MarketBorean languages
Company Profile

Borean languages

Borean is a hypothetical linguistic macrofamily that encompasses almost all language families worldwide except those native to sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, New Guinea and the Andaman Islands. It is considered a fringe theory within mainstream linguistics, relying heavily on the discredited mass comparison method to derive genetic relationships. Borean proposes that the various languages spoken in Eurasia and adjacent regions have a genealogical relationship, and ultimately descend from languages spoken during the Upper Paleolithic in the millennia following the Last Glacial Maximum. The name Borean is based on the Greek βορέας, and means "northern". This reflects the fact that the group is held to include most language families that are native to the Northern Hemisphere. Two distinct models of Borean exist: that of Harold C. Fleming and that of Sergei Starostin.

Fleming's model
The concept is due to Harold C. Fleming (1987), who proposed such a "mega-super-phylum" for the languages of Eurasia, termed Borean or Boreal in Fleming (1991) and later publications. In Fleming's model, Borean includes ten different groups: Afrasian (his term for Afroasiatic), Kartvelian, Dravidian, a group comprising Sumerian, Elamitic, and some other extinct languages of the ancient Near East, Eurasiatic (a proposal of Joseph Greenberg that includes Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, and several other language families), Macro-Caucasian (a proposal of John Bengtson that includes Basque and Burushaski), Yeniseian, Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dene, and Amerind. In 2002, Fleming argued that there were not a two large super-phyla distinction between a Nostratic and a Dené–Caucasian taxon among Borean languages, and that the language kinship between its branches is possibly more complex than a Nostratic versus a Dené–Caucasian super-phyla. is as follows: • "Borean" (Phyletic Chain) • (1)Afrasian (Afroasiatic)c) (2) (strongly different languages between themselves and aberrant in its relationship to the other Borean phyla and language families) • SumerianElamiteHurro-UrartianHattiana) (3)Kartvelianb) (4)Dravidiand) (5)EurasiaticTyrsenian (including Etruscan) • Indo-EuropeanUralicYukaghirEskimo–AleutChukotko-Kamchatkan (Chukotian) • AltaicTurkicMongolicTungusicKoreanicJaponicGilyak (Nivkh) • Ainu (?) (tentative inclusion) • e) (6)Vasco-Caucasic (Vasco-Caucasian) (based on a John Bengtson proposal) • North CaucasianNortheast CaucasianNorthwest CaucasianBasquef) (7)BurushaskiYeniseiang) (8)Sino-Tibetanh) (9)Na-Denei) (10)Amerind (outlined by Joseph Greenberg) (a valid taxon with large contrasts among sub-taxa) • Austric (not included in Borean) (Fleming et al. are not sure if it is or not more closely related to Borean, that is, if Borean and Austric have an Austric-Borean common ancestor or if Austric is not closer to Borean than to other major language super-phyla) • Austro-TaiAustronesianKra-Dai (Tai-Kadai, Daic) • Hmong–Mien (Miao–Yao) • AustroasiaticAinu (?) ==Starostin's model==
Starostin's model
According to Sergei Starostin, (2002), Borean is divided into two groups, Nostratic (sensu lato, consisting of Eurasiatic and Afroasiatic) and Dene–Daic, the latter consisting of the Dené–Caucasian and Austric macrofamilies. Starostin tentatively dates the Borean proto-language to the Upper Paleolithic, approximately 16 thousand years ago. Starostin's model of Borean would thus include most languages of Eurasia, as well as the Afroasiatic languages of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, and the Eskimo–Aleut and the Na-Dene languages of the New World. Murray Gell-Mann, Ilia Peiros, and Georgiy Starostin maintain that the comparative method has provided strong evidence for some linguistic superfamilies (Dené-Caucasian and Eurasiatic), but not so far for others (Afroasiatic and Austric). Their view is that since some of these families have not yet been reconstructed and others still require improvement, it is impossible to apply the strict comparative method to even older and larger groups. However, they consider this only a technical rather than a theoretical problem, and reject the idea that linguistic relationships further back in time than 10,000 