Project on Quantitative Description of Languages

Project on Quantitative Description of Languages in connexion with its possible use in historical linguistics

I would like to offer everybody to take participation in our project on tasting certain typological parameters which can be useful in genetic linguistics.
Essence of the idea is the following:
Each language is first of all a structure but not just a heap of lexemes.
Because of it we have to pay most attention to structures in any linguistic question but especially while we deal with questions of genetic relationship.
What parameters should be the matter of research is a separated question but the fact that structures/grammar is much more important than lexics is the basement.
After the detecting of structural similarities we should of course find material similarities of exponents.
These two points i.e. structural similarities and material similarities of exponents seem to be necessary and enough to make a conclusion about genetic relationship.
Comparison of lexicon can't be proof of genetic relationship of languages. Still Swadesh himself warned against it. Moreover the term of  "basic lexicon" is very questionable 'cause the whole of lexicon is culturally determined as it was shown by Hoyer.
All structural parameters can be subdivided into two groups: technical parameters and contentive parameters.
technical parameters describe technics of structurising used in a certain language (technical parameters are the following: prefixation development index, stems regularity index, afiтехes regularity index, mophemes joints regularity index and so on)
contentive parameters describe grammatical meanings which exist in a certain language and describe by what means exactly these grammatical meanings are expressed. (contentive parameters are the following: aspect, tense, modality, mood andso on)
And then the procedure of searching some possible relatives of a certain language can be subdevided into the following two parts:
1) analysis of different technics of structurising relevant for a certain language;
2) analysis of grammatical meaning which are relevant for this language: what grammatical meaning are relevant and by what technical means they are expressed.
Moreover, it's very important not just state that a certain feature exists or is absent in a certain language but estimate the degree of manifestation of this feature then estimation will be much more exact and conclusion won't be speculative, other words: all structural parameters should be presented as coefficients.
Now we are engaged in tate of prefixation development coefficient/prefixation development index correlation among languages which are firmly detected as genetically relatives. By this moment we have received the following results on prefixation development index:

And we are interested in data on another langauges and firmly collected groups 9especially in Korean, Sinitic languages, different groups of SEA and Indo-European languages).
To count the menaning of the coefficient one should the number count total amount of affixes of a certain language then cout the number of prefixes and devide the number of prefixes to the total number of affixes.

Paikar - Ainu traditional new year feast

Refsing Kirsten writes:
"There seems to be no fixed beginning or end of a pá - it may stretch from one summer to the next or from one winter to the next, as long as it includes one occurence of each of the four seasons. The word for 'spring', páykar, contains the syllable pá, which may inspire some speculations as to whether the beginning of a pá is placed there." The Ainu Concept of Time as Expressed Through Language // European Studies on Ainu Language and Culture, 1993, p. 100
Indeed, word paykar can be transparently devided into three morphemes:
pa - "year"
i-kar - "do something intensively"
i - prefix intensificator,
kar - "to make", "to create".
(The others words marking four season in Ainu language don't contain morphemes with the meaning of ''year'': "winter" - mata, "summer" - sak, "fall" - cuk.)
All these data, anyhow, tell us that traditional ancient Ainu new year feast took place in spring. But when exactly in spring? Since ancient Ainu did not practise agriculture they might had not a fixed day of New Year feast. But it can be supposed that this date was Vernal equinox as far as Vernal equinox is the most notable date of spring in the Northern Hemisphere (Ainu always have been living in Northern Henisphere). Thus we can state that traditional ancient Ainu New Year feast could took place in the date of Vernal equinox.

In this year paikar comes on March 20, 5:14.

Pirka paikar utar!

Jomon drums

Okikurumi plain talk

what is so called Jomon culture? has it any relationship with contemporary Ainu culture? yeah… Ainu people saving wisdom of this epoch can smile. but stop laughing children of Okikurumi and Tresi Maci. here is a serious question: why people usually name ancient Ainu culture ‘Jomon’- means ‘cord mark’. Originally term 'Jomon' is just a conventional name of a certain local archaeological cultures or a group of archaeological cultures. but japanese offi use this term as an artificial  marker of Ancient Ainu culture. they use term 'Jomon' in order to artifiacially separate Ainu culture from its Roots. this practics grown up from sisam colonialism: Japanese people always wanted to be the most ancient and the only inhabitants of The Islands so they wanted to separate Ainu culture from its Roots and because of it they invented such a term as ‘Jomon’. because of it Ancient Ainu culture is still named ‘Jomon’. but we know that Ainu language and culture are actually language and culture of so called ‘Jomon epoch’. because of it I believe that we are to avoid term ‘Jomon’.

catch me up surge

finally I decided to lay out the text of 'catch me up surge' here. wait for updates.

some critical notes on Vovin book

fragments of Alexander Vovin book can be seen here  http://books.google.ru/books?id=8w1_cCWIpEoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Reconstruction+of+Proto-Ainu&source=bl&ots=UUXkGvea5H&sig=UIlHf84S_HCLR1ogKT0AUzSZoYg&hl=ru&ei=rO0ZTYvMNYmdOpPniOMI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ

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.
   
    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.

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 also used cultural similarities to support his hypothesis of the relation between Ainu and Southeast Asia and saying;
Besides the cult of the bear, which is definitely of Siberian origin

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.

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 summer

And 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:

He's thought is the following:
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'.

Ainu - Jomon relationship prooves by Neil Gordon Munro

Neil Gordon Munro Prehistoric Japan 1911:

p.: 665

The main points advanced against the Ainu origin of the primitive sites were that they did not make pottery, nor use stone implements and pit dwellings; the patterns on their wooden implements were supposed to exhibit little or no resemblance to those of neolithic pottery. Later research, however, has proved that pit dwellings have been used by the Ainu of Saghalin and the Kuriles, that they have

p. 666

used pottery and stone implements and that difference between the patterns of the Ainu and of the stone phase is less than has been stated, and can be readily accounted for.


p. 668
The failure of philology to establish an Aryan race warns us that language shares with the gross vestiges

p. 669
of culture the stigma of unrealiability. When, therefore, we find many localities where shellheaps exist bearing names traceable to Ainu roots, we can only assume that persons using the same language as the Ainu were formerly established in such places.


Ōmori, for instance, is generally supposed to be of Japanese origin, and to refer to a large wood or forest. But in suggesting that the name of this locality (which derives special interest from having been the firts shellmound in Japan to yield up its treasures to scientific reserach) comes from two Ainu words '[i]O[/i]' "projecting" and [i]Mori[/i] a "little hill", I am stating a topographical fact of much interest to a primitive people. A rising ground in the neighbourhood of the sea was of prime importance to the shell-mound builders. Here the village was safe from tidal waves and enjoyed a better strategical position than if built on the lower levels.

p. 672
... by the comparison of individual

p. 673
features that i established the identity of Japanese shellmound and Ainu crania and was led to the conclusion that they are of the same stock.

Prof. Koganei, who is at present carrying out an investigation of my specimens, has kindly drawn for me diagraphic outlines of No. 2 and an Ainu skull, which I have superimposed, Fig. 420

 (Prehistoric Japan p. 669)


The comparison of two isolated crania, it will be understood, is only made by way of illustration. The same degree of correspondence is not found in all the specimens any more than among the Ainu crania.

日本語の版は　http://tresi-nonno.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post_15.html