International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics, 2022
This paper examines the possibility that the earlier homeland of the Ghilyak language(s), collect... more This paper examines the possibility that the earlier homeland of the Ghilyak language(s), collectively identified as the Amuric language family and today spoken in the Lower Amur basin and on the island of Sakhalin, was located further south in Central Manchuria. It may be assumed that the Amuric linguistic lineage moved northwards along the Sungari-Amur basin under the pressure of the Tungusic languages spreading from the south along the same route. It is possible that traces of the former presence of Amuric in Central Manchuria are preserved in the names of the large rivers of the region, notably the Sungari and Ussuri. It is also possible to postulate a political context for the linguistic expansions of both Amuric and Tungusic in the framework of protohistorical Manchuria. In this framework, the origins of the Amuric language family may with some likelihood be linked to Puyŏ, the first historically known political state in the region.
This paper discusses the diachronic status of the local case markers in Mongolic, as compared wit... more This paper discusses the diachronic status of the local case markers in Mongolic, as compared with the other "Micro-Altaic" languages. In spite of some striking superficial similarities, it is shown that the local case markers in Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic have separate origins, though it cannot be ruled out that they have secondarily influenced each other in the context of areal contacts. Mongolic has two secondary "dative" (dative-locative) markers, *-DUr and *-D-A-, of which the former is likely to be based on the spatial *dota-r(-) 'inside', while the latter involves a combination of the spatial formative *-d-with the primary "locative" (locative-dative) case marker *-A. The suffixalization of the spatial *dota-r(-) in Mongolic is parallelled by the analogous development of the spatial *doo 'inside' in Tungusic. The formal similarity of the spatial roots *dota-and *doo can be accidental, but it could also reflect a material connection of either the areal or the genetic type.
This paper deals with the interconnections of the ethnonyms by which the peoples of the Amur basi... more This paper deals with the interconnections of the ethnonyms by which the peoples of the Amur basin and Sakhalin, as well as, historically, Kamchatka, referred to the Ainu. It is shown that the exoethnonyms by which the Ainu used to be known to the Amur Tungus (kuyi ~ kui) derive from the older form *kuri, which was also present in the language of the Okhotsk Ewen at the time of the arrival of the fi rst Russian explorers. The appellations of the Ainu in Nivkh (k’uɣi) and Russian (kuríly) were borrowed from this same form. It is likewise possible, though not confirmed, that the form *kuri goes back to the Ainu word kur ’man, human being’, which is also the likely source of the name †kuzi by which the Kamchadal called the Ainu in the 17th to 19th centuries.
Recent research suggests that the expansion history of the Uralic languages is closely connected ... more Recent research suggests that the expansion history of the Uralic languages is closely connected with the so-called Seima-Turbino Transcultural Phenomenon (late 3rd to mid 2nd millennium BC), which involved trade in bronze objects from east to west along the northern border of the Eurasian steppes. The Seima-Turbino trade network may explain the rapid spread and differentiation of, especially, the central branches of Uralic in the Ural-Volga region. In this connection, the history of the Samoyedic branch of Uralic has remained without a generally accepted geographical and chronological context. It may, however, be argued that the Samoyedic linguistic homeland was located in the Minusinsk basin, where Proto-Samoyedic was the dominant language of the Tagar Culture (1st millennium BC). The intrusion of Proto-Yeniseic to the region in connection with the Tashtyk Culture (late 1st millennium BC to mid 1st millennium AD) triggered the expansion of Samoyedic towards the north along the Yenisei. In a similar way, a few centuries later, Yeniseic languages started spreading north under the pressure of the Turkic language of the Yenisei Kirghiz. The processes of linguistic expansion along the Yenisei can be seen as a chain reaction, for which parallels can be found in other parts of the world.
International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics, 2022
This paper examines the possibility that the earlier homeland of the Ghilyak language(s), collect... more This paper examines the possibility that the earlier homeland of the Ghilyak language(s), collectively identified as the Amuric language family and today spoken in the Lower Amur basin and on the island of Sakhalin, was located further south in Central Manchuria. It may be assumed that the Amuric linguistic lineage moved northwards along the Sungari-Amur basin under the pressure of the Tungusic languages spreading from the south along the same route. It is possible that traces of the former presence of Amuric in Central Manchuria are preserved in the names of the large rivers of the region, notably the Sungari and Ussuri. It is also possible to postulate a political context for the linguistic expansions of both Amuric and Tungusic in the framework of protohistorical Manchuria. In this framework, the origins of the Amuric language family may with some likelihood be linked to Puyŏ, the first historically known political state in the region.
This paper discusses the diachronic status of the local case markers in Mongolic, as compared wit... more This paper discusses the diachronic status of the local case markers in Mongolic, as compared with the other "Micro-Altaic" languages. In spite of some striking superficial similarities, it is shown that the local case markers in Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic have separate origins, though it cannot be ruled out that they have secondarily influenced each other in the context of areal contacts. Mongolic has two secondary "dative" (dative-locative) markers, *-DUr and *-D-A-, of which the former is likely to be based on the spatial *dota-r(-) 'inside', while the latter involves a combination of the spatial formative *-d-with the primary "locative" (locative-dative) case marker *-A. The suffixalization of the spatial *dota-r(-) in Mongolic is parallelled by the analogous development of the spatial *doo 'inside' in Tungusic. The formal similarity of the spatial roots *dota-and *doo can be accidental, but it could also reflect a material connection of either the areal or the genetic type.
This paper deals with the interconnections of the ethnonyms by which the peoples of the Amur basi... more This paper deals with the interconnections of the ethnonyms by which the peoples of the Amur basin and Sakhalin, as well as, historically, Kamchatka, referred to the Ainu. It is shown that the exoethnonyms by which the Ainu used to be known to the Amur Tungus (kuyi ~ kui) derive from the older form *kuri, which was also present in the language of the Okhotsk Ewen at the time of the arrival of the fi rst Russian explorers. The appellations of the Ainu in Nivkh (k’uɣi) and Russian (kuríly) were borrowed from this same form. It is likewise possible, though not confirmed, that the form *kuri goes back to the Ainu word kur ’man, human being’, which is also the likely source of the name †kuzi by which the Kamchadal called the Ainu in the 17th to 19th centuries.
Recent research suggests that the expansion history of the Uralic languages is closely connected ... more Recent research suggests that the expansion history of the Uralic languages is closely connected with the so-called Seima-Turbino Transcultural Phenomenon (late 3rd to mid 2nd millennium BC), which involved trade in bronze objects from east to west along the northern border of the Eurasian steppes. The Seima-Turbino trade network may explain the rapid spread and differentiation of, especially, the central branches of Uralic in the Ural-Volga region. In this connection, the history of the Samoyedic branch of Uralic has remained without a generally accepted geographical and chronological context. It may, however, be argued that the Samoyedic linguistic homeland was located in the Minusinsk basin, where Proto-Samoyedic was the dominant language of the Tagar Culture (1st millennium BC). The intrusion of Proto-Yeniseic to the region in connection with the Tashtyk Culture (late 1st millennium BC to mid 1st millennium AD) triggered the expansion of Samoyedic towards the north along the Yenisei. In a similar way, a few centuries later, Yeniseic languages started spreading north under the pressure of the Turkic language of the Yenisei Kirghiz. The processes of linguistic expansion along the Yenisei can be seen as a chain reaction, for which parallels can be found in other parts of the world.
Uploads
Papers by Juha Janhunen