Tlazoltéotl
c-SUMERIAN-5.htm
Counter
Ur Nammu, Third Dynasty  of  Ur

PROTO-LANGUAGE PHONEMES

in IE and Sumerian

(Nostratic Hypothesis)

by Patrick C. Ryan

currently under construction Copyright 2008 Patrick C. Ryan (Rev. 7/ 9 /2008)


Hurrian Hymn




The purpose of this short essay is to establish as a hypothesis that IE and Sumerian are both descended from a common ancestor, which, I term the Proto-Language — from the form into which it developed between 55-60K BPE.

This date is based on the estimates of Cavalli-Sforza for the separation of the peoples of Asia and Europe (The Great Human Diasporas, p. 123) from the "main" branch of the people speaking the Proto-Language.

During this phase of development, the Proto-Language was passing out of a class-type morphology into an ergative-type morphology (G. A. Klimov).

The word order of Sumerian is — like Basque (Trask 1997:109) — consistently SOV , what we would expect from any language that preserves early syntax. Although "modifiers overwhelmingly precede their heads" in Basque (genitives and relative clauses; Trask 1997:122) — a further correlative of SOV typology, in Sumerian, genitives and relative clauses follow their referents; however, in Basque, "lexical adjectives follow the nouns they modify (Trask 1997:122)" just as in Sumerian, in which an adjective "stands directly after the noun which it qualifies (Thomsen 1984:64)".

This discrepancy can be resolved when we realize that a number of Basque adjectives like ilun, "dark", also function as nouns: "darkness", which has led "a number of vasconists to suspect that, at some early stage of the language, there was no distinction between adjectives and nouns (Trask 1997:210)", which Trask admits as a possibility if "at a very remote period". This is certainly the case in Sumerian in which "Adjectives do not differ morphologically from nominal or verbal stems and there are no morphological means to derive adjectives from other stems. An adjectival stem is primarily characterized by its syntactic use . . . (Thomsen 1984:64)".

What is enormously exciting about Sumerian is that (unlike Basque and Japanese) it separated from the main branch of the Proto-Language after the stage of development (Pontic) in which the oldest semantic contrasts of CE / CA / CO were replaced by CyV, C(-)V, and CwV, the superscripts indicating semi-consonantal glides or no glide — in keeping with the pattern observed in other Caucasian languages, Sumerian lost the superfluous V before contact with Semitic. The contact with Semitic caused Sumerian C + glide to be replaced with mid-vowels vowels (Cy became Ci; Cw became Cu; while C- became Ca .

Therefore, in open syllables ( in the absence of a ollowing /j/ or /w/), Sumerian preserves a record of and Basque preserves the original vowel quality of the Proto-Language intact.


Sumerian Vowels


a, i, u,
â (a), ê (e), î (i), ü (u),
U (u), yu (u), û (u)



Sumerian â (/a:/) is reduction from **ha (written by Sumerologists currently as a); ê (/e:/) is reduction from **aj (written by Sumerologists currently as e); î (/i:/) is reduction from **ij and **ji (written by Sumerologists currently as i); ü†† (/ü:/) is a reduction from **uj (written by Sumerologists currently as u); U†† (/o: (Thomsen 1984:39-40) is a reduction from **aw (written by Sumerologists currently as u); yu†† (/ju/) is a reduction from **iw (written by Sumerologists currently as u); û†† (/u:/) is reduction from **uw (written by Sumerologists currently as u).

in order to distinguish it from i (/i/), which is written by Sumerologists as i, and which was derived from Proto-Sumerian y.

†† in order to distinguish it from u (/u/), which is written by Sumerologists as u, and which was derived from Proto-Sumerian w.

It is hoped that these conventions will simultaneously allow me to differentiate among the various similarly notated forms without affecting the notation in a way that would prevent readers from referencing them in standard Sumerological works.

In the Table of Correspondence found after the listing of lexical cognates below, the column entitled PROTO-LANGUAGE shows the earliest syllables before vocalic contrasts were replaced by a contrast of glides and no glide (during the Pontic stage: 60-40K BPE).

Similar tables of equivalence can and have been constructed for the Proto-Language, IE and Afrasian (Hieroglyphic Egyptian and Arabic), Altaic, Basque, Beng (Southern Mandé), Blackfoot (Algonquian), Hurrian, Japanese, Mon/Hmong, Nama ([Khoi]san), Pama-Nyungan, (Sino-)Tibetan, and Uralic.

