Product Code Database
The Yeniseian languages ( ; sometimes known as Yeniseic, Yeniseyan, or Yenisei-Ostyak;"Ostyak" is a concept of areal rather than genetic linguistics. In addition to the Yeniseian languages it also includes the Uralic languages of Khanty language and Selkup language. The term "Yenisei-Ostyak" typically refers to the Ketic branch of Yeniseian. occasionally spelled with - ss-) are a family of languages that are spoken by the Yeniseian people in the Yenisei River region of central Siberia. As part of the proposed Dene–Yeniseian language family, the Yeniseian languages have been argued to be part of "the first demonstration of a genealogical link between Old World and New World language families that meets the standards of traditional comparative-historical linguistics".Bernard Comrie (2008) "Why the Dene-Yeniseic Hypothesis is Exciting". Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska: Dene-Yeniseic Symposium. The only surviving language of the group today is Ket language.
From hydronymic and Genetics data, it is suggested that the Yeniseian languages were spoken in a much greater area in ancient times, including parts of northern China and Mongolia.Vajda, Edward J. (2013). Yeniseian Peoples and Languages: A History of Yeniseian Studies with an Annotated Bibliography and a Source Guide. Oxford/New York: Routledge. It has been further proposed that the recorded distribution of Yeniseian languages from the 17th century onward represents a relatively recent northward migration, and that the Yeniseian urheimat lies to the south of Lake Baikal.
The Yeniseians have been connected to the Xiongnu, whose ruling elite may have spoken a "southern Yeniseian" language similar to the now extinct Pumpokol language. The Jie people, who ruled the Later Zhao state of northern China, are likewise believed to have spoken a Pumpokolic language based on linguistic and ethnogeographic data.
For those who argue the Xiongnu spoke a Yeniseian language, the Yeniseian languages are thought to have contributed many ubiquitous loanwords to Turkic languages and Mongolic vocabulary, such as Khan, Tarqan, and the word for 'god', Tengri. This conclusion has primarily been drawn from the analysis of preserved Xiongnu texts in the form of Chinese characters.
It has been suggested that the Xiongnu and were Southern Yeniseian. Only two languages of this family survived into the 20th century: Ket language (also known as Imbat Ket), with around 150 speakers, and Yugh language (also known as Sym Ket), now extinct. The other known members of this family—Arin, Assan, Pumpokol, and Kott—have been extinct for over 150 years. Other groups—the Baikot language, Yarin language (Buklin language), Yastin language, Ashkyshtym (Bachat Teleuts), and Koibalkyshtym—are identifiable as Yeniseic speaking from tsarist fur-tax records compiled during the 17th century, but nothing remains of their languages except a few proper names.
The early modern distributions of Arin, Pumpokol, Kott, and Assan can be reconstructed. The Arin were north of Krasnoyarsk, whereas the more distantly related Pumpokol was spoken to the north and west of it, along the upper Ket. Kott and Assan, another pair of closely related languages, occupied the area south of Krasnoyarsk, and east to the Kan River. From toponyms it can be seen that Yeniseian populations probably lived in Buryatia, Zabaykalsky Krai, and northern Mongolia. As an example, the toponym ši can be found in Zabaykalsky Krai, which is probably related to the Proto-Yeniseian word *sēs 'river' and likely derives from an undocumented Yeniseian language. Some toponyms that appear Yeniseian extend as far as Heilongjiang.
Václav Blažek argues, based on hydronymic data, that Yeniseians were once spread out even farther into the west. He compares, for example, the word šet, found in more westerly river names, to Proto-Yeniseian * sēs 'river'.
In Siberia, Edward Vajda observed that Yeniseian hydronyms in the circumpolar region (the recent area of distribution of Yeniseian languages) clearly overlay earlier systems, with the layering of morphemes onto Ugric, Samoyedic, Turkic, and Tungusic place names. It is therefore proposed that the homeland, or dispersal point, of the Yeniseian languages lies in the boreal region between Lake Baikal, northern Mongolia, and the Upper Yenisei basin, referred to by Vajda as a territory "abandoned" by the original Yeniseian speakers. On the other hand, Václav Blažek (2019) argues that based on hydronomic evidence, Yeneisian languages were originally spoken on the northern slopes of the Tianshan and Pamir Mountains before dispersing downstream via the Irtysh River.
