Amerind languages

Amerindian, Amerind or even Amerindian languages ​​, is a proposed by Joseph Greenberg macro family, which he describes in detail and explained in his book Language in the Americas by 1987. The Amerindian after Greenberg's definition includes all indigenous American languages ​​, except the Eskimo- Aleut languages ​​and the Na - Dene languages. The Amerindian hypothesis is not accepted by the majority of Americanists. It was fought literally in sometimes aggressive contributions to the contrary.

The tripartite division of American languages ​​by Greenberg

After the successful classification of African languages ​​Greenberg examined the indigenous languages ​​of the Americas, which break down into hundreds of genetic units and isolated languages ​​according to the majority opinion of the relevant research. His 1987 published result is the classification of American languages ​​in just three genetic groups:

  • Eskimo - Aleut
  • Na - Dene ( includes after Greenberg Tlingit, Haida, Eyak and Athabaskan languages ​​which )
  • Amerindian ( all the rest of all indigenous American languages ​​)

This tripartite division is by human genetic studies by Cavalli - Sforza (see Cavalli - Sforza 1996) and supported by archaeological research, which show that these three groups at different times from Siberia across the Bering Strait to America have immigrated, first, the carrier of Amerindian languages, then the Na - Dene peoples, most recently the Eskimos.

Greenberg's method and its criticism

While the Eskimo - Aleut and Na - Dene in principle also were recognized as genetic units have long found and finds the concept of Amerindian languages ​​with most Americanists no support. Typical of the present state of American Studies is the representation of Lyle Campbell, American Indian Languages ​​(1997), with well over 200 separate genetic groups and many isolated languages ​​( see below the comparison of Greenberg's Amerindian with the genetic units Campbell ).

Lexical mass comparison

The very massive Americanist criticism was not only Greenberg's classification result, but also his method of lexical mass comparison, in which the classification results from the comparison of words and morphemes of a very large group of languages ​​(in the case of the Ameri -Indian nearly all indigenous languages America ). This word equations are established and derived from these classifications; the establishment of sound laws and the reconstruction of Proto languages ​​is then a second step, the confirmed refined or refuted the results of the previous classification hypothesis. ( This second step has left others usually Greenberg. ) The method of mass comparison Greenberg had been largely accepted even at his, but also asked again on many points in question, applied classification of African languages. It is according to Greenberg's supporters ultimately, the method by which the researchers of the early 19th century, the genetic unit and the substantially correct structure of Indo-European Finno - Ugric or recognized long before sound laws established or proto- languages ​​were reconstructed. Many critics Greenberg's have - according to his lawyers - overlook the fact that the rigid historical- comparative linguistics has precursors that correspond exactly to the inductive- heuristic methods Greenberg. But Bill Poser and Lyle Campbell in an essay criticizing this view and explain why in their opinion, there are crucial differences between Green Mountain and the traditional historical-comparative method, as it has been developed mainly in the context of Indo-European linguistics in the 19th century.

Faulty data material

In addition, Greenberg numerous errors were thrown in his data material ( cf. Lyle Campbell 1997), such as incorrect or non-existent words, use of distorted or over -stretched meanings, words that were assigned to the wrong language, wrong decomposition of the word material in prefixes, word core and suffixes. Although in several essays Greenberg defended his method and also showed that many allegations did not apply ( these essays are in Greenberg 2005 combined ), the detectable errors in the Greenbergian evidence have contributed considerably to the lack of acceptance of the Ameri -Indian.

Success of the smaller units

Only medium-sized and smaller genetic units of its classification (which had been proposed to a large extent by Edward Sapir beginning of the 20th century ) could be confirmed by further research, which already is in the present turmoil of the linguistic landscape of America is a big step forward. The demonstration or definitive refutation of the relationship of larger language groups in America will certainly require several decades of intensive linguistic fieldwork and comparative research, if this is not done prematurely impossible by the already observable today alarmingly rapid extinction of Native American languages ​​. The Greenberg concept " Amerind " is a work program to date largest reduction of the number of separate language families in America.

Membership of subfamilies to other language families

For example, Holst ( 2005) In some cases, parts of the Amerind other language families have been assigned, it shows a close relationship of the Eskimo - Aleut languages ​​with the Wakashan languages.

