German V. Dziebel, Ph.D. Arnold Worldwide/Great Russian Encyclopedia

1. 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Session - Kinship Terminologies: Change and Reconstruction Between a Kinship Terminological System and a Phonological System: Methodological Pathwaystoward a New Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European Kinship German V. Dziebel, Ph.D. Arnold Worldwide/Great Russian Encyclopedia

2. The Genius of Kinship: The Phenomenon of Human Kinship and the Global Diversity of Kinship Terminologies, by German Dziebel (2007)

3. Kinship terms and Indo-European linguistics: Where’s the intrigue? • Linguistic “kinship” as a metaphor of a network of formal resemblances between a group of languages was originally demonstrated on the basis of terms denoting kin relations. • Basic vocabulary widely shared among daughter languages • Rich textual evidence of usage • The oldest stratum is morphologically complex • Often contain phonetic aberrancies (e.g., Arm tal HZ instead of expected **cal under the influence of taygr HB), possibly due to effects of analogical leveling, borrowing, speech taboos, etc.

4. Indo-European kinship terms is a heavily researched lexical field Next to the linguistic reconstructions of Indo-European homeland, the reconstruction of PIE social organization is the marquee example of the potential of linguistics to cast light on extralinguistic realities. Descriptive and analytical monographs and doctoral dissertations published between 1848 and 2004 33 Synthetic articles devoted exclusively to the reconstruction of PIE kinship terms published between 1845 and 2004 15 Linguistic items in the ongoing bibliographic project on IE kinship terms (www.kinshipstudies.org) 2000

5. In the eyes of linguists, quantity has translated into quality “The kinship system of the Indo-Europeans is fairly well understood.” Fortson, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2004, 18

6. However the picture becomes more complex when anthropologists try to match reconstructions of PIE kinship with known typologies. “To the present, however, neither the original nature of Indo-European terminologies nor their relation to prescriptive systems has been satisfactorily worked out…. The real nature of proto-Indo-European kinship has yet to be ascertained.” Rodney Needham, 1987

7. The situation is very familiar to Indo-European historical phonologists: Scholars voiced a similar criticism of the traditional reconstruction of PIE stop series as improbable on typological grounds. “...No language adds to the pair /t/ ~ /d/ a voiced aspirate /dh/ without having its voiceless counterpart /th/... .” Roman Jakobson, 1957

8. Kinship terms is a shared “territory” between anthropology and linguistics KINSHIP SYSTEMS AND TERMINOLOGIES ANTHROPOLOGY LINGUISTICS

9. The old style of interaction between linguistics in anthropology INDIVIDUAL ETYMOLOGIES INDO-EUROPEAN KINSHIP ANTHROPOLOGY LINGUISTICS ISOLATED ETHNIC CUSTOMS AND INSTITUTIONS

10. In their attempts to interpret PIE kinship, linguists either blasted anthropological theories as speculative or cherry-picked them to support their ideas. Berthold Delbrück (1889) dismantled the “prehistoric matriarchy argument” and argued instead that PIE family was of an extended patriarchal kind. Paul Friedrich (1966) used the then-famous anthropological concept of “Crow-Omaha” kinship to reconstruct “Omaha” terminological equations and patrilineal social groups for PIE. Emile Benveniste (1969) explained the terminological merging of “grandfather” and “mother’s brother” (with a parallel extension of terms for grandchildren to nephews and nieces) as resulting from the practice of cross-cousin marriage.

11. Kinds of etymological solutions

12. Despite the decades of research, Proto-Indo-European kinship reconstructions are inconclusive • Both pan-Indo-European (PIE) and language-specific forms remain largely obscure in their morphological and semantic structure. • Independent innovations and common legacy are hard to disentangle (e.g., do “Omaha-type” equations recorded in various IE dialects reflect a PIE condition or a series of independent innovations within daughter branches?) • Several highly diagnostic kinship positions (FZ, WM, WF, FZS, FZD, MBS, MBD) lack unambiguous reconstructions. • Apparently due to fast and sweeping lexical change, there’re perceivable gaps in the distribution of IE kinship inventory. E.g., Gk ’ανεψιός‘cousin’ is different from its most obvious kin such as Lat nepōs etc. in having a prothetic vowel. Slav **vŭnŭkŭ (< *anonko-) ‘grandson’ has the prothetic vowel but lacks the final segments invariably found in the other IE forms. The Greek form is also different from the rest in its meaning, which falls outside of the variation within this etymological nest (‘grandson; nephew’). • Several forms compete for the PIE status (e.g., *atta F dominates in Anatolian, Slavic, Baltic and Gothic, while reflexes of *pHter are standard terms for ‘father’ in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Latin, Celtic and the rest of Germanic).