The modern populations of Yeniseians in central and northern Siberia are thus not indigenous and represent a more recent migration northward. This was noted by Russian explorers during the conquest of Siberia: the Ket are recorded to have been expanding northwards along the Yenisei, from the river Yeloguy to the Kureyka, from the 17th century onward. Based on these records, the modern Ket-speaking area appears to represent the very northernmost reaches of Yeniseian migration.
The origin of this northward migration from the Mongolian steppe has been connected to the fall of the Xiongnu. It appears from Chinese sources that a Yeniseian group might have been a major part of the heterogeneous Xiongnu tribal confederation,See Vovin 2000, Vovin 2002 and Pulleyblank 2002 who have traditionally been considered the ancestors of the Huns and other Northern Asian groups. However, these suggestions are difficult to substantiate due to the paucity of data.See Vajda 2008a
Alexander Vovin argues that at least parts of the Xiongnu, possibly its core or ruling class, spoke a Yeniseian language. Positing a higher degree of similarity of Xiongnu to Yeniseian as compared to Turkic, he also praised Stefan Georg's demonstration of how the word Tengri (the Turkic and Mongolic word for 'sky' and later 'god') originated from Proto-Yeniseian tɨŋVr.
It has been further suggested that the Yeniseian-speaking Xiongnu elite underwent a language shift to Oghur languages while migrating westward, eventually becoming the Huns. However, it has also been suggested that the core of the Hunnic language was a Yeniseian language.E. G. Pulleyblank, "The consonontal system of old Chinese" Pt, Asia Major, vol. IX (1962), pp. 1–2.
Edward Vajda et al. 2013 proposed that the ruling elite of the Huns spoke a Yeniseian language and influenced other languages in the region.
One sentence of the language of the Jie people, a Xiongnu tribe who founded the Later Zhao state, appears consistent with being a Yeniseian language. Later studies suggest that Jie is closer to Pumpokol than to other Yeniseian languages such as Ket. This has been substantiated with geographical data by Vajda, who states that Yeniseian hydronyms found in northern Mongolia are exclusively Pumpokolic, in the process demonstrating both a linguistic and geographic proximity between Yeniseian and Jie.
The decline of the southern Yeniseian languages during and after the Russian conquest of Siberia has been attributed to language shifts of the Arin and Pumpokol to Khakas language or Chulym Tatar, and the Kott and Assan to Khakas.
The Yeniseian languages have been described as having up to four tones or no tones at all. The 'tones' are concomitant with glottalization, vowel length, and breathy voice, not unlike the situation reconstructed for Old Chinese before the development of true tones in Chinese. The Yeniseian languages have highly elaborate verbal morphology.
Alexei Kassian has suggested a connection between Hattic language, Hurro-Urartian and Karasuk, proposing some lexical correspondences. Kassian, A. (2009–2010) Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian language // Ugarit-Forschungen. Internationales Jahrbuch für die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas. Bd 41. pp 309–447.
The "Sino-Caucasian" hypothesis of Sergei Starostin posits that the Yeniseian languages form a clade with Sino–Tibetan, which he called Sino–Yeniseian. The Sino–Caucasian hypothesis has been expanded by others to "Dene–Caucasian" to include the Na-Dene languages of North America, Burushaski, Basque language and, occasionally, Etruscan. A narrower binary Dene–Yeniseian family has recently been well received. The validity of the rest of the family, however, is viewed as doubtful or rejected by nearly all historical linguists.Goddard, Ives (1996). "The Classification of the Native Languages of North America". In Ives Goddard, ed., "Languages". Vol. 17 of William Sturtevant, ed., Handbook of North American Indians. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. pg. 318Larry Trask (2000). The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pg. 85 An updated tree by Georgiy Starostin now groups Na-Dene with Sino–Tibetan and Yeniseian with Burushaski (Karasuk hypothesis). The Preliminary Genealogical Tree For Eurasia (short variant)
George van Driem does not believe that Sino–Tibetan (which he calls "Trans–Himalayan") and Yeniseian are related language families. However, he argues that Yeniseian speakers once populated the North China Plain and that Proto-Sinitic speakers assimilated them when they migrated to the region. As a result, Sinitic acquired creoloid characteristics when it came to be used as a lingua franca among ethnolinguistically diverse populations.
