Talk:Dené-Caucasian languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Restructuring 2 Suggested Structure 3 Tables of Sound Correspondences 4 In Preparation 4.1 PDC > Vasconic 4.2 Root structure 4.3 Stops 4.4 General 4.4.1 Labials 4.4.2 Dentals 4.4.3 Velars 4.4.4 Uvulars 4.4.5 Sibilant Affricates 4.4.5.1 Alveolar 4.4.5.2 Alveo-palatal 4.4.5.3 Post-alveolar 5 Word Lists 5.1 Burushaski & North Caucasian comparisons 5.2 Version 2 5.3 Morphological Cognates 5.4 Dene-Caucasian Pronouns 5.5 Salishan & Wakashan after Shevoroshkin 5.6 12-word list 6 Phonology 6.1 Version 2.2 6.2 Merging the IPA and Traditional transcriptions 7 Sound correspondences 8 Salishan languages 9 Haplogroups

[edit] Restructuring

I suggest that we divide the article into the following:

• 1. The Dené-Caucasian hypothesis (= the main article, formerly Dené-Caucasian languages)
  • It should contain:
  • a. History of the hypothesis
  • b. Description of the hypothesis
  • c. Few examples, taken from the other DC articles
• 2. The Proto-Dené-Caucasian language
  • It should contain:
  • a. The phoneme inventory
  • b. The reconstructed morphology
  • c. Lexical examples
• 3. The Dené-Caucasian lexicon

I'm working on this already

--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • It should contain:
  • a. Basic word-lists

Empty tables prepared.

--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • b. Lexemes grouped semantically (only those that are present in at least 3 families, e.g. Basque+Caucasian+Burushaski etc.)

I've begun to work on the body parts has begin already.

--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • c. Special section devoted to the ancient languages (I've got some materials for that)
• 4. The Dené-Caucasian Sound Laws
  • a. A table (=Summary)
  • b. Step-by-step explanations (accompanied by examples)

PLUS

Anything you might suggest...--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Structure

I suggest this article had the following points. I'd like to know your opinions. Feel free to pre-edit the following sub-sections here in the discussion so that we can later transfer them to the article. Objections are appreciated very much, too!

What the article should contain:

• 1. History of the Hypothesis
• 2. Thorough description of the model
• 3. Pros & Cons (=Results + Objections)

[edit] Tables of Sound Correspondences

Would someone please be so good as to transcribe this from Starostin's eclectic Americanist-IPA mixture into IPA?

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 22:36 CET | 2006/3/9

Hi, I'll try to, but I'm quite busy at the moment. Sorry for the "eclectic Americanist-IPA mixture" :-). I was in a hurry, so, to an extent, I copied the table from the original. Patience brings fruits ;-). I'll transcribe the sounds according to the system described in http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/pref1.pdf (pages 11-20). So, if you have some spare time, you can look at it, too.

Petusek --Pet'usek 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to provide the reader with both transcription systems, I've left the original version as it is, adding the IPA version below.

Petusek --Pet'usek 01:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess we could unite the two corr. tables, perhaps, intertwining the original transcription columns with the IPA ones. But I'm too busy to do so now. Feel free to try ;-)

Petusek--Pet'usek 11:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed!!! If I'll find the time I'll try to verify it – off the top of my head, Starostin's ä should be [æ]. (Perhaps I'll also try to intertwine the transcriptions, but IPA alone should be enough, once we get it right!)

Yesterday I read Starostin's transcription. Thanks for the link! That transcription is not even consistent across languages.

I just added Lucida Sans Unicode to the fonts (as the least preferred possibility). This is available on my not quite new Internet Explorer version while Arial Unicode MS is not. But I'll try to get an update; I still can't see everything on this computer.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 12:44 CET | 2006/3/11

David, thanks. Correcting/Converting so much data (almost character by character), I can't have avoided some mistakes, [æ] being among them. Anyway, I still think we should include both transcriptions in order to provide the reader with some clue, 'cause otherwise s/he'll get lost in the PDF's (and ToB databases), being unable to read all those expressions and reconstructions.

Or we could just make a conversion table, comparing the traditional transcription with the IPA. What do you think?

By the way, why does Wikipedia display UTC after my signature (instead of CET, as I'm from the Czech Rep.)?

Petusek --Pet'usek 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure which characters symbolize single phonemes, which are biphonematic, etc. In a way, Starostin's trancription (especially in the case of affricates) is a bit more economical than the IPA. It also reflects traditional practices. Certainly, the time has come to change the tradition and be modern :-), however, I'm afraid I'll have to ask G. Starostin (S. A. Starostin's son) for some help and ellucidation.