Similarly, some language families of specialists in the Na - Dene be availed.

Such relationships - if they can confirm - exceed the current drawn by Greenberg border between the three genetic language groups and weaken the Amerind hypothesis as a whole, thereby called into question (document? ) Whether the hypothesis in its original form may have existed.

General problems in the classification of American languages

In the case of American languages ​​consensual large structure is difficult because on the one hand in large parts of the Americas ( mainly in South America ), many languages ​​have been researched and documented inadequately and this part also can not be rescheduled due to the dramatic rapid extinction of many languages. On the other hand, allows the diversity and multiplicity of languages ​​( approximately 1000, of which 400 died ), it also hardly a single Americanists to have the necessary for the classification of many language families detailed knowledge. To make matters worse, that English-speaking and Spanish-Portuguese researchers are not well connected.

Time depth of the proto-language

A fundamental problem of the Ameri -Indian is - as with all proposed macro- families - the great time depth of their hypothetical proto-language. It is disputed whether the settlers of America had a single language about 12,000 years ago. On the contrary, there are good reasons for a diversification of the later Amerindian languages ​​in Northeast Asia. A hypothetical Proto - Amerind (which have attempted to reconstruct at any time Greenberg and his followers ) would then have an age of at least 15,000, if not have 20,000 years. Most researchers of comparative linguistics - not just the Americanists - are of the view that phonetic, grammatical and lexical similarities after such a long time are no longer detectable.

" Lumper " and " splitter "

Especially in the American, there is a very wide gap between the Lumpers that in as want to summarize a few large families as many languages ​​, and the splitter are highly critical of not absolutely beyond reproach genetic units, leading to a variety of small and micro genetic groups and isolated languages ​​leads. According see a linguist only one ( Amerind ) or more than a dozen genetic large units, while other linguists accept up to 200 language families and isolated individual languages ​​in the Americas. In general, it should be noted that in the classification of languages ​​are two kinds of errors made ​​: on the one hand the defective assembly of languages ​​that are not genetically related; other hand, the failure to detect genetic relationships. The second type of error is often less severe than seen; the - mostly small, clear and well- detectable - units of the "Splitters " are nevertheless correctly with high probability and form a minimal consensus, while beyond that units remain possible, but still await the evidence. To convince "Splitters " by a proposal, 's not impossible, but they put more stringent criteria of evidence, while " Lumpers " misinterpret in the opinion of the "Splitters " areal similarities in language frets as an indication of genetic relatedness, while similarities as well can be well through voice contact with others. Both types of errors can play a role in the classification of American languages ​​.

It must also be noted in general that historically real, but far receding into the past relationships in many cases simply not be clearly ascertained and constructions brought about by contact similarities are no longer clearly separated, so it is quite possible that " Lumpers " in certain defend cases historically real compounds, the lack of willingness of " splitter " to accept this if the evidence ( yet) is not sufficient or the arguments (still) are not good enough, but nevertheless methodologically correct or preferable. Truth and scientific detectability are different things. Moreover, it is quite possible that " Lumpers " underestimate the scale of the problem, to assess proposals on the relationship of hundreds of different languages ​​in which you are not a specialist, by far. Example, even if the Amerind languages ​​actually formed a language family, it would be extremely difficult to find someone who possessed the competence to demonstrate a comprehensive and far-reaching relationship, or to evaluate an existing proof completely and in every detail, as it is a designated would have to be connoisseurs of at least very many individual languages ​​and language groups in the area of ​​American Indian languages. The wealth of data would be overwhelming. In a specially devoted to this subject book chapter has Lyle Campbell, a self-confessed " Splitter", various proposals in the field of American Indian languages ​​impressionistic estimated probabilities ( in the form of percentages) to each connected to an estimate of the reliability of this statement ( from the self-assessment of his competence out ) to emphasize the fact that it's not about "absolute truths ", politics or psychology ( mere conservatism or alleged " unwillingness " on the side of " splitter " to recognize "truth" of irrelevant motives ) but about the quality of methods and arguments.

Amerindian and its structure

In the following, the Amerindian and its breakdown by Greenberg is shown 1987. Greenberg divided the Amerindian languages ​​in six primary branches, namely North Amerind ( North American languages), Central Amerind ( Central American languages) and the South American units Chibchan - Paezan, Andi, Equatorial Tucano and Ge - Pano - Carib.