A 2023 analysis by David Bradley using the standard techniques of comparative linguistics supports a distant genetic link between the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian language families. Bradley argues that any similarities Sino–Tibetan shares with other language families of the East Asia area such as Hmong–Mien, Altaic languages (which is a sprachbund), Austroasiatic, Kra–Dai, and Austronesian came through contact; but as there has been no recent contact between the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian language families, any similarities these groups share must be residual.
This theory is very controversial or viewed as doubtful or rejected by other linguists.Larry Trask (2000). The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pg. 85Dalby, Andrew (1998). Dictionary of Languages. New York: Columbia University Press. pg. 434
Classification
The classification of the Yeniseian languages has changed from time to time. A traditional classification is presented below:
Georg 2007 and Hölzl 2018 use a slightly different classification, placing Pumpokol in both branches:
Proto-Yeniseic
Distribution
Ket language, the only extant Yeniseian language, is the northernmost known. Historical sources record a contemporaneous northern expansion of the Ket along the Yenisei during the Russian conquest of Siberia. Today, it is mainly spoken in Turukhansky District of Krasnoyarsk Krai in far northern Siberia, in villages such as Kellog and . Yugh, which only recently faced extinction, was spoken from Yeniseysk to Vorogovo, Yartsevo, and the upper Ket River.
Origins and history
, the Xiongnu Empire had a Yeniseian-speaking component.]]According to a 2016 study, Yeniseian people and their language originated likely somewhere near the Altai Mountains or near Lake Baikal. According to this study, the Yeniseians are linked to Paleo-Eskimo groups. The Yeniseians have also been hypothesised to be representative of a back-migration from Beringia to central Siberia, and the Dene–Yeniseians a result of a radiation of populations out of the Bering land bridge. The spread of ancient Yeniseian languages may be associated with an ancestry component from the Baikal area (Cisbaikal_LNBA), maximized among hunter-gatherers of the local Glazkov culture. Affinity for this ancestry has been observed among Na-Dene speakers. Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry is inferred to be rich in Ancient Paleo-Siberian ancestry, and also display affinity to Inner Northeast Asian (Yumin-like) groups.
Family features
The Yeniseian languages share many Areal feature with the South Siberian Turkic languages, Samoyedic languages, and Evenki language. These include long-distance nasal harmony, the development of former affricates to Stop consonant, and the use of postpositions or grammatical Clitic as Dependent clause Complementizer.See Anderson 2003 Yeniseic nominal enclitics closely approximate the Grammatical case systems of geographically contiguous families. Despite these similarities, Yeniseian appears to stand out among the languages of Siberia in several typological respects, such as the presence of tone, the verb inflection, and highly complex morphophonology.
Pronouns
+ Personal pronouns
Numbers
The following table exemplifies the basic Yeniseian numerals as well as the various attempts at reconstructing the proto-forms:
+ Numerals
Basic vocabulary
The following table exemplifies a few basic vocabulary items as well as the various attempts at reconstructing the proto-forms:
+ Other vocabulary
Proposed relations to other language families
Until 2008, few linguists had accepted connections between Yeniseian and any other language family, though distant connections have been proposed with most of the ergative languages of Eurasia.
