Review Apua5

[Arnaud Fournet]

As regards the review I wrote for LinguistList I'd like to add that because 
of the 3000 words limitation, I've not been able to develop 
counter-proposals to the ND-Y connection.
I've in fact made a number of surveys and counter-examinations of Yeniseian, 
Salish and North-East Caucasic (Lezghian) that definitely indicate that this 
already existing proposal makes sense.
I've also made a preliminary survey of Eyak versus Uralic on the basis of 
the 100 Swadesh list. It would appear that Eyak and Uralic share about 30 to 
40% of that list, depending on how severely semantic criteria are applied. 
It seems that this proposal Na-Dene-Uralic has never been made before. The 
famous S / G system exists in Uralic as tense suffixes (S = past, G > y = 
present). It would also appear that the Proto-ND-U language had five vowels, 
both long and short. ND seems to have fused *a and *o. In all cases ND 
provides immensely valuable insight on the vowels of Uralic which are a 
mess, that can hardly be sorted out on a purely internal basis.
This obviously needs to be extensively developed and analyzed. It raises a 
number of issues about the relationship of that subgroup Na-Dene-Uralic with 
Nostratic, as the connection makes Na-Dene a new member of Nostratic. It 
also raises issues about the dating of that node within Nostratic. Very 
ancient datings are likely to raise considerable problems. In all cases it 
would appear that Na-Dene is only present in the upper North-Western corner 
of the Americas because it came from much farther west in Siberia than other 
Amerindian groups, which seem to be from Eastern and Coastal Siberia (kind 
of macro-Tungusic / macro-Altaic).
It would also be necessary to detect which Na-Dene words are potential 
loanwords from Siberian languages in order to understand which path they 
followed from West Siberia to NW America.

Best

A.F



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Arnaud Fournet
To: ATHAPBASCKAN-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:51 PM
Subject: Review Apua5


Dear All,

I've written a review of APUA5 for LinguistList.
Unfortunately they seem to be very busy these last weeks and nearly two 
months later it's not yet published.
I think it's interesting to discuss these issues here slightly in advance.
The review is not neutral as you'll see and I tend to have my own point of 
view on some of the issues.

Best

A.F

***

AUTHOR: Kari, James and Ben A. Potter (Eds.)
TITLE: The Dene-Yeniseian Connection
SUBTITLE:
PUBLISHER: (APUA) Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska
YEAR: 2010
ISBN: 0041-935400000

Arnaud Fournet, La Garenne Colombes (France)

SUMMARY

The book investigates two sets of languages: (1) Yeniseian (YE), spoken 
along the Yenisei River in Siberia and severely endangered, and (2) Na-Dene 
(ND), spoken in Northwest America. The central claim proposed in the book is 
that potential genetic connections exist between YE and ND, therefore 
leading to a new linguistic family of higher rank: (Na-)Dene-Yeniseian 
represented on two different continents. This hypothesis is primarily 
developed by Ed. Vajda, a specialist of Yeniseian languages. It is presented 
as the “lead article” of the book (p.1) but the book contains many other 
articles deserving much attention as well.

The VI+363-page book comprises 17 papers, written by different contributors 
belonging to several fields. It includes (1) an introduction by the editors, 
(2) Part1, presenting linguistic evidence for the claim, (3) Part2, 
examining consequences and relationships of the linguistic claim for other 
fields such as archeology, physical anthropology, kinship terms, 
mythological themes, etc., (4) Part 3, peer-reviews of the claim. Part3 is a 
conspicuous feature as a book seldom includes contradictory sections. The 
aim of the editors is apparently to stimulate a world-wide discussion of the 
issues dealt with in the book. Judging from cross-references within the book 
most contributors had the opportunity to read other contributions in a 
spirit of mutual fertilization and emulation. Appendices explain how to read 
these not so well-known languages, which are sometimes written with 
conflicting conventions.