Petusek --Pet'usek 17:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It may not matter which are single phonemes and which are random collisions of phonemes. For example there is a discussion whether Danish has a phoneme /ɕ/ or whether that's just the random collision /sj/ (which it clearly was in Old Norse). Phonemes can split and merge. Taking into account the baffling complexity of the North Caucasian consonant systems, we have to assume a lot of such events.

I'll add IPA tie bars to the word-comparisons table in a minute.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 1:20 CEST | 2006/5/1

I thank all of you, who have corrected my mistakes. I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so I haven't learnt its editing yet.

BUT

I wonder who deleted the IPA table I worked on :-(. Can you imagine how much time it took me to make? It wasn't perfect, but it was the first step. Fortunately, I have it on my HDD, so I can put it back, if you agree.

--Pet'usek 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, was being a tad over-zealous.

All right :-) Forgiven. Next time, could you, please, let me know before you delete what I've written, or, at least, explain to me why you've done so? Thanks ;-) People won't learn from their mistakes if they don't realize them, you know?

--Pet'usek 15:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything and didn't write the above anonymous comment. -- However, I do wonder if we should even keep the rather boring phoneme correspondence table. Examples of cognate words would be a lot more interesting to a lot more people. Bengtson's Mother Tongue article, linked to at the bottom of the article page, has such a comparison of Basque and some Caucasian languages.

The reason why CET is displayed after my signature is that my signature is completely hand-written. I haven't got an account, I'm not logged in. :-)

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:08 CET | 2006/3/12

I see. Actually, as for the comments, I wasn't addressing you, but the anonymous "tad overzealous" :-) I'm currently working on several wordlists, but as I've written already, I'm too busy to finish them, say, during the next week or two. So you'll either have to work on them for yourself (which I guess might be a fun) or wait ;-). Anyway, I would insist on keeping the tables (the IPA one, at least), so that anyone has them at hand and can check the lexica, which I promise to be working on. I've just realized there are more or less competing models within the community of Dene-Caucasian adherents. They might not necessarily contradict, but seem to prove the hypothesis independently. Today, googling for some information, I found a mention of an article named "Athapascan and Sino-Tibetan". Edward Vajda, on the other hand, proposes a stronger Athabascan-Eyak-Tlinit-Yeniseian (+ maybe Burushaski) ties, whereas John Bengtson & Václav Blažek postulated the Macro-Caucasian hypothesis. That's interesting. As if an old dialect continuum was being gradually discovered. We'll see what comes out of it :-)

[edit] In Preparation

Phonological changes. I've got no time to put them into a tabular form. If anybody can do that, I'll be grateful. I'm planning to include examples as well, but it'd take me a lot of time, since it's difficult to input all those special characters. On the side of PDC, square brackets denote the allophones, whereas on the side of Proto-Basque, their meaning is the environment. E.g. [+U] = next to rounded vowels.

[edit] PDC > Vasconic

[edit] Root structure

General root structure in PDC:

CV(R)CV

Verbs:

=V-(R)CV(R)

PDC */CVRV/ & */RVCV/ > PNC */=VRCV/ (with a reduction of the second vowel, and a regular development -CR- > -RC-)

Pronouns:

CV

• Type */C₁V₁C₂V₂C₃V₃/ > PNC */CV₁CCV₃/

• • If C₃ = R (*/C₁V₁C₂V₂RV₃/), it usually yields PNC */CVCRV/ > */CVRCV/ (as in PNC */-CR-/ prohibited, > */-RC-/)

• u- (masc.), *i- (fem.), and inanimate *w-/*b-, *r-/*d-. These morphemes (as well as

personal pronominal morphemes) could also precede nominal roots, acting as possessive markers.

The only acceptable morpheme-initial clusters were C+H or C+W

[edit] Stops

PNC		PY
(...)Cː(...)		12	3(4..)
=et͡ɬʼːE		ʔa	ʔl
χːoːnV		ʔu	ʔun
ɕːwimHV		do	ʔŋa
lHiːqʼːwA		dV	ʔɢ-

[edit] General

Tʰ: Tʼ : D

PDC	PNC	PWC	Basque	Burushic
pʰ	pʰ	p/pː	p	pʰ-, p
pʼ	pʼ	b-, pʼ	b-, p	p
	~b
b	b	b/pː	b	b
tʰ	tʰ	t/tː	t	tʰ
tʼ	tʼ	tʼ/tː	t	t, ʈ, ɖ
d	d	d/tː	t-, d	t, ʈ, ɖ
kʰ	kʰ	k, kʼ/kː	h, 0	kʰ, k
kʼ	kʼ	kʼ/kː	k	k
g	g	g	g	g
qʰ	qʰ	χ/qː, ɢ~ʁ	k	q, qʰ, ʁ
qʼ	qʼ	qʼ~ʁ/qː	k	q, qʰ, ʁ
ɢ	ɢ	ɢ,ʁ	g	q, qʰ, ʁ

