Historical Linguistics, Comparative Linguistics

Chapter 6 (by Santazilia) is a study of the Basque noun morphology, which sets out the noun paradigm of historical Basque and the structure of its NP, and then goes on to list the explanations proposed so far for every aspect concerning the formation of that paradigm: first the number/definiteness axis, and then the individual cases, classifying these into primary cases (grammatical and local), secondary cases (those built upon the allative and the genitive), and pseudo-flectional morphemes or non-cases.

The Uralic language family has often been hypothesized to be related to Yukaghir, even though no widely accepted evidence for this theory has been presented so far. The study of Uralic-Yukaghir relations has in part been held back by the scarcity of basic documentary and comparative work on the Yukaghir languages. The publication of A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir (2006) by Irina Nikolaeva, however, has raised Yukaghir lexicology and historical phonology to a level that allows systematic comparison of Proto-Yukaghir and (Proto-)Uralic to be easily carried out. This paper discusses the lexical correspondences between Uralic and Yukaghir languages, and examines to what extent they can be explained as evidence of genetic relationship, products of language contact, or mere chance resemblances. It is argued that there is no clear lexical evidence supporting a genetic connection between the two families, and that no regular sound correspondences between the two proto-languages can be established. A majority of the Uralic-Yukaghir lexical comparisons suggested in earlier references seem to be chance resemblances, but a smaller corpus of probable loanwords supporting contacts between (Pre-)Proto-Samoyed and Proto-Yukaghir can be established.

All forms of 'six' in the daughter languages can and should be traced to one prototype, *swék1s, as appears from this study, where special attention has been given to regular sound change, to "rules" on irregular sound change, and to dialect geography. Forms for 'sixth', 'sixteen', sixty' have also been dealt with, as well as the Slavic cardinals in -(t)ь and the I-Ir tens in -tí-.
[Note: sections on Kashmiri and "Taxila" need far-reaching corrections.]

With the application of the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory, the contrastive features of preliterary Scandinavian vowels are here inferred from the interaction between targets and triggers for metaphonic fronting, rounding and breaking. One Proto-Scandinavian feature hierarchy is reconstructed for prominent syllables and another for non-prominent ones. The former hierarchy sustained contrasts that differed from the latter, including contrast for rounding and a preserved distinction between Pre-Germanic */i/ and */e/. A prominence system is reconstructed that predicts both the outcome of syncope and the distribution of the two vowel systems between syllables. The analysis neatly accounts for many notorious cruxes of umlaut and breaking that correlate with the prosodic position of the trigger, including the frequent absence of i-umlaut in light syllables.

The doctoral dissertation, accepted to be defended on 11 September 2018, contains five papers published on different forums. Some of the main findings, notably those concerning umlaut and the history of preserved contrast in the vowel system, have implications for Germanic historical phonology beyond the study of Scandinavian. In this respect the scrutiny has, during the research process, grown beyond the original scope of the research plan. The topics of the five papers are diverse, but they all relate to preliterary eastern Scandinavian sound systems during the millennium between the third and the thirteenth century CE. They all critically examine methodological issues involved in using diverse and imperfect evidence to verify etymologies or to pursue improved phonological reconstruction and analysis. The papers also all address, albeit to a quite varying degree and in different ways, sound substitutions in borrowings between Finnic and eastern Scandinavian vernacular.

Persistent and fundamental dissent continues to afflict research on preliterary Scandinavian regressive remote vowel assimilation known as " umlaut " and "breaking". To date, no analysis proposed has adequately accounted for the attested distribution of fronting, rounding nor vowel-induced breaking in the Old Scandinavian lexicon. It has been far from clear how (or even whether) these different kinds of assimilation are interrelated, causally or chronologically. The predicaments extend to the very basics of phonological analysis, such as the pivotal conditions, the mechanism(s) for change and the sequential chronologies, as well as to whether the changes were phonologically metaphonic in the first place – realised to improve perception – or rather driven by phonetic coarticulation (i.e. by easening of an articulatory effort). As a starting point chosen for two articles to appear in 2017, I have not deemed it to be adequate to address the theoretical issues, as has often been done, before examining the defective description of how front umlaut came to be distributed in the attested lexicon.

Abstract, errata and corrigenda to article: With the application of the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory, the contrastive features of preliterary Scandinavian vowels are here inferred from the interaction between targets and triggers for metaphonic fronting, rounding and breaking. One Proto-Scandinavian feature hierarchy is reconstructed for prominent syllables and another for non-prominent ones. The former hierarchy sustained contrasts that differed from the latter, including contrast for rounding and a preserved distinction between Pre-Germanic */i/ and */e/. A prominence system is reconstructed that predicts both the outcome of syncope and the distribution of the two vowel systems between syllables. The analysis neatly accounts for many notorious cruxes of umlaut and breaking that correlate with the prosodic position of the trigger, including the frequent absence of i-umlaut in light syllables. (see link,  has appeared in Nowele 70:2, September 2017)