 |
| Alternative Historical Linguistics |
| Introductory Survey of the Method and the Results of the Study |
| The research was performed using author's own "graphic-analytical method". The idea of the method consists in geometrical interpretation of interrelations between cognate languages on the basis of quantitative estimation of mutual linguistic units in pairs of languages within one language family or group. This method is based on a supposition that the inverse proportionality exists between the amount of mutual words in a pair of languages and the distance between natural habitats where these languages were formed. The calculation of the quantity of mutual lexical items in language pairs has been done on the data of Table-dictionaries which were created for each studied language family. &The table-dictionaries have the following structure: the words of the same languages are placed in vertical columns, the words belonging to the same phono-semantic set can be found in horizontal lines. It is important to take into consideration that not all phono-semantic sets have corresponding matches in all languages. Many sets have the appropriate words in some languages only. If all the languages have the appropriate words for the same set, this set belongs to the common lexical stock of a language family. The common lexical stock has not been taken into the calculation, because it concerns mainly the time of the existence of the common parent language to be split in these languages. The model of the language relationship looks as a graph which has as so much knots how much of languages are studied. Indeed, each knot looks as an area of points being ends of a segment with length corresponded to the quantity of common words in language pairs. These segments connect pairs of all areas. The construction of the model goes in some approximation. When the model is ready we try to find a place for it on a geographical map. The form of the model could not be broken therefore it is not easy to find suitable place on the map with the same topological character as the model. Each area of language formation must have distinct borders, which hinder intercourses between inhabitants of these areas and so contribute to forming new separate languages from the previous common one. The borders of the areas can be rivers, mount chains, swamps etc. |
|
| The model of relationship of the Nostratic languages |
| Near 90 languages out of 9 language families or language groups (Nostratic, Indo-European, Altaic, Caucasian, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Iranian, Germanic and Slavic) were researched by the author using the graphic-analytical method.
At least 6 Nostratic languages developed from the previous common language on the lowest level (Proto-Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Semitic-Hamitic, Kartvelian and Dravidian). The place for their formation has been found in Fore Asia (6 areas near the lakes Van, Sevan and Urmija as well near the mountains Ararat, Aragac, the rivers Kura, Araks, Choroh, Great Zab, Little Zab etc). The borders between the areas are mount chains. Later three groups of the ancient Nostratic tribes migrated to Eastern Europe (8-7 thousand years ago). The separate languages as the result of the split of the three great language families have been studied on the level two. The graphical models of them help us to find the areas of the settlement of the Proto-Indo-European, Finno-Ugric und Turkish peoples in the East Europe between the rivers Volga, Dnepr, and Vistula. The Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, und Turkic languages began to form here in the areas between numerous tributaries of the great rivers Volga, Don, Dnepr, Vistula in the 3-rd mill. BC. The ancient Indo-European languages had been arisen out of the common language in the basin of the Dnepr: Greek, Italic, Armenian, Celtic, Thracian, Phrigian, Illirian, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Tocharian, Indian, Iranian, Chettish. The ancient Finno-Ugric languages began to form in areas between the Volga and the Don. The ancient Turkic languages began to form in the areas between the Dnepr and the Don. |
 |
| The graphical model of the Indo-European languages relationships. |
| The place for the model of the relationship of the Finno-Ugric languages was found on the territory clearly limited by the Volga, Don, and Oka rivers. The areas of the formation of individual languages are also mostly limited by large rivers, performing the role of the natural boundaries as water powerful obstacle. The proposed location of the ancient Finno-Ugric areas can be confirmed by the data of paleobotany, in particular by the spread area of oak which has a common word in the Finno-Ugrian languages, as well as by toponymy. There are on this territory some deal of place names having Finno-Ugric. What is important most of them can be explained namely by means of those languages which outset areas correspond these place names. For example the area of the Finnish language can be proved among others by such place names: - the town of Likino-Dulevo - Fin lika “mud” and tulva „flood, owerflow“; - the river Suvoroshch - Fin suo “swamp” and roska(t) “rubbish, litter”; - the settling Tuma - Fin tumma “oak”. However some names, such as for example, Arzamas reflect following ways of migration of Finno-Ugric peoples. |
 |
| Right: The graphical model of the Finno-Ugric language relationship. |
 |
| The graphical model of the relationship of Turkic languages was built repeatedly while replenishing and correcting the table dictionary. The configuration of the newly obtained chart was not changed, but the small shift of some areas of language took place. This is due to the fact that the lexicon of particular languages is presented in the table dictionary more complete but the other is less full. This phenomenon is typical for the etymological dictionary and is explained by different study of dialect vocabulary. For this reason, the central language areas are much more compact than the peripheral. |
| Left: The graphical model of the Turkic language relationship. |
| The Iranian, Germanic, Slavic languages were researched on the level three. The areas of their formation were also found in the basins of the Dnepr and the Don. The Indo-European peoples of these languages stayed here when other Indo-Europeans migrated to Western and Southern Europe and to Asia back. Much other linguistic and archaeological facts confirm these conclusions and are added in the published books. The first book ended on the chronological level of the I-st mill. BC. The later development of the ethnogenic processes wass considered in the second book. The applied models of related languages could be considered as the modification of a special graph. The peculiarity of this graph is that all its knots without exception are connected between themselves with ribs and these ribs have determined length. The graph can be applied at description of spatial associations of objects with common features which number in pairs of objects are depended from the distance between these objects. Specially, it can be used in linguistic, archaeology, biology etc, also where objects have enough common features. The table-dictionaries being input into computer can help to separate obscure words in different languages, to unit them in groups and to reconstruct "dead languages" by using these words. |
|
