Blog Archives

Second postscript: Bender on Komuz

Still on the Komuz thread: while looking into work on its western neighbors, I have accidentally run into what must be one of its more recent published defenses: M. Lionel Bender’s “The Limits of Omotic”, from the 1990 collection Omotic

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Commentary

Postscript: A note on Gumuz stem structure

I just noted in the previous post that some internal reconstruction of the structure of Koman roots might be a good idea, e.g. for reducing the large stop inventory of maximally five series /p pʰ pʼ b ɓ/ (broadly retained

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Reconstruction

Komuz sound correspondences

Another Africanist sideproject I have around, and have had for a while: bits of further development on the Komuz, i.e. Koman–Gumuz hypothesis. Given newer ongoing documentation, the relationship looks fairly clear to me, and their removal from the Nilo-Saharan macro-hypothesis

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Reconstruction

Reconstruction in dialectology: some problems of Mordvinic shibilants

Exposure to the comparative dialectology of Finnish is good for spoiling your expectations: “Here, have dozens of monographs working out the history of individual dialect groups in detail or the history of every dialect in outline, also here’s our six-digit-strong

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Methodology, Reconstruction

Against North Afrasian Palatalization

Despite decent acceptance as a real language family, the state of Afroasiatic reconstruction remains very precarious. Not many basic sound correspondences have been generally accepted, perhaps some trivial ones such as broad stability of the “standard” sonorants *m *n *l

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Reconstruction

Junk phonemes in Proto-South-Cushitic, and some possible fixes

Followup on my previous overview of comparative Cushitic: a slightly more involved look at Ehret’s Proto-South-Cushitic from 1980, and some readily observable issues in it. To reiterate slightly, his view of South Cushitic includes four basic units: There’s a couple

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Methodology

Prospects in comparative Cushitic

Long time no post! Those who have been following me on Tumblr or Twxttxr will know I’ve been recently digging into the history of the Cushitic languages — actually something I’ve wanted to get into for a while now. Here

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Methodology

Notes on Janhunen’s Law

(Part ca. 3 of n in my irregularly scheduled series of Introducing Named Soundlaws in Uralic Studies. [0]) The issue, as I see it Most of the vowel correspondences we now think to be regular between Samoyedic and the rest

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Reconstruction

Long-Distance Comparisons As Butterflies

One of the rationality-cluster blogs here on WordPress, Aceso Under Glass, a while ago posted about a concept I find immediately useful: “Butterfly Ideas“. Roughly speaking, hypotheses that need further development, are probably not ripe for serious criticism as they

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Methodology

Language Family Tectonics

Basic research in historical linguistics is mostly done within individual families: we take a swath of attested (in most cases modern) languages, and work towards the past to figure out their development from a common origin, one group at a

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Methodology