Reassessments of Sumerian and Basque are long overdue. As we have seen in the previously published PL-IE-Basque essay, Basque shows such close relationships with this language, that the basal component of the Basque culture (sheep-herders) must be considered ethnically Sumerian.

However, a reassessment of Sumerian and Basque will not be easy to accomplish. Many Vasconists, of which Professor R. L. Trask is very prominent, vociferously deny that Basque may be related to any language or language family on earth. In a recent serious of postings to the Internet Evolution of Language discussion list, I offered my thoughts in this connection in response to a generally dismissive critique by the late Professor Trask of the ideas presented in this essay, an exchange some readers might be interested in following.

To consider Basque an isolate when genetically, Basques are practically indistinguishable from other Europeans, and to deny the connection with Sumer is to deprive the Basques of their proud heritage.

It will be seen below that the reconstructed roots of Indo-European and the attested roots of Sumerian are related through a very regular system of phonemic correspondences with understandable semantic shifting.

Recently, an interesting essay appeared in the Göttinger Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft (Heft 1 - 1998:111-48) by Gordon Whittaker, entitled Traces of an Early Indo-European Language in Southern Mesopotamia. In this article, Whittaker proposes "to place speakers of an Indo-European language in Mesopotamia at . . . an early date" but I believe the many cognates which he correctly identifies are explained better by supposing a common origin for Indo-European and Sumerian at a much earlier date.

The interpretation of the Sumerian evidence has unique problems. Most of the signs have multiple phonological values; and I have prepared a small series of essays which will explain the significance of these variations.

What will surprise many readers, are the startling similarities in responses to Proto-Language phonemes displayed by Basque and Sumerian, which strongly imply a common development period predating the separation of Afrasian languages and their subsequent dispersion (presumably through the introduction of agriculture).

Similar tables of equivalence can and have been constructed for the Proto-Language, IE and Afrasian, Altaic, Basque, Beng (Southern Mandé), Blackfoot (Algonquian), Dravidian (incomplete), Etruscan, Hurrian-Urartian, Japanese, Mon/Hmong, Nama, Pama-Nyungan (incomplete), (Sino-)Tibetan, Sumerian (present essay), and Uralic.

An excellent online resource for Nostratic is at the TOWER OF BABEL, founded by Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin, and now part of the Evolution of Human Languages project at the Santa Fe Institute.

An important new resource for Nostratic studies is the website Nostratica, instituted by Kirill Babaev, the founder of the Cybalist language discussion group at Yahoo! Groups.




TABLE
OF
PL / IE / SUMERIAN /EGYPTIAN
CORRESPONDENCES





number+i=(word) initial; number+m=medial (non-initial); number+f=(word) final
#=unattested (as yet); *=systematically irregular; :=long vowel; &=modified in combination.


FOR EXAMPLES, SEE (NUMBER) IN PL / IE / SUMERIAN LEXICAL COMPARISONS BELOW


PROTO- LANGUAGE
INDO- EUROPEAN
SUMERIAN
EGYPTIAN
may be used
for annotation


?E

+

HE

He(1)

+

He:(1)

i (#)

+

*î, (written) i (#)

j

+

j

.
?A

+

HA

Ha(1)

+

Ha:(1)

HA-FHA-FA Ho:wV (#)

a (#4,5)

+

*â, (written) a (#)

j

+

j

.
?O

+

HO

Ho(1)

+

Ho:(1)

u (#)

+

*û, (written) u (#)

h

+

h

.


¿E


+

HHE

yV(1)


+

He:(1)

*yi (*î, written) i (#3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19)

+

, (written) i (#3)

j


+

j

.
¿A

+

HHA

yV(1) / Ha(:)/V(7)

+

Ha:(1)

*y(a), (written) i(a)/*î, written i (#)

+

*â, (written) a (#8, 10, 19)

j

+

j

.
¿O

+

HHO

yV(1)

+

Ho:(1)

*yu (**ü , written) u (#)

+

*û, (written) u (#)

h

+

h

.


P[?]E

+

P[H]E

b(h)/wV(1), (3)

+

pV(1)

bi (#)

+

bi (#)

p

+

p

.
P[?]A

+

P[H]A

b(h)/wV(1), (3)

+

pV(1)

ba (#17)

+

ba (#)

p

+

p

.
P[?]O

+

P[H]O

b(h)/wV(1), (3)

+

pV(1)

bu (#)

+

bu (#)

f

+

f

.