Stops	PDC	PBq	PDC	PBq	PDC	PBq
Bilabials	p	p	p'	b-, p	b	b
Alveolars	t	t	t'	t	d	t-, d
Velars	k	h	k'	k	g	g
Uvulars	q	k	q'	k	ɢ	g

[edit] Labials

• 1. PDC *p > Bq *p
• 2. PDC *p'> Bq *b-, *p
• 3. PDC *b > Bq *b

[edit] Dentals

• 4. PDC *t > Bq *t
• 5. PDC *t'> Bq *t
• 6. PDC *d > Bq *t-, *d

[edit] Velars

• 7. PDC *k > Bq *h
• 8. PDC *k' > Bq *k
• 9. PDC *g > Bq *g

[edit] Uvulars

• 10. PDC *q > Bq *k
• 11. PDC *q' > Bq *k
• 12. PDC *ɢ > Bq *g

[edit] Sibilant Affricates

[edit] Alveolar

• 13. PDC *s [s/z] > Bq *s
• 14. PDC *t͡s > Bq *ɕ/t͡ɕ[+U], *s/t͡s
• 15. PDC *t͡s' > Bq *ɕ/t͡ɕ[+U], *s/t͡s
• 16. PDC *d͡z > Bq *s

[edit] Alveo-palatal

• 17. PDC *ɕ [ɕ/ʑ] > *s- /= orth. z/
• 18. PDC *t͡ɕ > Bq *s
• 19. PDC *t͡ɕ' > Bq *t͡ɕ- /= orth. tx > some Eastern dialects *ʃ = orth. x/, *s /= orth. z/, *ɕ[+k/t] /= orth. -sk-, -st-/, *-t͡s /= orth. -tz/
• 20. PDC *d͡ʑ > Bq *s, *-t͡s /= orth. -tz/

[edit] Post-alveolar

• 21. PDC *ʃ [ʃ/ʒ] > Bq *ɕ
• 22. PDC *t͡ʃ > Bq *ɕ, *t͡ɕ
• 23. PDC *t͡ʃ' > Bq *t͡ɕ- /= orth. tx > some Eastern dialects *ʃ = orth. x/, *s /= orth. z/, *ɕ[+k/t] /= orth. -sk-, -st-/, *-t͡s /= orth. -tz/
• 24. PDC *d͡ʒ > Bq *s, *-t͡s /= orth. -tz/

...to be continued...;)

[edit] Word Lists

--Pet'usek 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't have time this week or next, so we'll see :-)

Many thanks for the extra information! Someone should work this into the article sometime. :-)

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:55 CET | 2006/3/13

We have to rewrite the first paragraph. It's not only incorrect. It's just...awful. I'll try to do so. Hopefully, someone will correct my English. :-)

We also have to rebuild the table of cognates. It wasn't intended as a table of all cognates in all languages, but a short example. Oh dear, so much work in front of me! :-)

It is a short example – Bengtson's table from his "final response" in Mother Tongue. I transcribed it and then tried to find the orthographies. Sorry, I didn't have time to explain this here.

In explaining V and H I tried to keep it simple ( = to explain the jargon instead of using it). "Laryngeal" may not even be correct; this imprecise term includes glottal, probably epiglottal and maybe pharyngeal sounds, but why can't H be [χ] or [x]?

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 20:42 CET | 2006/3/19

David, as far as I know, the term "LARYNGEAL" is only vaguely used when speaking of Proto-Indo-European reconstructions, where the original quality of H(1-3/4) is uncertain (though some argue the place of articulation could have been the velum). Otherwise, the term is used strictly to denote glottal sounds, hence "glottal" = "laryngeal". Yet, I understand some Indoeuropeanists might get confused, so feel free to change it into "glottal" if you like ;-). Anyway, I'm currently reading several papers by J.D.Bengtson. I've got a great source of new information now and I'm making notes and trying to turn them into a readable form :-). Yet a lot of work remains ahead of me! Look forward to many more tables, comparisons, detailed phonological and morphological descriptions, as well as cognates from Na-Dene! :-) It seems, however, that the Basque section (let's liberate the poor little tonguee from its isolationist jail! :-)) will be the most abundant. --Pet'usek 18:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest that we reduce the tables somehow, perhaps by joining them.

