Eskimo–Aleut languages

The Alaska Native Language Center believes that the common ancestral language of the Eskimo languages and of Aleut divided into the Eskimo and Aleut branches at least 4,000 years ago.[3][6][7] The Eskimo language family split into the Yupik and Inuit branches around 1,000 years ago.[6]

The Eskimo–Aleut languages are among the native languages of the Americas. This is a geographical category, not a genealogical one. The Eskimo–Aleut languages are not demonstrably related to the other language families of North America[6] and are believed to represent a separate, and the last, prehistoric migration of people from Asia.

Alexander Vovin (2015)[8] notes that Northern Tungusic languages, which are spoken in eastern Siberia and northeastern China, have Eskimo-Aleut loanwords that are not found in Southern Tungusic, implying that Eskimo-Aleut was once much more widely spoken in eastern Siberia. Vovin (2015) estimates that the Eskimo-Aleut loanwords in Northern Tungusic had been borrowed no more than 2,000 years ago, which was when Tungusic was spreading up north from its homeland in the middle reaches of the Amur River. Vovin (2015) considers the homeland (Urheimat) of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut to be in Siberia rather than in Alaska.

Eskimo–Aleut does not have any genetic relationship to any of the world's other language families that is generally accepted by linguists at the present time. There is general agreement that it is not closely related to the other language families of North America. The more credible proposals on the external relations of Eskimo–Aleut all concern one or more of the language families of northern Eurasia, such as Chukotko-Kamchatkan just across the Bering Strait. One of the first such proposals, the Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis, was suggested by the pioneering Danish linguist Rasmus Rask in 1818, upon noticing similarities between Greenlandic and Finnish. Perhaps the most fully developed such proposal to date is Michael Fortescue's Uralo-Siberian hypothesis, published in 1998.

More recently Joseph Greenberg (2000–2002) suggested grouping Eskimo–Aleut with all of the language families of northern Eurasia (Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Korean, Japanese, Ainu, Nivkh/Gilayak, and Chukchi-Kamchatkan), with the exception of Yeniseian, in a proposed language family called Eurasiatic. Such proposals are not generally accepted. Criticisms have been made stating that Greenberg's hypothesis is ahistorical, meaning that it lacks and sacrifices known historical elements of language in favour of external similarities.[9] Although the Eurasiatic hypothesis is generally disregarded by linguists, one critique by Stefan Georg and Alexander Vovin stated that they were not willing to disregard the theory immediately although ultimately agreed that Greenberg's conclusion was dubious. Greenberg explicitly states that his developments were based on the previous macro-comparative work done by Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Bomhard and Kerns.[9] By providing evidence of lexical comparison, Greenberg hoped that it would strengthen his hypothesis.

Despite all these efforts, the Eurasiatic language theory was overruled on the basis that mass comparison is not accurate enough an approach. In comparative linguistics, the comparative method bases its validity on highly regular changes, not occasional semantic and phonological similarities, which is what the Eurasiatic hypothesis provides.

In the 1960s Morris Swadesh suggested a connection with the Wakashan languages. This was picked up and expanded by Jan Henrik Holst (2005).[10]

Every word must have only one root (free morpheme) always at the beginning.[11] Eskimo–Aleut languages have a relatively small number of roots: in the case of Central Alaskan Yup'ik, around two thousand.[12] Following the root are a number of postbases, which are bound morphemes that add to the basic meaning of the root. If the meaning of the postbase is to be expressed alone, a special neutral root (in the case of Central Alaskan Yup'ik and Inuktitut pi) is used.

The basic word schema is as follows: root-(affixes)-inflection-(enclitic). Below is an example from Central Siberian Yupik.[13]

There are a total of three affixes internal to the word 'angyagh.' The root (or free morpheme) 'angyagh' and the inflection '-tuq' on the right consist of the indicative mood marker plus third person singular. The enclitic –lu ‘also’ follows the inflection.[13]

Following the postbases are non-lexical suffixes that indicate case on nouns and person and mood on verbs. The number of cases varies, with Aleut languages having a greatly reduced case system compared to Eskimo. The Eskimo languages are ergative–absolutive in nouns and in Yup'ik languages, also in verbal person marking. All Eskimo–Aleut languages have obligatory verbal agreement with agent and patient in transitive clauses, and there are special suffixes used for this purpose in subordinate clauses, which makes these languages, like most in the North Pacific, highly complement deranking.

At the end of a word there can be one of a small number of clitics with meanings such as "but" or indicating a polar question.

Phonologically, the Eskimo–Aleut languages resemble other language families of northern North America (Na-Dene and Tsimshianic) and far-eastern Siberia (Chukotko-Kamchatkan). There are usually only three vowels—/a/, /i/, /u/—though some Yup'ik dialects also have /ə/. All Eskimo–Aleut languages lack ejectives, in which they resemble the Siberian languages more than the North American ones. Eskimo–Aleut languages possess voiceless plosives at four positions (bilabial, coronal, velar and uvular) in all languages except Aleut, which has lost the bilabial stops (though it has retained the nasal). There are contrasting voiced and voiceless fricatives at the same positions, and in the Eskimo subfamily a voiceless alveolar lateral fricative is also present. A rare feature of many dialects of Yup'ik and Aleut is contrasting voiceless nasals.