P[?]FE

+

PF[H]E

bhV(1)

+

p[h]e(:)(1)

pi (#)

+

pi (#)

b

+

b

.
P[?]FA



+

PF[H]A

bhV(1)

final bh/b(2)

+

p[h]a(:)(1)

pa (#)



+

pa (#)

b



+

b

.
P[?]FO

+

PF[H]O

bhV(1)

+

p[h]o(:)(1)

pu (#)

+

pu (#11)

b

+

b

.


FE









+

F[H]E

wV









+

wV:

Emesal: (all positions) mi (#)

Emegi: initial and medial positions g[~]2i)(6) (#)

final *ü, (written) u (#)

+

Emesal: (all positions) mi (#)

Emegi: initial and medial positions g[~]2+i(6) (#)

final *ü (written) u (#)

w









+

w

.
FA

+

F[H]A

wV

+

wV:

u (#6, 20)

+

*û, (written) u (#)

w

+

w

.
FO

+

F[H]O

wV

+

wV:

*û, (written) u (#)

+

, (written) u (#)

w

+

w

.


T[?]E

+

T[H]E

dV

+

tV

di (#)

+

di (#)

rare, tV+'wV became dotted t (*Ti [retroflex?]) (#)

d

+

d

.
T[?]A

+

T[H]A

dV

+

tV

da (#)

+

da (#)

rare, tV+'wV became dotted t (*Ta [retroflex?]) (#)

d

+

d

.
T[?]O

+

T[H]O

dV

+

tV

du (#)

+

du (#)

rare, dotted t (*Tu [retroflex?]) (#)

rare, tV+'wV became dotted t (*Tu [retroflex?]) (#)

t

+

t

.


T[?]SE

+

TS[H]E

dhV

+

t[h]e(:)

initial, rarely:
t[h]ye(:)(8)

zi (#)

+

zi (#)

D (bar-d)

+

D .

.
T[?]SA



+

TS[H]A

dhV

final dh/d(2)

+

t[h]a(:)

za (#)



+

za (#)

dialectal ta (#)

D



+

D

.

T[?]SO













+

TS[H]O

dhV/dhwV(4)

initial, rarely: dwo:(5)











+

t[h]/t[h]wo(:)(4)

Emesal: (all positions) t(u) (#)

Emegi: (all positions) t(u) (#17)

Emegi rare, dotted t (*T(u) [retroflex?]) (#)

Emegi rare, tV+'wV became dotted t (*Tu [retroflex?]) (#)

+

Emesal: (all positions) t(u) (#)

Emegi: (all positions) t(u) (#17)

Emegi rare, dotted t (*T(u) [retroflex?]) (#)

Emegi rare, tV+'wV became dotted t (*Tu [retroflex?]) (#)

'













+

'

.


SE

+

S[H]E

sV

+

sV:

ši (#2, *20)

+

ši (#19)

z

+

z

.
SA








+

S[H]A

sV








+

sV:

sa (#9, 16)

sV+'wV became ša (#)

rare, sV+'wV became dotted s (*Sa [retroflex?]) (#)

+

sa (#11)

sV+'wV became ša (#)

rare, sV+'wV became dotted s (*Sa [retroflex?]) (#)

z








+

z

.
SO














+

S[H]O

sV














+

sV:

su (#)

rare, dotted s (*Su [retroflex?]) (#)

sV+'wV became šu (#)

rare, sV+'wV became dotted s (*Su [retroflex?]) (#)

final, 'su+î became š (#)

+

su (#14)

rare, dotted s (*Su [retroflex?]) (#)

sV+'wV became šu (#)

rare, sV+'wV became dotted s (*Su [retroflex?]) (#)

s














+

s

.


K[?]E

+

K[H]E

g[^]V(4)

+

k[^]V(4)

gi (#15)

+

gi (#12)

kV+'wV became hi (#)

k

+

k

k + w becomes š

.
K[?]A




+

K[H]A

gV




+

kV

ga (#)




+

ga (#)

kV+'wV became ha (#)

k

k + j becomes H (dotted-h)

+

k

.
K[?]O

+

K[H]O

gV

+

kV

gu (#)

+

gu (#)

kV+'wV became hu (#)

T (bar-t)

+

T .

.