Great. I just changed "laryngeal" to "glottal or epiglottal consonant" because this seems to be how Starostin uses it.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:39 CET | 2006/3/30

[edit] Burushaski & North Caucasian comparisons

[1ps] "I"	ʒ́a	PNC *zō
[2ps] "thou"	un (Directive/Ergative)	PNC *uō(n)
[2ps] "thou"	gu-´, gú-, gó- (Oblique)	PNC *ʁwV̄

[edit] Version 2

Thank you. I have 40 more comparisons I could add, if I had more time. Here are the first ten, others will be added later. Thanks for the help again. I also need to do the following (which I'm not able to do):

Burushaski-Caucasian Comparanda
	Burushaski	Meaning	Comments	Caucasian	Meaning	Comments
1	ʒ́a	I		*zō	I	Khinalug /zi/
2	un	thou	Directive/Ergative	*uō(-n)	thou	Archi, Udi /un/
3	gu-´, gú-, gó-	thou	Oblique	*ʁwV̄	thou	Dargwa (Sirgokala) /gu/
4	men / bo, be / bá-śa	who? / what? / when?		*mV	interrogative pronoun	Batsbi /mẽ/ "who", Archi /ba-sa/ "when?"
5	te, eté, ot	that	y-class singular	*tV, *dV	that	Lak /tat/ "that"
6	-́l-ći, il-	eye		*ʡwĭlʡi	eye	Aghul /ul/
7	-múś	nose, snot		*mHărčwV	snot	Chamalal /maš/ "snot"
8	-́ṣ	neck, throat		*ris_wĔ	neck	Adyghean /p-śa/ "neck"
9	-́qat	armpit	(Hunza, Yasin); Nagar /-́qetaraŋ/ "armpit"	*qVdV	breast	Bezhta /ʁade/
10	-ltáltar	front leg, animal shoulder; arm	(Hunza); Yasin /-ltáltariŋ/ "breasts (of a woman) sticking out"	*Hl[a]ƛ̣V̄	breast; back	Archi /ƛ̣:ol/ "shoulder-blade, foreleg (of animal)", Chamalal /halʷ/ "breast"
11	-sú	navel, navel cord	plural /-sú/ or /-súmu/	*ʒ_ŏnʔŭ	navel	Dargwa /zu/, Khinalug /c̣um/
12	-úl	stomach		*=ɨ̄raŁ_V	stomach; rennet, abomasum	Agul /uraj/, Archi /b-aƛ/

---

Pet'usek 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com)

[edit] Morphological Cognates

Likely cognates of case endings
Basque Case	Basque	Burushaski	Caucasian	Comments
Absolutive	-0	-0	-0	The absolutive form is generally used for the subjects of intransitive verbs and the direct object of transitive verbs. Special ergative forms are used for the subject of transitive verbs.
Ergative	-k	-k/-ak(1)	-k’ə(2)	(1) instrumental; (2) Kabardian ergative, Circassian (Adyghe) instrumental
Dative	-i	-e(1)	*-Hi(2)	(1) used as both ergative and genitive; (2) manifests as Avar -e (dative), Hunzib -i (dative) etc., shifted to instrumental in Lak, Dargwa, genitive in Khinalug, or ergative in Tsezian, Dargwa and Khinalug
Instrumental	-z [s]	-as/-áas(1)	*-s:-(2)	(1) cf. parallel infinitive -s in some Lezghian languages; (2) instrumental animate; general attributive, shifted to closely related functions in most modern languages, e.g. ergative animate in Chechen, adjectival and participial attributive suffix in Abkhaz etc.
Genitive	-en		*-nV(1)	(1) attested as genitive in Lezghi, Chechen (also infinitive, adj. and particip. suff.), possessive in Ubykh etc.; in some languages the function has shifted to ablative (Avar), ergative (Udi, Ubykh)
Allative	-ra(1)	-r/-ar(2), -al-(3)	*-ɫV(4)	(1) some northern Basque dialects have the form -rat and/or -lat; (2) dative/allative; (3) locative; (4) Chechen -l, -lla (translative), Tsez -r (dative, lative), Khinalug -li (general locative) etc.
Comitative	-ekin		*KV(1)	(1) possible cognates among mutually incompatible suffixes, cf. Avar -gu-n, -gi-n (comitative), Andi -lo-gu, Karata -qi-l, Tindi -ka, Akhwakh -qe-na.

--213.168.173.197 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC) petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com

Great – I'll add the morphological cognates soon, but Footnote 4 is missing in the comments!