The syntax of Eskimo-Aleut is concerned with the functional use of its morphological structure. The two language branches, although part of the same family, have separated and detached themselves in relation to grammatical similarities. Bergsland states that Aleut, which was once a language more similar to Proto-Eskimo than the current Eskimo languages themselves, has distanced itself from the ancient language.

The case inflections, "relative *-m, instrumental *-mEk/meN, and locative *-mi[18] have undergone phonological merger and led to a completely different explanation of ergative morphology in Proto-Eskimo.

In order to further explain the profound changes that have occurred in Aleutian syntax, Bergsland proposed the Domino Effect, which is ultimately the chronological order of Aleut’s unique features. Below is a step by step list of the 'domino effect':

The Domino Effect:[19]

1. The phonological reduction of final syllables and the ensuing syncretism of locative, relative, and instrumental case markers;
2. The collapse of the ergative system (and of the distinction between relative and locative case in postpositional constructions;
3. The development of the unusual Aleut anaphoric reference system from the debris of this collapse, going hand in hand with a strict fixation of SOV word order;
4. The simple 3rd person forms when the original morphemes began to refer to any anaphoric (non-overt) referent, and;
5. The spread of such a referent's own number (including that of a possessor of some overt argument) to the final verb of the (complex) sentence, overriding agreement with the subject.

The following is a comparison of cognates among the basic vocabulary across the Eskimo–Aleut language family (about 122 words). Note that empty cells do not imply that a particular language is lacking a word to describe the concept, but rather that the word for the concept in that language is formed from another stem and is not a cognate with the other words in the row. Also, there may be shifts in the meaning from one language to another, and so the "common meaning" given is only approximate. In some cases the form given is found only in some dialects of the language. Forms are given in native Latin orthographies unless otherwise noted.

Cognates of the Eskimo language can be found in Michael Fortescue et al., 2010.[20]

Cognates of the Aleut language can be found in Knut Bergsland, 1997.[15]

Persons

Pronouns

There are two types of pronouns in Eskimo-Aleut: independent pronouns and pronominal pronouns.

Pronouns in relation to nouns

In Eskimo-Aleut, singular, dual and plural nouns are marked by inflectional suffixes, and if they are possessed, the number marker is followed by pronominal suffixes that specify the (human) possessor. There are no genders in the Eskimo–Aleut languages, and this can be seen in the 4 persons: my, your, his/her, his/her own.[21][22]

"His/Her own" specifies ownership, in contrast with "his/her", which does not. E.g., his house vs. his own house. (See Possessive determiner § Semantics.)

Pronouns in relation to verbs

Aleut uses independent pronouns, instead of pronominal marking on verbs. On the other hand, Eskimo languages has 4 persons and 3 numbers marked by pronominal suffixes.

Independent pronouns

Pronominal suffixes

Interrogative words

Body parts

Animals

Other nouns

Adjectives

Numbers

Wiktionary has a list of reconstructed forms at Appendix:Proto-Eskimo reconstructions

• Proto-Eskimo language
• Proto-Eskimo–Aleut language
• Eskimology
• Uralo-Siberian

• Bergsland, Knut (1997). Aleut Grammar: Unangam Tunuganaan Achixaasix̂. United States of America: Alaska Native Language Center.
• Bernet, John W. 1974. An Anthology of Aleut, Eskimo, and Indian Literature of Alaska in English Translation. Fairbanks, Alaska.
• Booij, Geert; Lehmann, Christian; Mugdan, Joachim; Skopeteas, Stavros (2004). Morphologie / Morphology. Walter de Gruyter.
• Conference on Eskimo Linguistics, and Eric P. Hamp. 1976. Papers on Eskimo and Aleut Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
• Crowley, Terry; Bowern, Claire (2010). An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dumond, Don E. 1965. On Eskaleutian Linguistics, Archaeology, and Prehistory.
• Fleming, Harold C. 1987. "Towards a definitive classification of the world's languages." Diachronica 4.1/2:159-223.
• Fortescue, Michael D. 1984. Some Problems Concerning the Correlation and Reconstruction of Eskimo and Aleut Mood Markers. København: Institut for Eskimologi, Københavns Universitet. ISBN 87-87874-10-5
• Fortescue, Michael D., Steven A. Jacobson, and Lawrence D. Kaplan. 1994. Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. ISBN 1-55500-051-7
• Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. London and New York: Cassell. ISBN 0-304-70330-3
• Greenberg, Joseph H. 2000. Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Volume 1: Grammar. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
• Greenberg, Joseph H. 2002. Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Volume 2: Lexicon. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
• Gutman, Alejandro; Avanzati, Beatriz (2013). "Eskimo-Aleut Languages"
• Holst, Jan Henrik 2005. Einführung in die eskimo-aleutischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske.
• Johns, Alana (2014), "Eskimo-Aleut", The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641642.013.0037, ISBN 9780199641642
• Marsh, Gordon H. 1956. The Linguistic Divisions of the Eskimo–Aleut Stock.
• Miyaoka, Osahito (2012). A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (cay). Mouton Grammar Library.
• Swift, Mary D. 2004. Time in Child Inuktitut: A Developmental Study of an Eskimo–Aleut Language. Studies on Language Acquisition 24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-018120-7

• Alaska Native Language Center