e ),
she says that
and u(o).
there
The nature
are
of
onl y
the
three
presumabl y
non-phonemic variants
positing
e and o are not discussed.
e and g as non-phonemic variants
absence of minimal contrasts
However, it
I presume the basis for her
between e and i,
or o and lJ.
does appear from the forms cited
to her granmar of Palan, which contains word lists
subdialects,
that
of the two Aliutor
These instances
words.
(tg:g)
account of Stebnitskij
occurrences have a specific
certain
both here and in the appendix
both g and o do occ ur, though infrequently.
are, however, confined to certain
The earlier
probable complete
is the highly
historical
makes clear that
origin,
diphthongs e < a.i, o ( aw, ew.
these
namely, the contraction
In the Aliutor
vocabularies
of
in Zhukova
(fgAO) there are indeed a few examples of e and o and these are consistent
the diphthongal
Examples include mengatvk rto
proposed by Stebnitskij.
origin
growrr corresponding to Palan meingatvk; tekvk
Aliutor
a-kan je,
l o a n w or d
Exa mples of
h a s u n d e rg o n e
o in Al i u to r
the
a re w i l -l o tu rs o ur
and o- i e n tp a s tu re r
w i s-l e w t u
fto dor (Palan tejkvk).
the expected f orms would be ma'ingatyk, etc.
c hainik r t e a p o tt
with
The Russian
same change,
gi vi ng
fi sh
correspondi ng
headsrr
(C h a v c h u v en aw ? j env).
Given
A l i utor
The second parts
seni k.
to
of
P al an
these
compounds are conmon to Chukchi and Koryak and go back to lewt - lawt as, for
example, in Chukchi (Bogoras 1937: 15).
S om e s our c es
Al i u to r
u;
(..g .
G o l o v a s ti k o v
and S te b n i ts k i j
There is some indication
the relatively
w ri te s
that
i n c onsi st.entl y
this
rare o resulting
a nd D ol gopol ski j )
both
w ri te
tatol
vowel is intermediate
from contraction
o in
general
and tatul
in quality.
for
I fox. I
Whether
is the same is not possible
to
deduce from our sources.
The general picture,
five-vowel
then,
system to three with
gaps between a and i,
that we find
is that Aliutor
has reduced the
loss of vowel harmony, and that
a and u were filled
11
by the contraction
subsequently the
of diphthongs to e
and o.
In addition
to this
source there are Russian loanwords such as krovat
rbedrr but in m any (older?)
e.g.
rsaltr
sulta
O ut s ide
d e ri ved
of
f r om
and qlipps
i s o l a te d
c i ta ti o n s
mimvl
in
H e re ,
other
b esi de
sourcesr
the
i l y know l edge
reduced
vow el
Ir
of
can be easily
illustrated
K erek
there
and u and a complete absence of vowel harmony.
changes found in Aliutor
i,
rbreadt (x1eb).
(1 9 6 8 b ).
S k o ri k
three vowels er i,
g2, cited
loanwords Russian o is represented by u and eby
are onl y
All
for Kerek also.
is
of the
These are e1
in Korsakov 1939: 120); .L-2 >
memyl; oZ >
f piece, meat of a particular
which the first
u is from oz and the second, derives
T he ques t ion
d o e s not
ar is e
of
rreind.eer meatt in
animalr as seen in qu'iathul
e a n d o d e ri v i n g
a s w e s e e ,.;
from
from or-2.
di phthongs
f beart;
Ke re k ta i $yg
as i n A l i utor
A l i utor
apparentl y
kengyn;
chavchuven
ka i ngyn .
T her e ar e
five-vowel
l o st.
in
n a me l y ,
in
system
O ne is
Ker ek
th e
t w o a s p e c ts
is
?,
t ha tr
t he
i,
s y s t em ,
of
th e
d e v el opment
has been reduced
ds if
three
m o s t c o m m o n th re e -v o w e l
g.
The second is
when in
s e ri e s
th a t
in
the
the
but
in
K oryak
e, w hi ch
of
pl ays
a doubl e
diffusion
examples of morphological
a particular
is
the w orl d,
2 becomes er.
in Chavchuven where lexical
Moreover, they seem to follow
system
a
as seen most cl earl y
l anguages
seri es
di al ects
harmony
resul t
the
process
in
vowel
fi nal
system of
1 b e c o mes i
the "sound changes" are really
large scale.
and the
b y a c o n s p i ra cy,
suggests, as we see particularly
work, that
to
by w hi ch
order,
rol e
Thi s
is at
analogy on a
namely el >
e2>
The only problem is that we are assuming that
"2-L)
are phonetically
identical
and likewise
L2
the three kinds of e (?2, el,
the two kinds of o, namely o2 and
oL-?.
ff
different
they are not phonetically
changes, although,
three-vowel
system still
even in this
vowel.
that
differences
It
a central
its
among the morphologically
dual status
of the
it
different
appears from all
forms of the same
the phonetic d.escriptions
in the system is phonetically
a front
vowel and not
vowel.
The situation
says that
case the ttconspiracytt origin
of Koryak I have seen is there any indication
should be noted that
e with
undergo
remains.
In none of the descriptions
of phonetic
the same, then they may obviously
may be different
in regard to Chukchi.
Bogoras (fg:+:
the two forms of e which he symbolizes differently
the same" and in his dictionary
12)
are "approximately
he simply says they are both pronounced like
Russian e.
In Skorik
(190t:
23) there is an interesting
of both e and o' which depend on their
the notation
like
the initial
open variant
there
used in this
paper, for
roles
d.escription of two allophones
in the vowel harmony system.
e there is a higher and, more front
vowel of Russian etot which represents el arrd el-2
like
the vowel of Russian exo which represents
is a fronted
and raised variant
e2.