Now I'll complete the Nostratic sound correspondences – fortunately neatly tabled by Kaiser & Shevoroshkin... :o)

David Marjanović | 20:34 CEST | 2006/10/13

[edit] Dene-Caucasian Pronouns

Dene-Caucasian Pronouns
Meaning	Dene-Caucasian	Basque	Caucasian	Burushaski	Sino-Tibetan	Yeniseian	Na-Dené	(Sumerian)	Comments
1st sg.	*ŋV	*ni, *n-	*nɨ̆	*a-	*ŋa:-	*ŋ		/ŋa(e)/(1)	(1) Emesal dialect /ma(e)/
	*dzV	*-da-/*-t	*zo:	*dzʲa		*ʔadz	(1)		(1) Proto-Athabaskan *ʃ, Haida dii
	*KV	*gu(1)/*g-			*kă-		(2)		(1) 1st pl.; (2) Tlingit χa, Eyak x-, xʷ
2nd sg.	*KʷV	*hi, *h-, *-ga-	*ʁV:	*gu-/*go-	*Kʷa-	*(V)k(V)	(1)		(1) Proto-Athabaskan *χʷ-, Tlingit ɣi ~ yi = 2nd pl.; Tlingit ʔi, Eyak ʔi "thou"
	*wVn		*wo:-n	*u-n	*nă-(ŋ)	*ʔaw	(1)		(1) Proto-Athabaskan *ŋ̰ən-, Haida daŋ, Tlingit waʔɛ́
3rd sg.	*w- (*m-)	be-ra	*mV	*mu-(1)	*m-	*wV	(2)		(1) feminine; (2) Proto-Athabaskan *wə-, Eyak wa-, Tlingit wɛ́, Haida ’wa
2nd pl.	*Su	*su, *s-	*zʲwĕ					/za(e)/(1)	(1) 2nd sg.

--213.168.173.197 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC) petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com

[edit] Salishan & Wakashan after Shevoroshkin

1. I, ME:

a. Sal. *ca ~ PNC *zoː b. Sal. *nV ~ PNC *nɨ̆

2. THOU, THEE:

a. Sal. *ʔaxw- ~ PEC *ʔaɣ, *ɣu b. Sal. *wV ~ PEC *woː

3. TWO:

MC t-q'awʔ- ~ PNC *t'-ʔq'wE

4. BONE:

MC s-c' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.168.173.197 (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 12-word list

Finished transcription into IPA.* Except for the mysteries; for example there's a ŋ with something below it in the Na-Dené column, and I can't figure out what that is.

Hmm...have I sent you the varios Na-Dené papers? I'm sure there will be some explanation for that in those PDF's. I'll have a look.

We also need to explain what /H/ and /A/ are, and the dialect abbreviations for Basque and Burushaski. Was I right in interpreting every G as /ɢ/? What tones do the Yeniseian languages have (superscript numbers are not IPA)?

That's right. We have to do it with every table...hm, or perhaps, if the meanings of the more general symbols don't vary too much, we might create a more general explanatory table at the bottom of the article...but we can always do that. That can wait. By the way, we might (sooner or later) make several separate articles (one devoted to PDC phonology, another one to PDC morphology, one more for PDC lexics) and only briefly quote them in the main article. We have plenty of time for that, of course, as the article isn't that long yet.

The article is quite long, actually. David Marjanović 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll think of it for a while and try to propose their future structures (i.e. I'll look at the other articles, like PIE, for example, and steal the scheme from them :-D) --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

* Not just because it is Wikipedia standard, but also because it is misleading not to distinguish orthographies from scientific transcriptions! Those brackets and slashes have a purpose. I have left the orthographies in italics (and will add more – most languages have one these days), but not the transcriptions.

Exactly. Excellent point. My strategy has been to add the data in a more or less acceptible form first of all, and only then take the time to go through it and make the final arrangements of the type you suggest.

I have deleted all breve diacritics. Starostin put a macron or a breve on every vowel; if he doesn't, it means he wasn't able to reconstruct the length. In IPA, shortness is assumed by default, and the breve is the rarely used "extra-short diacritic"; maybe more importantly, you can only stack so many diacritics on a letter – to distinguish a with breve from ä with breve, I had to open the edit page; otherwise I'd never have guessed that the latter existed. The nasal vowels with high or low tone still hardly come through. David Marjanović 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (logged in at last! :-) )

You're right, of course. I haven't had time to do all that. I suggest that we mark vowels of an uncertain length with the ordinary IPA length symbol, put in brackets, e.g. /ka(ː)/. What do you think, David? Anyway, thanks for the tremendous help!

Good idea with the parentheses, I should have got it myself. Can you please do it, now that I've erased the evidence and you have the originals? :-] David Marjanović 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just come home, so I can look at it ;-) --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phonology

[edit] Version 2.2

Help, questions and comments are welcome and appreciated very much!