years before the present cannot be reconstructed, since the "main objects of research in this case are not modern languages, but reconstructed proto-languages which turn out to be more similar to one another than their modern day descendants". Gell-Mann et al. note that their proposed model of Borean differs significantly from that of Fleming. The phylogenetic composition of Borean according to Starostin is as follows: • "Borean" • Nostratic (fringe theory, Holger Pedersen 1903) • Eurasiatic (widely rejected, Joseph Greenberg 2000) • Indo-European (widely recognized family) • Altaic (widely rejected; Roy Andrew Miller 1971, Gustaf John Ramstedt 1952, Matthias Castrén 1844) • Japonic (widely recognized family) • Koreanic (widely recognized family) • Turkic (widely recognized family) • Tungusic (widely recognized family) • Mongolic (widely recognized family) • Uralic (widely recognized family) • Paleo-Siberian (phylogenetic unity widely rejected) • Eskimo–Aleut (widely recognized family) • Chukotko-Kamchatkan (widely recognized family) • Yukaghir (language isolate) • Nivkh (language isolate) • Kartvelian (widely recognized family) • Dravidian (widely recognized family) • Afroasiatic (widely recognized family) • Dene–Daic (widely rejected, Starostin 2005) • Dené–Caucasian (widely rejected, Nikolayev 1991; expanded by Bengtson 1997), cf. Dené–Yeniseian (Edward Vajda 2008) • Na-Dené (widely recognized family) • Basque (language isolate) • Iberian (language isolate; not explicitly mentioned in Starostin's tree diagram, but usually seen as likely belonging to a common proto-family with Basque) • Sino-Caucasian (widely rejected, Starostin 2006) • Sino-Tibetan (widely recognized family) • Yeniseian (widely recognized family) • Burushaski (language isolate) • North Caucasian (widely rejected; Nikolayev & Starostin 1994) • Northeast Caucasian (widely recognized family) • Northwest Caucasian (widely recognized family) • Hattic (language isolate; not explicitly mentioned in Starostin's tree diagram, but in other works by him and his colleagues often associated with North Caucasian or treated as an independent branch of Dené–Caucasian) • Hurro-Urartian (widely recognized family; not explicitly mentioned in Starostin's tree diagram, but in other works by him and his colleagues often associated with North Caucasian or treated as an independent branch of Dené–Caucasian) • Austric (speculative, Wilhelm Schmidt 1906) • Austro-Tai (speculative, Paul Benedict 1942) • Austronesian (widely recognized family) • Tai–Kadai (widely recognized family) • Hmong–Mien (widely recognized family) • Austroasiatic (widely recognized family) • Ainu (language isolate; not explicitly mentioned in Starostin's tree diagram, but in other works by him and his colleagues mostly associated with Austric) • Sumerian (language isolate; not explicitly mentioned in Starostin's tree diagram, but in other works by him and his colleagues mostly associated with Dene–Daic or Nostratic) • Elamite (language isolate; not explicitly mentioned in Starostin's tree diagram, but in other works by him and his colleagues mostly associated with Dene–Daic or Nostratic) ==Jäger (2015)==
Jäger (2015)
A computational phylogenetic analysis by Jäger (2015) did not support the Borean macrophylum in its entirety, but provided the following phylogeny of language families in Eurasia: |1=Sino-Tibetan |2=Hmong-Mien }} |1=Austronesian |2=Tai-Kadai }} |1= |2=Turkic |3= }} }} }} ==Other languages==
Other languages
Sumerian Allan Bomhard argues that Sumerian did not descend from a daughter language of Proto-Nostratic but from a sister language of it. In other words, Sumerian descended from an older common ancestor language with Proto-Nostratic and did not descend directly from it; that is, Sumerian was closer to Nostratic but not a member of it. Kartvelian Bomhard argues that Kartvelian is closer to Eurasiatic than to other language families within Nostratic and that the differences are due to the fact that Kartvelian became separated from Eurasiatic at a very early date. ==Status of the hypothesis==
Status of the hypothesis
Linguist Asya Pereltsvaig states in Languages of the World: An Introduction that both versions of the Borean hypothesis are "controversial and tentative". ==See also==
tickerdossier.comtickerdossier.substack.com