K[?]XE




+

KX[H]E

g[^]hV(4)




+

k[^][h]e(:)(4)

ki (#1)

kV+'wV became hi (#)

+

ki (#)

kV+'wV became hi (#)

H(dotted-h)




+

H

.
K[?]XA






+

KX[H]A

ghV

final gh/g(2)




+

k[h]a(:)

ka (#)

kV+'wV became ha (#)

final: h(a) (#)

+

ka (#)

kV+'wV became ha (#)

final: h(a) (#)

H






+

H

.
K[?]XO











+

KX[H]O

ghV











+

k[h]o(:)

Emegi (initial and medial): ku (#6)

Emegi (medial) n +: (n)ku, written gu (#)

Emegi kV+'wV became hu (#)

Emegi (final): h(u) (#)

+

(initial and medial): ku (#)

kV+'wV became hu (#)

final: h(u) (#)

x (hook-h)

















+

x

.


XE




+

X[H]E

g[^]wV




+

k[^]wV

š2i (#)

š2i+'wV became *, (written) hu (#)

+

š2i (#)

š




+

š

.
XA

+

X[H]A

gwV

+

kwV

ha (#)

+

Emesal: (medial and final) ba [for pa {?}] (#)

Emegi: (initial) ha (#)

Emegi: (medial and final) g[~]4a [for k3a {?}] (#)

š

+

š

.
XO

+

X[H]O

gwV and gw

+

kwV

hu (#)

+

hu (#)

X (bar-h)

+

X

.


ME

+

M[H]E

mV

+

me(:)

mi (#7)

+

mi (#8)

m

+

m

.
MA

+

M[H]A

mV

+

ma(:)

ma (#13)

+

ma (#)

m

+

m

.
MO

+

M[H]O

mV

+

mo(:)

mu (#)

+

mu (#)

m

+

m

.


NE

+

N[H]E

l[^]V

+

l[^]e(:)

li (#)

+

li (#)

n

+

n

.
NA

+

N[H]A

nV

+

la(:)

na (#1,7,8,9)

+

na (#)

n

+

n

.
NO

+

N[H]O

nV

+

Lo(:)

nu (#)

+

*Lu, (written) lu (#)

n

+

n

.


QE

+

Q[H]E

(n)g[^]V(4)

+

(n)k[^]e(:)(4)

(n)g[~]3i (#)

+

(n)k2i (#)

initial n2i {ñi} (#)

q (dotted-k)

+

q

.

QA

+

Q[H]A

(n)gV

+

(n)ka(:)

(n)g[~]3a (#)

+

Emesal: final n2(a) {ñ(a)} (#)

Emegi (initial): n2a {ña} (#18)

Emegi (medial and medial): (n)k2(a) (but transcribed as (n)g[~]3(a)) (#)

q

+

q

.
QO






+

Q[H]O

(n)gV

initial, rarely: (n)gwo(:)(4); n(g)o(:)

initial, + ‘s: a(:)n'sV

+

(n)ko(:)

(n)g[~]3u (#)






+

(n)k2u (#)

initial n2u {ñu} (#)

g






+

g

.


RE

+

R[H]E

rV

+

re(:)

ri (#5, 10, 16)

+

Li, (written) li (#)

3

+

3

.
RA

+

R[H]A

rV

+

ra(:)

r (#2, 3, 13, 18)

+

La, (written) la (#)

3

+

3

.
RO




+

R[H]O

rV




+

Lo(:)

Indic, initial: r

Lu, (written) lu (#4)

unidentified dialectal ru (#)

+

Lu, (written) lu (#)

r




+

r

.





Emesal Equivalents
to
Emegi Vowels


EG i ES e

EG a remains as ES a

EG u ES i

EG *ê (written e) ES â (written a)








SUMERIAN VOWELS IN COMBINATION
VOWEL
+ i
+ a
+ u
i
î [i:] written i
ê [e:] written e
ü [ü:] written u
a
ê [e:] written e
â [a:] written a
U [o:] written u
u
ü [ü:] written u
û [u:] written u
û [u:] written u











PL / IE / SUMERIAN LEXICAL COMPARISONS (1-35)

(20 presently completed)



(IE entries in parentheses are keywords in Pokorny 1959)
entries marked by ** have been reconstructed by the author
[S = Sumerian; B = Basque; IE = Indo-European;
E = Egyptian; A = Arabic;
numbers after Sumerian entries are
sign or combination-sign numbers in Jaritz 1967;
numbers after Basque entries are
entry numbers in the PL-IE-Basque essay at this website]

Ur Nammu, Third Dynasty  of  Ur

For an INDEX (by entry number) of the Proto-Language, Indo-European, Basque, and Sumerian words discussed in these essays, press here.