Obstruents
		Bilabial	Alveolar		Post-alveolar	Alveo-palatal	Velar		Uvular	Glottal
			central	lateral			central	lateral
Stop	Voiceless	p [p]	t [t]				k [k]		q [q]	ʔ
	Voiceless Glottalized	ṗ [p’]	ṭ [t’]				ḳ [k’]		q̇ [q’]	ʡ
	Voiced	b [b]	d [d]				g [g]		G [ɢ]	ʕ
Affricate	Voiceless		c [ts]	ƛ [tɬ]	č [tʃ’]	ć [tɕ]
	Voiceless Glottalized		c̣ [ts’]	ƛ̣ [tɬ’]	č̣ [tʃ’]	ć̣ [tɕ’]
	Voiced		ʒ [dz]	Ł [dɮ]	ǯ [dʒ]	ʒ́ [dʑ]
Fricative	Voiceless		s [s/z]	λ [ɬ]	š [ʃ/ʒ]	ś [ɕ/ʑ]	x [x]			h
	Voiceless Glottalized						ẋ [x’]			ħ
	Voiced						ɣ [ɣ]			ɦ
Sonorants
Nasal			m [m]	n [n]			ń [nʲ]	ŋ [ŋ]
Liquid				r [r]			ŕ [rʲ]	ʁ [ʁ]
Approximant			w [w]		l [l]		j [j]		ɫ [ʟ]

´

I have fixed the consonant table, and made another one for the vowels. What do you think of them?

Despite the many places of articulation, the consonant table is still narrower than the page, so I don't see a reason for the 80 % size and deleted it. "!" means that the cell will be in boldface, BTW. If you add class="wikitable", such cells will be in dark gray and the rest in light gray... but apparently you can't have dark gray without boldface, or at least I haven't figured out how.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 21:30 CET | 2006/9/16

[edit] Merging the IPA and Traditional transcriptions

FINISHED BY DAVID MARJANOVIĆ

(excellent work, David! :-))

[edit] Sound correspondences

I just started that section, using the plain and ejective non-"laryngeal" plosives. The purpose of not putting everything online at once is to avoid losing everything in the next Internet Explorer crash (strange things happen today). Please check for strangenesses! I have no idea if I have correctly interpreted the Proto-Sino-Tibetan /gh/ and /ɢh/ as consonant clusters. Are voiced aspirated plosives reconstructed for PST?

Please dig up more Basque correspondences, and the Na-Dené ones! Man, am I forgetful.

Also... we should agree on using "Dene" or "Dené" (the accent being high tone).

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 21:37 CEST | 2006/9/28

"Dené" is more correct than "Dene", hence we should use "Dené"

--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that in a minute. However, someone else will have to change the name of the article. I can't do that – I still don't have an account.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 15:00 CEST | 2006/10/13

I added the voiced plosives. The old sound correspondence table makes clear that – like in the Americanist notation – ẋ is [χ], not [x̕] (which would be a major weirdness in the system), so I changed this in the phonology table.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:56 CEST | 2006/9/29

Well, in the Excel table I sent you, David, I'm putting "=" between the differing notations (one is used by Starostin, the other is used by Bengtson - really confusing) --Pet'usek 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Added the remaining plosives and a few affricates. I'll change the PST clusters mentioned above to voiced aspirated plosives (and affricates) at the next opportunity for reasons of symmetry, but I'd still greatly appreciate evidence... Edit: They are reconstructed for Middle Chinese, anyway.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:45 CEST, 2006/9/29 | edit 18:05 CET, 2006/11/4

So would I. I haven't collected enough materials yet. I should be kept in mind and stressed in the article, that the hypothesis is really in its beginning. The necessarily and inevitably repetitive tasks of making etymological dictionaries/databases, revealing new evidence, abandoning wrong views and making them obsolite is all ahead of us...--Pet'usek 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here I'm merely talking about Proto-Sino-Tibetan (or probably rather Proto-Tibeto-Burman...). I know nothing about it; I'd like to know if it's supposed to have voiced aspirated plosives and affricates, because Starostin and Bengtson don't distinguish [h] from [ʰ] or [ʱ].

Done that, added the remaining voiceless affricates and /j/ (because it doesn't require entering any special characters).

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:24 CEST | 2006/10/1

Added the remaining affricates, the fricatives, and the nasals.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:11 CEST | 2006/10/4

Now only a few consonant clusters are missing anymore. When I'll have finished, I'll delete the old correspondence tables which are still at the bottom of the page. Please add citations!