In
variant
and a more
Similarly
for
representing
oL-2 and low back variant
.'
ot which, of course, never varies morphophonemically.
However' even if
similarly
ultimately
Skorikrs
both el which becomes a in Koryak dialects
while the lower variant
become tl.
eZ also becomes i.
front
variant
of
and e1-2 which becomes
In regard to o, both variants
With regard to the whole Chukotian group, one would, of
course, desire much more phonetic,
but w ere not available
The pr es ent
for
they do not behave
in the changes of the Koryak vowel system.
e. represents
i,
Proto-Koryak had such variants,
a tte m p t
especially
instrumental
data, which may exist
to me.
at
a c o m p re h e nsi ve
i3
account
of
the
process
of
l oss
of
o
vowel harmony in Koryak dialects
enumerated here,
will
stimulate
must, of course,
be considered tentative.
further
study of this
languages and in other parts
It
in view of the factors
is the hope of the author that
interesting
it
phenomenonboth in Chukotian
of the world.
NOTES
1.
I have seen references
were not available
further
verification
to me.
to manuscript materials
A11 conclusions in this
in the light
T4
of such daLa.
on Chukotian languages which
article
are subject
to
BIBLIOGMPI{Y
Bogoras, Waldemar.
I9L7.
Koryak Texts.
American Ethnological
Bogoras, Waldemar.
Ethnology, Bulletin
Bogoraz, V.G.
1934.
Publication
of
Volume 5.
ttChukchi
rrr Handbook of American Indian Languages.
L922.
pp. 637'903.
Part II,
Society,
Leyden: Brill.
Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American
40, 1922.
Luorevetlanskij
(Chukotskij)
Jazyk Jazvki i
Pismenostr Nadorov Severa 5'46.
.
1937.
Luorevetlansko-russkii
G os udar s t v e n n o j e
Golovastikov,
U c h e b n o -P e d a g o gi cheskoj e
A.N. and A.B. Dolgopolskij.
Korjatskikh
Kornej i nostraticheskije
Materiali
Predvaritelrniji
Slavnovedenija i Balkanistiki
Greenberg, Joseph G.
L969.
Korsakov, G.M .
1939.
1972.
I stvo.
Rekonstruktsija
Etomologii
27-30.
Chukotsko-
Nauko-Konferentsiia
p
Jazvkov (LZ-I4)
Ak. Nauk SSR Inst.
ANSSR.
Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics,
ed. J. Puhvel Substance and Structure
Angeles: University
Izdatel
I grammatike Indovreveiskikh
sravitelrno-istoricheskoj
Dekabrja.
(Chukotsko-russkii ) Slovar'
of California
of Language 147-203 . Berkeley and Los
Press.
lUyUyl""sko, (Korvaksko)-Russki'i Slovarr.
15
Moscow: Izd-vo
Inostr.
i Nats. Slovarej.
Mol1, Tatyana Aleksandrovna and P.I.
Inenlikej.
L957.
Chukotsko-russij
Slovar r.
Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoje Uchebno-pedagogicheskoje Izdatel I stvo.
Skorik,
P. Ja.
1961.
Grammatika Chukotskogo Jazvka VoI.
1.
Moscow: Akademia
Nauk.
.
1968(a).
Chukotskij
.
1968(b).
Kerekskij
Stebnitskij,
S.N.
1934(a).
.
Nador ov
S e v e ra III,
.
Jazyki Nadorov SSR V t 248:270.
Jazyki Nadorov SSR V: 310-333.
Jazyk 85-104 in Jazyki i Pismennost'
ed. E.A. Krejnovich.
Iz d a te l rs tv o .
1934(b).
I z dat elr s t v o .
Jazyk.
Itel'menskij
Nadorov Severa Part III,
P edagogic h e s k o j e
Jazyk,
Leni ngrad.
Nymylanskij (Kor3atskij)
4 7 -8 4 .
Gosudarstvennoje Uchebno-
Go sudarstvennoj e
Jazyk.
Jazyki i Pisnennostt
U chebno-P edagogi cheskoj e
L e n i n g ra d -M o s c o w.
1937.
Os n o v n y j e
(KorSakskogo) Jazyka.
fo n e ti s ki j e
razl i chi j a
di al ektov
nymyl anskogo
Pamiati V.G. Bosoraza (fA0S-1936) ZAS-307. Akad.
Nauk SSR. Leningrad-Moscow.
.
Sovetskii
.
1938.
Aljutorskij
Dialekt
nymylanskogo jazyka (KorSakskogo).
Sever 1: 65:102.
1939.
Nymylany-Karagintsy po materialam S. P. Krasheninnikova.
L6
volodin,
Areksandr Pavlovich.
Volodin,
A'P. and A.N. Zhukova.
rg76.
Jazyk.
Ilgtrmensklj
1968.
fteltmenskij
Leningrad:
Jazyk
Nauk.
Jazyki Nadorov sSR
V: 33 4 - 3 5 1.
Zhukova, A.N.
1967.
Entsiklopedija.
Russko-Koriakskii
Moscowl Alevtina
slovarr .
rzdateltstvo
sovetskaja
Nikomodorna.
'
1968(a).
Korjakskij
Jazyk.
Jazyki Nadorov SSR V zZTI-2g3,
'
1968(b).
Aljutorskij
Jazyk
Jazvki Nadorov sSR V:294-309.
.
1972.
Grammatika Korjak skoRo Jazyka,
.
1980.
Jazvk Palanskikh Koriakov.
I7
Leningrad: Nauka.
Leningrad: Nauka.
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