13. What’s wrong with the current ways of handling kin terms in PIE reconstructions • As relational nouns, kinship terms cannot be derived from forms with an absolute meaning: some aunts are “beloved”, others are not. “‘own dear’ svasaras leaning on the helpful arm of ‘supporting’ bhrātaras, or as dutiful dhughtaras carrying the milk-pail for ‘protecting’ pataras and ‘wise-ordering’ mātaras” (Wheeler 1890, 171). • Interpretations involving two-place predicates such as “to bind,” “to tie,” “to share”, “to separate”, “to give”) stem from ad hoc ideas about what kinship must entail. • Kinship terms are not reconstructed as parts of an evolving system but rather as isolated instances of invention, remarkable retention or accidental borrowing by language users. • Kinship terms are treated as simple instances of existing phonetic laws, rather than as a complex phonetic, morphological and pragmatic matter from which new laws can be extracted. • PIE kinship is reconstructed on the basis of attested forms and meanings mechanically projected into the past. PIE kinship reconstructions based on systematic etymologizing are not available. • Comparative method admits circular logic: phonetic laws are inferred on the basis of similarities and differences found in etymological nests. But then etymological nests are constructed on the basis of perceived similarities in sound and meaning.

14. The new style of interaction between linguistics in anthropology LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY INDO-EUROPEAN KINSHIP ANTHROPOLOGY LINGUISTICS HISTORICAL TYPOLOGY OF KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES

15. What’s the perspective from logic and linguistic typology • Kinship terms are relational nouns. • Kinship terms are similar to personal pronouns in being egocentric, deictic and speech-act anchored (comp. body parts are more syntax-anchored); to proper names in being animate and particular (grammatically, both 1) either lack a plural or share special plural markers; 2) make use of the same special possessive marker or as possessors occupy a different position in syntax than other nouns; 3) make use of special proprial articles and avoid the use of definitive articles); 4) occupy similarly high positions in animacy hierarchies; 5) subject to hypocoristic modifications); to verbs in being predicativeand to body part terms in being inalienably possessed and morphologically complex(Dzhafarov 1981;Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, etc.).

16. What’s anthropological perspective? • Kinship terms form systems of classification. • Kinship terminological systems are neatly structured on phonetic, syntactic, morphological and semantic levels. • papa, tata, mama, yaya areexamples of recurrent phonetic patterns. • ‘little father’ = FB, ‘little mother’ = MZ are examples of recurrent morphological patterns. • ‘father’s brother’ (Swed farbror), ‘mother’s brother’ (Swed morbror) are “descriptive” constructions illustrating recurrent syntactic patterning. • FF = mSC, MB = MBS, F = FB, etc. are semantic patterns widely attested in world languages. • Kinship terminological systems evolve along specific typological pathways (e.g., from Bifurcate Merging to Generational, from Symmetric Prescriptive to Asymmetric Prescriptive, etc.). • It’s possible to isolate synchronic and diachronic universals of kinship terminologies.

17. Some diachronic universals • The decoupling of kinship and affinity in all generations (away from the “Dravidian” pole) • The progressive loss of intergenerational self-reciprocity (or the collapse of alternate-generation merging) • The progressive simplification of sibling sets (from an 8-term maximum to 1-2-term sets) • The progressive emergence of descriptive formations for collateral categories. • The transition from Bifurcate Collateral to Bifurcate Merging, if the original Bifurcate Collateral was linked to cross-generational self-reciprocity. • The formation of “Crow-Omaha” generational skewing as a special case of the collapse of alternate generation merging.

18. PIE *mer- ‘brother; affine’ Diachronic universal The progressive decoupling of kinship and affinity *mer- ‘brother; affine’ > *merH2- > *merH2-ter > *mreH2-ter > *breH2-ter > *bHreH2-ter > *bhreH2-ter > *bhrāter ‘brother’

19. IE *H2neptiH- ‘father’s sister; brother’s child (w.s.)’ Diachronic universal The progressive loss of intergenerational self-reciprocity Synchronic universal Kin terms are subject to hypocoristic reductions common among proper names *anepta- > *amepta (regressive assimilation) > *amemta (progressive assimilation) > *ameta (simplification of identical consonants and the removal of a voiced consonant before a voiceless one) or *ametta (contiguous assimilation) > *ameta > *amita (by Latin vowel lenition).

20. Areal isogloss *sukter ‘father’s brother; step-father; brother’s son; step-son; Diachronic universal The progressive loss of intergenerational self-reciprocity; possibly change from Bifurcate Collateral to Bifurcate Merging (pater-patruus) in PIE PIE *suk- (comp. *suH2- S), *suk-ter > *suk-teriyos > Slav *sustryjĭ,*pa-sustrokŭ > * Slav *sstryjĭ,*pa-sstrokŭ > *stryjĭ, *pastrokŭ

21. Conclusions • Due to the inherent circularity in the comparative method, new opportunities may arise from comparing two or more etymological nests in search of overlooked cognation. • Combination of anthropological and linguistic approaches to the historical changes in kinship terminologies can improve on the criteria used in the composition of etymological nests. • New etymological hypotheses within a selected lexical class can highlight possible new phonetic laws and morphological regularities. • These hypotheses can be further tested across all etymological nests. • Ultimately, a successful reconstruction of PIE kinship involves phonetically, morphologically and semantically plausible etymologies organized into a systematically evolving system that has its place in global diachronic and synchronic typologies.

22. Bibliography Global Kinship Bibliography: http://kinshipstudies.org/?page_id=4 Indo-European kinship bibliography http://kinshipstudies.org/?page_id=7