Dene–Yeniseian
In 2008, Edward Vajda of Western Washington University presented evidence for a genealogical relation between the Yeniseian languages of Siberia and the Na–Dene languages of North America.See Vajda 2010 At the time of publication (2010), Vajda's proposals had been favorably reviewed by several specialists of Na-Dene and Yeniseian languages—although at times with caution—including Michael Krauss, Jeff Leer, James Kari, and Heinrich Werner, as well as a number of other respected linguists, such as Bernard Comrie, Johanna Nichols, Victor Golla, Michael Fortescue, Eric Hamp, and Bill Poser (Kari and Potter 2010:12). Language Log » The languages of the Caucasus One significant exception is the critical review of the volume of collected papers by Lyle CampbellLyle Campbell, 2011, "Review of The Dene-Yeniseian Connection (Kari and Potter)," International Journal of American Linguistics 77:445–451. "In summary, the proposed Dene-Yeniseian connection cannot be embraced at present. The hypothesis is indeed stimulating, advanced by a serious scholar trying to use appropriate procedures. Unfortunately, neither the lexical evidence (with putative sound correspondences) nor the morphological evidence adduced is sufficient to support a distant genetic relationship between Na-Dene and Yeniseian." (pg. 450). and a response by VajdaEdward Vajda, 2011, "A Response to Campbell," International Journal of American Linguistics 77:451–452. "It remains incumbent upon the proponents of the DY hypothesis to provide solutions to at least some of the unresolved problems identified in Campbell's review or in DYC itself. My opinion is that every one of them requires a convincing solution before the relationship between Yeniseian and Na-Dene can be considered settled." (pg. 452). published in late 2011 that clearly indicate the proposal is not completely settled at the present time. Two other reviews and notices of the volume appeared in 2011 by Keren Rice and Jared Diamond.
Karasuk
The Karasuk hypothesis, linking Yeniseian to Burushaski, has been proposed by several scholars, notably by A.P. DulsonSee Dulson 1968 and V.N. Toporov.See Toporov 1971 In 2001, George van Driem postulated that the Burusho people were part of the migration out of Central Asia, that resulted in the Indo-European conquest of the Indus Valley.See Van Driem 2001
Sino–Tibetan
As noted by TailleurSee Tailleur 1994 and Werner,See Werner 1994 some of the earliest proposals of genetic relations of Yeniseian, by M.A. Castrén (1856), James Byrne (1892), and G.J. Ramstedt (1907), suggested that Yeniseian was a northern relative of the Sino–Tibetan languages. These ideas were followed much later by Kai DonnerSee Donner 1930 and Karl Bouda.See Bouda 1963 and Bouda 1957 A 2008 study found further evidence for a possible relation between Yeniseian and Sino–Tibetan, citing several possible cognates. Gao Jingyi (2014) identified twelve Sinitic and Yeniseian shared etymologies that belonged to the basic vocabulary, and argued that these Sino–Yeniseian etymologies could not be loans from either language into the other.
Dene–Caucasian
Bouda, in various publications in the 1930s through the 1950s, described a linguistic network that (besides Yeniseian and Sino-Tibetan) also included Caucasian, and Burushaski, some forms of which have gone by the name of Sino-Caucasian. The works of R. BleichsteinerSee Bleichsteiner 1930 and O.G. Tailleur,See Tailleur 1958 and Tailleur 1994 the late Sergei StarostinSee Starostin 1982, Starostin 1984, Starostin 1991, Starostin & Ruhlen 1994 and Sergei L. NikolayevSee Nikola(y)ev 1991 have sought to confirm these connections. Others who have developed the hypothesis, often expanded to Dene–Caucasian, include J.D. Bengtson,See Bengtson 1994, Bengtson 1998, Bengtson 2008 V. Blažek,See Blažek & Bengtson 1995 Joseph Greenberg (with Merritt Ruhlen),See Greenberg & Ruhlen, Greenberg & Ruhlen 1997 and M. Ruhlen.See Ruhlen 1997, Ruhlen 1998a, Ruhlen 1998b George Starostin continues his father's work in Yeniseian, Sino-Caucasian and other fields.See Reshetnikov & Starostin 1995a, Reshetnikov & Starostin 1995b, Dybo & Starostin
Notes
Bibliography
Further reading
External links
|
|