In the following illustration, the genetic units are given by Campbell in 1997 in brackets. This results in a concordance between the subunits Greenberg and genetic units ( language families and isolated languages) Campbell, who represents in his work, the current majority opinion for the classification of American languages ​​comprehensively. The units Campbells are also the links below for the classification of North, Central and South American languages ​​as a basis.

Structure of the Ameri -Indian by Greenberg and concordance to Campbell

In parentheses are the genetic units are given by Campbell in 1997, corresponding to the subgroups Greenberg's 1987.

  • North Amerind Almosan - Keres Almosan ( Algonquian Ritwan, Kutenai, Chimakum, Salish, Wakashan )
  • Keres Group ( Caddo Pawnee, Iroquois, Keres, Sioux, Yuchi )
  • Californian ( Maidu, Miwok Costano, Wintu, Yokuts )
  • Chinook ( Chinook )
  • Mexican ( Huave; Mayan, Mixe- Zoque, Totonac - Tepehua )
  • Oregon ( Alsea, Coos, Takelma - Kalapuya, Siuslaw )
  • Plateau ( Cayuse, Klamath - Modoc, Molala Sahaptin - Nez Perce )
  • Tsimshian ( Tsimshian )
  • Yuki- Gulf ( Atakapa, Chitimacha, Muskogee, Natchez, Tunica, Yuki- Wappo )
  • Zuni ( Zuni )
  • Nuclear Hoka North Hoka ( Karuk, Shasta, Chimariko; Yana, Pomo )
  • Washo ( Washo )
  • Esselen - Yuma ( Esselen, Yuma Cochimí )
  • Salinan - Seri ( Salinan, Seri, Chumash )
  • Waicuri ( Guaicura )
  • Maratino ( Maratino )
  • Tequistlatec ( Tequistlatec )
  • Central Amerind Kiowa Tano ( Kiowa - Tano )
  • Oto - Mangue ( Otomangue )
  • Uto -Aztecan ( Uto -Aztecan )
  • Lenca ( Lenca )
  • Nuclear Chibcha ( Chibcha, Misumalpa )
  • Tarascan ( Tarasco )
  • Xinca ( Xinca )
  • Yanoama ( Yanomam )
  • Other Paezan ( Huarpe, Atacama, Betoi, Chimu Moche, Itonama, Jirajara, Mura, Matanawi, Timucua, Guarao )
  • Andi Aymara ( Aymara )
  • Itucale - Sabela ( Urarina, Sabela )
  • Kahuapana - Zaparo ( Cahuapana, Zaparo )
  • North Andi ( Sechura - Tallan, Cholon Hibito, Culle, Leco )
  • Quechua ( Quechua )
  • South Andi ( Alacaluf, Araucano [ Mapudungu ], Chon, Yamana )
  • Equatorial Tucano Macro Tucano ( Tucano; Aushiri, Kanichana, Kapixana, Katukina, Gamela, Aikana - Tubarao, Irantxe, Maku, Sape, Arutani, Koaya, Movima, Munichi, Nambiquara, Natu, Pankararu, Puinave, Makú, Xukuru, Ticuna, Yuri, Huamoe )
  • Equatorial Macro - Arawak ( Arawak, Chapacura, Guamo Puquina; Guajibo, Katembri, Otomaco, Tinigua )
  • Jibaro - Kandoshi ( Cofan, Esmeralda, Jivaro, Kandoshi, Yaruro )
  • Kariri - Tupi ( Tupi, Kariri )
  • Other equatorial ( Cayubaba, CAMSA, Saliva- Piaroa, Taruma, Timote, Trumai, Tuxa, Yuracaré, Zamuco )
  • Ge - Pano - Carib Macro - Carib ( Carib; Andoque, Bora - Witoto, Kukura, Peba - Yagua )
  • Macro - Pano ( Pano - Tacanan; Charrua, Lengua Mascoy, Lule - Vilela, Mataco, Guaikuru, Moseten )
  • Macro - Ge ( Ge, Bororo, Botocudo, Karaja, Rikbatsa, Guato, Kamaka, Mashakali, Ofaye, Puri; Chiquitano, Oti, Jabuti )
56806
de