Lexicostatistics, Glottochronology

This article surveys various long-standing ambiguities and confusions that continue to dog lexicostatistics and glottochronology. I aim to offer some novel perspectives and clarifications, which also help map out how we might devise new, alternative methods to build upon the good in Swadesh's troubled legacy. I challenge the recent trend towards honing down Swadesh's original list to a minimal core. A richer signal on language relationships is to be had not by discarding the data in meanings considered 'unstable', but by exploring the revealing patterns that emerge only when those meanings are kept, and contrasted against their 'core' counterparts.

La Lista Swadesh de voces vascas estables resistente a la donación lingüística y lo que revela su comparación con las restantes familias de lenguas del mundo. Aún hallamos en los libros de textos universitarios y en las enciclopedias más autorizadas el viejo paradigma de que el vasco ­como aún es denominado a nivel internacional y por los mismos vascólogos­ es un idioma aislado sin pariente alguno y que por ello mismo no sabemos nada sobre su origen. ¿Es realmente cierto que la lengua vasca no tiene parientes ni siquiera en otros lugares de Eurasia? ¿Surgió espontáneamente de la nada? ¿Acaso fue inventado por una persona que vivía en una de las cuevas paleolíticas del País Vasco y desde entonces se mantuvo el idioma aislado sin apenas evolución? Vamos a intentar dar respuesta a estas preguntas desde las herramientas que nos ofrecen la Lingüística Histórica y la Léxicoestadística comparadas.

Enlace a tabla comparativa en http://atlantisng.com/blog/genealogia-de-la-lengua-vasca-y-las-lenguas-altaicas-uralicas-y-sino-caucasianas/

Книга представляет собой первый том масштабного исследования по созданию новой рабочей модели генетической классификации языков и языковых семей африканского континента, которая могла бы представить серьезную альтернативу для т. н. «стандартной модели» классификации африканских языков, разработанной Дж. Гринбергом более чем полстолетия тому назад и с тех пор неоднократно подвергавшейся критике за недостаточную основательность.
В первый том исследования вошла вводная часть — подробное описание методологии построения классификации, в которой синтезированы элементы классического сравнительно-исторического метода, «многостороннего сравнения» Гринберга и квантитативный подход к языковому материалу; в основе классификации лежит лексикостатистический анализ данных базисной лексики, подкрепленный тщательной этимологической обработкой. Вторая часть первого тома апробирует описанную методику на материале самой малочисленной и, во многих отношениях, «загадочной» из гипотетических макросемей Гринберга — койсанской (бушменско-готтентотской).
Книга предназначена для внимания специалистов по общему, сравнительно-историческому и типологическому языкознанию; африканистов самых различных профилей; и широкого круга читателей, в той или иной степени интересующихся теоретическими, методологическими и практическими аспектами реконструкции лингвистических аспектов предыстории человечества.

Through comparison of Swadesh-200 word list cognates and the employment of lexicostatistics, accompanied by detailed cognate sound changes, the branching of some Uralic languages have been statistically determined. Assuming linear branching from a line originating in Proto-Uralic and leading to modern Finnish, Moksha (Mordvinic) originated from 3423 BP, Northern Saami (Finno-Saamic) from 3038 BP and Estonian (Balto-Finnic) from 1058 BP. The resulting cognacy rates with Finnish (35.6 %, 40.0 % and 72.7 % respectively) and acquired dates are well in accordance with previous estimates as acquired by other methods.

Note: For those interested in the matter dealt with in this paper, I should mention that there exists a continuation of this line of research with a so-far unpublished manuscript named "Statistical Dating of Finno-Permic Languages through Comparative Linguistics and Sound Laws". I am hoping that this will be published with the next issue of Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series whenever that happens in the coming years.

Swadesh list, revisited. Leipzig-Jakarta list.
We offer a list of 100 words best kept across many linguistic families. We propose that the reconstruction of further linguistic families should begin with these words, who form the core of the vocabulary

The planned and currently ongoing research by the author at the Stockholm University related to modern and ancient Finnish language history as well as Uralic and comparative linguistics - focusing on lexicon, sound changes, dating, language contact situations, archaeology and genetics - is briefly summarized and presented.

Genetic relations among Indo-Aryan languages are still unclear. Existing classifications are often intuitive and do not rest upon rigorous criteria. In the present article an attempt is made to create a classification of New Indo-Aryan languages, based on up-to-date lexicostatistical data. The comparative analysis of the resulting genealogical tree and traditional classifications allows the author to draw conclusions about the most probable genealogy of the Indo-Aryan languages.

This paper investigates the genetic affiliation of the Yana language of northern California, which sadly went extinct over a century ago. Edward Sapir’s documentation and analysis of Yana allow one to research its linguistic structure, but understandably such a long extinct language has had little appeal as an object of study for linguistics students and scholars for many generations. Yana is typically included among the languages of the proposed Hokan language family of California, Arizona, and Mexico. The Yana language area neighbored the Palaihnihan languages, in the same region of northern California as Shastan, Karuk, and Chimariko. However, Mikhail Zhivlov’s 2013 lexicostatistical analysis surprisingly found Yana to be genetically more closely related to the southern Hokan branches of southern California, Arizona, and Mexico: Yuman-Cochimí, Chontal, and Seri. This paper confirms Zhivlov’s finding and extends it with a deeper and more detailed analysis of lexical correspondences and sound correspondences between the Yana language and Yuman languages in particular. In addition to the 11 Yana-Yuman lexical correspondences in a 50-word basic lexicon that Zhivlov’s study found, this paper identifies as many as 26 additional Yana-Yuman lexical correspondences. Notably, three non-trivial new Yana-Yuman sound correspondences are proposed and supported with lexical evidence: Yana /w/, /u/ ~ Yuman /xw/, /kw/ ; Yana /b/ ~ Yuman /m/ ; and Yana /ʒ/, /c/, /c’/ ~ Yuman /y/. The significant distinctions between Yana and Yuman in their morphology and syntax are briefly discussed in order to explain certain apparent discrepancies observed between the coda phonemes of some corresponding Yana and Yuman root forms.

Este trabajo se publicó en dos lugares distintos por un error de comunicación con los organizadores, del que no se debe hacer responsable a nadie o, en todo caso, al autor.  El punto de partida del error fue una confusión de archivos, lo que causó también que no se imprimiera el apéndice inédito, que ahora se agrega.