Editors Introduction: The Dene-Yeniseian Connection: Bridging Asia and North 
America (James Kari and Ben A. Potter) (p.1-24). This part is an 
introduction to the wealth of issues discussed in the book. It also contains 
an account of the recent developments of the Na-Dene-Yeniseian issue. It is 
particularly valuable for the four (geo-)linguistic maps (p.6-9). A kind of 
summary of the whole book is provided (p.5).

Part 1. The [Linguistic] Evidence for Dene-Yeniseian
[Paper1] The Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis: An Introduction (Bernard Comrie) 
(p.25-32). This paper is a kind of long abstract of Paper2 and can be 
reviewed with it.

[Paper2] A Siberian Link with Na-Dene Languages (Edward J. Vajda) (p.33-99). 
This chapter is the longest of the book with 67 pages and can be divided 
into four subsections: (1) a short presentation of YE mentioning previous 
hypotheses about YE genetic links and including a long footnote expressing 
gratefulness to a large number of people, (2) EJV's approach of comparative 
linguistics (3) a comparison of some morphological elements of YE and ND, 
(4) a comparison of lexical items.

[Paper3] Yeniseian, Na-Dene, and Historical Linguistics (Edward J. Vajda) 
(p.100-118). This section is mainly autobiographical with some theoretical 
considerations.

Part 2. The Interdisciplinary Context for Dene-Yeniseian

[Paper4] Genes across Beringia: A Physical Anthropological Perspective on 
the Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis (G. Richard Scott and Dennis O’Rourke) 
(p.119-137). This section is a bibliographic survey of currently available 
genetic data with a special focus on the issue of possible links between YE 
and ND populations.

[Paper5] Archaeological Patterning in Northeast Asia and Northwest North 
America: An Examination of the Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis (Ben A. Potter) 
(p.138-167). This section addresses the issue of the archeological 
(dis-)continuities and their potential correlations with human migrations or 
cultural transformations. It focuses on Siberia and Northwest America and 
proposes 6 scenarios which may account for a YE-ND link.

[Paper6] The Palatal Series in Athabascan-Eyak-Tlingit, with an Overview of 
the Basic Sound Correspondences (Jeff Leer) (p.168-193). This section 
describes the sound correspondences of Proto-ND on the basis of concrete and 
detailed lexical data. One of the latest developments in ND phonology is the 
introduction of palatal(ized) stops.

[Paper7] The Concept of Geolinguistic Conservatism in Na-Dene Prehistory 
(James Kari) (p.194-222). This section deals with an unusual feature of 
Athabaskan: in spite of covering the largest area of all North Amerindian 
families, Athabaskan is extraordinarily homogeneous.

[Paper8] Dene-Yeniseian and Processes of Deep Change in Kin Terminologies 
(John W. Ives, Sally Rice, and Edward J. Vajda) (p.223-256). This section 
examines the anthropological and social features pertaining to kinship in YE 
and ND languages.

[Paper9] Selecting Separate Episodes of the Peopling of the New World: 
Beringian–Subarctic–Eastern North American Folklore Links (Yuri E. Berezkin) 
(p.257-278). This section deals with comparative mythology.

[Paper10] Comparison of a Pair of Ket and Diné (Navajo) Myth Motifs 
(Alexandra Kim-Maloney) (p.279-284). This section deals with a mythological 
theme which seems common to YE and ND people. The name of the (dragon-)fly 
in association with supernatural powers and various cultural artefacts seem 
to be shared. This point supports the DE-YE connection.

Part 3. Commentaries on the Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis

[Paper11] On the First Substantial Trans-Bering Language Comparison (Eric P. 
Hamp) (p.285-298). This section is an enthusiastic eulogy of historical 
linguistics and of the supposedly proven ND-YE connection. The style is more 
personal than academic. As regards linguistic genetic studies as a field EPH 
suggests to call it “linguistic modern cladistics” (p.285) whereas 
“genealogical” is preferred to “genetic” in other papers (p.25).

[Paper12] Proving Dene-Yeniseian Genealogical Relatedness (Johanna Nichols) 
(p.299-309). The paper describes a very idiosyncratic alternative to the 
standard methods of historical linguistics. It is little likely to gain any 
acceptance. JN tends to accept the (most probably) false YE-ND connection, 
even though she is aware that the geographic distance between these two 
groups is a problem that would need a plausible answer.