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:03 CEST | 2006/10/4

You mean citations in general or any specific, concrete citations? :-) --Pet'usek 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See below.

xcellent work, David! You're faster than the wind! ;-) By the way, getting deeper and deeper in the hypothesis, I'm reavealing many little flaws of it. But until I have the proper dictionaries and papers (many have not been written by anyone yet), I have little evidence. Actually, the evidence would not contradict the hypothesis, it would only alter the reconstructed phonological system, some of the correspondences and developements.--Pet'usek 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll finish the table today. Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia, not primary literature, so we can't include anything that isn't published (...except on the talk page...). This is one of the reasons for why we should make reasonably clear what comes from where.

Ok. I'll go through the literature I have. Anyway, most of the text needs to be rewritten. I'm working on it. As for the vocabulary lists, it's an enormously time-consuming matter. I might be a bit repetitive, but I'm still working on them :-))).--Pet'usek 12:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll try to open your .rar files and look for a few neat sample etymologies.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 20:35 CEST | 2006/10/6

The correspondence table is finished. (Accordingly, I deleted its old equivalents.) Please check it against the sources, for typos as well as for misinterpretations (I have ignored all parentheses, slashes, and tildes that are in the "DC Wikipedia.doc" file you sent me). In the long run, it would also be nice to have footnotes that refer to something other than Basque.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 21:26 CEST | 2006/10/6

I'm working on that ;-)--Pet'usek 12:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

David, I found the following passage at the end of page 28 of the Preface to SC by S.A.Starostin: "PSC *p yields aspirated ph in Bur. and PST, and p in PY and PNC. Note that the PNC *p, just as all voiceless consonants, must have also been aspirated." Maybe we should mention that in the table as well....? --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I just put it in. Please tell me what you think about it.

Well done. Thank you.--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have kept forgetting to ask you something important: The old correspondence tables show reflexes of PDC voiced fricatives. I have simply ignored them. What should we do: add those reflexes to the corresponding PDC voiceless fricatives, interpret the situation as a disagreement between Starostin (no phonemically voiced fricatives) and Bengtson (phonemically voiced fricatives),

There is no disagreement between Starostin and Bengtson on this. Bengtson states (page 20 of his Materials for a Comparative Grammar...): "...Proto-Dene-Caucasian probably had several fricatives corresponding to most of the positions of the occlusives: *s, *ʃ, *ɬ, *x, *χ. There are some indications that these fricatives may have had voiced allophones. (Cf. the conditions in Proto-Athabaskan, e.g. Krauss & Leer, 1981. Athabaskan, Eyak and Tlingit Sonotants)..."

Since the allophones have distinct reflexes, they should be given the right :-). It's just as with the other phonemes at differing positions.--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

or assume voiced allophones as certain, assume that they have become phonemic in some daughter-languages (check out the reconstruction of the Proto-Athabaskan sound system here on Wikipedia!), and therefore make two lines for the phonemes in question, one for each allophone?

Yes, exactly. Since there is probably no minimal pair available among the PDC reconstructions that would prove the opposite, the easiest thing - at least at the current state of knowledge - is to assume that there was no opposition of voice in the fricatives. Anyway, if you look at the reconstructed system, there are no ejective fricatives either. The three-way contrast was a matter of plosives and affricates only. Moreover, I have long suspected that at least some of the abundant affricates might have evolved from biphonematic groups of occlusives and fricatives (Note the weird opposition between the ST-like groups and TS-like affricates - Bengtson himself doubts there was a difference, the contrast is based only on PY in fact).

And yes, in some daughter languages, the differing fricatives may have become separate phonemes.--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, will do, sometime. Good point about the affricates...

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 22:50 CEST | 2006/10/15

Done. I just wonder what evidence there is for the existence of [ɮ] and [ʒ] – they don't appear in the correspondence table you sent me. Are they just assumed for reasons of symmetry?

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 22:11 CEST | 2006/10/17

I doubt it was just to make the system more symmetrical. I will provide you with some etyma if you give me some time. Anyway, I'm working on a database of semantically organized DC lexemes PLUS a database of etyma to exemplify the listed sound changes. The latter, I'm almost sure, will increase the attractivity of the article :-).--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 18:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes yes yes !!!! Take all the time you need. :-)

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:17 CEST | 2006/10/23

That said… don't make a too big list. If you want to exemplify every sound change in the article, the article will become three times as long as it already is!!! Better look for examples that are attested in most or all descendant branches.

