and here can be seen an abstract: http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450...eports/ainu.htm
first some notes of anthropological character:
Alexander Vovin, who reconstructed the phonology and the vocabulary of Proto-Ainu, has the view that Ainu language came from Southeast Asia. After completing his comparative studies on Proto-Ainu and Southeast Asian languages, Vovin states that the most distinctive characteristics of Ainu from neighbor languages, such as Korean or Gilyak, are those of the initial consonant cluster and the rich vowel systems. Through the reconstruction of Proto-Ainu, Vovin found that Proto-Ainu had a richer vowel system than modern Ainu, and that several initial consonant clusters (pr-, tr-, hr-,ty- and hd) had been lost in modern Ainu (Vovin 1993, 176). These characteristics of a rich vowel system and consonant clusters are not common to North-Asia.the main critical note is that Vovin pays no attention to structural aspects. Ainu language may be a distant relative of a certain language of a certain SEA languages but should be shown more serious prooves of it, not only phonological and lexical similarities. should be shown structural similarities such as similarity of type of linear model of word form, similarity of structure of verb paradigm. cause language is not a heap of lexemes but is first of all a system of structures. so considering any linguistic question we are to pay most attention to the structure but not to lexics or phonology.
Vovin's reconstruction of Proto-Ainu vowel systems (Vovin 1993, 42)
Another important evidence Vovin indicates are the Proto-Ainuís distinctive features of front /a/ and back /A/; these can not be found anywhere in North-Asia. Another point is both Proto-Ainu and modern Ainu have initial /r/ features that do not exist in north-Asia languages (Vovin 1993, 156). However, all these characteristics we have seen above are common in Southeast Asia.
Vovin also used cultural similarities to support his hypothesis of the relation between Ainu and Southeast Asia and saying;such a rite as bear feast appears amny times completely independently among different cultures which practise hunting as main economic activity, this rite can't be of Siberian or some else origin, it is invented many times in different places by different people and it can't be proof of contacts. the thought that bear feast can be a proof of origin is a very tipical thought of dull-witted diffusionists.
Besides the cult of the bear, which is definitely of Siberian origin
the Ainu also had the cult of the snake, which definitely preceded the former. The cult of the snake is not seen in Siberia, but it is widespread in Southeast Asia.I have never met any 'cult of snake' in Ainu culture. according to common Ainu conceptions snake is an evil being so there could't be any cult of it. I think that it's just a mistake of an early explorers of Ainu culture (may be Leo Sternberg), but this mistake migrates from one text to another of those "anthropologists" who have really dim imagination of Ainu culture.
The same is the case with the cult of the sword, which also has a definite Southern origin.if "cult of swords" really existed in Ainu culture it was developed in a quite late epoch ~ in the middle of the first millenium AD when metal industries was brought to the land of Ainu; so it is absolutely not clear how this "swords cult" can be connected with a hypothetical Ainu urheimat in South-East Asia which they have left many thousand years ago when it was not known not only manufacture of swords, but also manufacture of metals.
Neighboring Manchu-Tungus people and the Nivkh use the compound bow, while the Ainu used the simple bow that again is typical for Southeast Asia.This statement also should be checked.
bow also is one those things which were invented many times independently in different cultures. Ainu obviously invented their bow after they left their urheimat. so any attempts of exposing of any realtionship between the shape of Ainu bow and some these of SEA definetely have no sense.
None of the Ainu neighbors used the loin-cloth as the only garment during the summerAnd this is simply wrong.
the Nivkh and the Itelmen use loin-cloth.
and none of them used poison arrow. All these features exist only in the far more southern regions (Vovin 1993, 162).One more diffusionism obscure. vegetable poison is well know to Aleut who live much more northward. vegetable poison was invented many timed in different cultures and use of it obviously can't be proof of Southern origin.
Instead of real anthroplogical prooves Vovin uses some old diffusionism delusions, while real prooves of SEA origin of Ainu are the following:
1) most of Ainu have Y-haplogroup D 2 which is widely spread in SEA and SA and is not known in NEA.
2) the fact that most ancient Jomon sites are in southern islands of Japanese archipelago so that Ainu moved from the South.
Then it should be noted that actually Vovin has taken an attempt to reconstruction not Proto-Ainu but a quite late Upper-Jomon language (about 500 - 1000 B.C.)
Proto-Ainu is Ainu language of pre-Jomon epoch (about 15000 BC and more) and it's can't be reconstructed in principle.
Then how can be in Proto-Ainu lexicon such a late borrowings from Japanese as noko - 'saw', and ita - 'lumber' and kani - 'steel', 'metal'? It seems that Jomon people knew metal industry and manufactured lumbers. LOL with capital letter L!
Then why word kamuy is in Proto-Ainu lexicon if Vovin states that it's a borrowing from Old Japanese?
Also there is some objection on Vovin's reconstruction of Proto-Ainu phonology. Vovin writes:
1) in all dialects 'w' corresponds to 'w' and only in Krasheninnikov and Klaproth materials 'w' of other dialects corresponds to 'g'/'gu';
2) then having noted that 'w' quite rare occurs in initial position Vovin makes a conclusion that in Ancient Ainu sound 'w' didn't exist.
3) then after data of Krasheninnikov and Klaproth he comes to a conclusion that in Ancient Ainu existed a claster 'hw' or 'gu' and that sound 'w' has developed from this claster, but as far as he made a presupposition that in Ancient Ainu 'w' didn't exist then there should be an another sound in that cluster
4) and finally this sound has been found: analysing the opposition of w - s: iwan, ihguoen - tu-p-e-san, sine-p-e-san Vovin states the existence of hd cluster and states that after 'h' 'd' has become 'w' while in intervocal position has become 's'.
My objections here are the following:
1) can we rely on materials of Krasheninnikov and Klaproth? are they reliable enough basement for reconstruction of phonology system. I think no.
2) 'w' is pretty often in initial position, but there it is mostly written as 'u'. really 'w' should be bound with 'u'. they are variants of one phonema.
3) cluster hd is much more unnatural and difficult than 'w'. I hardly can image that Ancient Ainu had it instead of 'w'.
4) I suspect that roots 'san' and 'wan' in iwan, tu-p-e-san, sine-p-e-san are related. they seems to be different. I think that there are no roots wan - 'ten' in tu-p-e-san, sine-p-e-san, I think that here we have root san < sa-an - 'to descend', 'to go down'.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