Yes, of course. I will send you the whole database, though, and we can discuss which etyma to include in the article. Sorry for the continuing delay - I've had some problems with my laptop :-(

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 18:11 CET | 2006/11/4

BTW, I recently added the supposed pitch accent from the cited Bengtson paper to the bottom of the correspondence table.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:58 CEST | 2006/10/13

[edit] Salishan languages

I just added a reference to Shevoroshkin adding Salishan (if not "Almosan-Keresiouan" as a whole!) to Dené-Caucasian. He mentions 8 cognates that look very promising (even though it boggles the mind, the Salishan languages have enough consonants to match them with PDC or Proto-Caucasian reconstructions, if not more). You don't happen to know if anything's published…?

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 18:25 CEST | 2006/11/2

Unfortunately, that happens to be the first and only mention of the Salishan languages as another potential member of the DC Macrophylum I have encountered so far. I have to ask somebody about that. P.

[edit] Haplogroups

It seems that Bengston is a genius! His split of Dene-Caucasian mathces the haplogroups. His way indicates that R1a was NOT the Indo-european marker but the North-Caucasian and probably the IE's of Anatolia borrowed the word for horse from NorthCaucasian not the other way around. It even accomodates the R2 haplogroup which is amazing!!!!.

Current view of J. D. Bengtson, as yet not dated by glottochronological analyses:

1. Dené-Caucasian

1.1. The Macro-Caucasian family (R)

1.1.1. Vasco-Caucasian (R1)

1.1.1.1. Basque (R1b)

1.1.1.2. North Caucasian (R1a)

1.1.2. Burushaski (R2)

1.2. Sino-Tibetan (O)

1.3. Yeniseian (P)?

1.4. Na-Dené (Q)

Human Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups

Y-most recent common ancestor

|

A

|

B

|

C

DE

F

D

E

G

H

IJ

K

I

J

L

M

NO

P

N

O

Q

R

Your comments. Please.--Kupirijo 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting, except that cases where languages and genes don't match up have to be expected, so I bet a closer look will show it's not that neat. David Marjanović 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer myself… I just had a look at the articles, and it's nowhere near that neat. For example, haplogroup Q is found in almost all Native Americans, not (just?) Na-Dené speakers. Most, if not all, of the haplogroups are far too old to correspond to a Dené-Caucasian branch.

Let's come back in 5 years and look what will have been found :-)

David Marjanović 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What do the others speak? I know there are also mongoloid haplogroups in America like C. Isn't that true? And what do you mean old? All isolate languages must come from the Palaeolithic stock like the Rs? That is why they evolved further apart. For example Basque from North Caucasian. --Kupirijo 05:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think that there are correlations between ALL haplogroups and ALL languages. It is just difficult to decipher and deconvolve, because of the mixing of populations. Humans ALWAYS had a language. That is what makes them human. And if we all descend from one Adam (and one Eve) that Adam spoke ONE language. --Kupirijo 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also let me remind you the quote from the Na-Dene article: "This proposal (of Dene-Caucasian) also is supported by biological studies (Rubicz 2002) showing greater genetic differences between Na-Dene speakers and other native Americans than between speakers of Na-Dene and peoples in Eurasia, particularly speakers of Yeniseian languages.". --Kupirijo 06:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And also just because Q3 is found in other Native Americans does not mean that Na-Dene speakers as new-comers did not adapt to local customs and languages. You can have people that speak a completely different language adapt another language. A shocking example are the R1b that actually represent most of the Western Europeans whose ancestors used to speak Basque and then Indo-european. Something similar happened in Eastern Europe but the linguists are reluctant to accept it for various different reasons. As a biologist I think genetics is going to shine light to many areas of "evolutionary linguistics" that sometimes can give the wrong impression by looking at reconstructions that are only on paper and disagree with reality, but also genetics will enforce "weak" theories for larger scale relationships that linguists are reluctant (or afraid or superstitious) to touch upon or dismiss other "weak" theories that were due to geographical contacts or mixing. I probably insulted all the linguists here but as an arrogant biologist and an amateur linguist I see things differently (more deterministically I would say). I apologize if I offended anybody. :) --Kupirijo 06:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you didn't.

What you say is interesting, indeed. Nevertheless, I still think we have to consider both, DNA analyses and linguistic analyses, and that the former alone cannot prove the case without the latter. And, of course, archeological findings. Imagine the following scenarios:

• • • Invaders X occupy group Y. X adopt the language of Y. (or most of it)
    • Invaders X occupy group Y. Y adopt the language of X. (or most of it)

Also, you can multiply these options by the following:

• • • X outnumber Y.
    • Y outnumber X.

Or:

• • • X are technologically more advanced.
    • Y are technologically more advanced.

How would you distinguish between all those possibilities if you only depended on biology?

--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Are you a linguist by training? --Kupirijo 08:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a university student of linguistics and phonetics.--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)