[Paper13] Yeniseian: Siberian Intruder or Remnant? (Michael Fortescue) 
(p.310-315). In this paper MF explains how he has moved from sceptical to 
moderately supportive of the ND-YE connection. He examines four scenarios of 
split and dispersal of this “family” with a focus on the idea that YE would 
be closer to Tlingit than to the rest of ND. One of the scenarios include a 
return from North America to Siberia.

[Paper14] Transitivity Indicators, Historical Scenarios, and Sundry 
Dene-Yeniseian Notes (Andrej A. Kibrik) (p.316-319). AAK first describes 
himself as an experienced Athabaskanist and typologist. This peer-review is 
brief and strives to “count as constructive”. But it definitely reads like 
politely worded poison for the claim that Na-Dene and Yeniseian might be 
genetically close. The gist of AAK's objections is that Na-Dene Transitivity 
Indicators (TIs or classifiers) are largely coherent throughout the family, 
which suggests they were “established morphologically at the 
Proto-Na-Dene-stage” (p.317). In addition to this coherence, they are 
prefixed right to the verb stem, which confirms that they “must constitute 
the earliest acquisition of the proto-ND inflected verb” (p.317). In 
contrast with this situation “what bothers [AAK] most of all is that the ND 
transitivity indicators do not find a clear counterpart in Yeniseian” 
(p.317). AAK concludes: “I am afraid that, as long as the status of the 
immediately pre-root TIs is not clarified, morphological argument for the 
[Dene-Yeniseian] relationship largely fails [sic].” (p.318)

[Paper15] Dene-Yeniseian, Phonological Substrata and Substratic Place Names 
(Willem J. de Reuse) (p.320-323). This peer-review is rather neutral about 
EJV's theory and is more about raising issues of principles and methods. 
WJdR first reemphasizes Fortescue's observation that “Yeniseian looks more 
like an intruder than a remnant.” (p.320) Yeniseian phonology significantly 
differs from those of its present-day neighbors which tends to show that 
their mutual areal interaction appears to be virtually nil and cannot be 
old. It could be added that the same is true for morphology. Next WJdR 
exemplifies the difficulty of dealing with toponymic "substrates" with the 
cases of Vasconic and Old European theories. One of the issues to be 
addressed according to WJdR is the distance between Yeniseian and Na-Dene 
without any apparent toponymic connecting dots which could account for the 
dispersal of a unique original population. WJdR prudently concludes “that 
Yeniseian placenames are just one layer in that [Siberian] picture, thus not 
necessarily a substratic one.” (p.322)

[Paper16] Dene-Yeniseian, Migration and Prehistory (John W. Ives) 
(p.324-334). This section begins with the “apparent impasse” of the 
Dene-Yeniseian relationship that “the genetic data” are so “seemingly at 
odds” with the “linguistic evidence” and wonders how this contradiction 
could be solved. (p.325) This section is not exactly a review but more a 
kind of article about the relationships between archeology and linguistics 
as applied to the case of Apachean. JWI describes how small groups of 
Apachean speakers have managed to grow and adopt new cultural features while 
remaining fairly stable linguistically.

[Paper17] The Dene Arrival in Alaska (Don Dumond) (p.335-346). This section 
discusses the different time windows for waves of migration into Northwest 
American and the potential connections between present-day groups, like 
Eskimo-Aleut and ND, and archeological cultures. DD somehow rhetorically and 
theoretically wonders which of Eskimo-Aleut and ND should be considered 
earlier.

Appendix A Orthographic Conventions for Yeniseian and Na-Dene (compiled by 
James Kari); Appendix B Symbols and Abbreviations. Very nice and useful 
reference tables. NB: Phonemes f and v are inverted in table 12A, typos: 
vowles, trompe l'oeille [oeil] (p.353).

EVALUATION

Even though this only has an indirect bearing on quality, the book is not 
free from typos or erratic spellings in several papers: Tur[c]ologist (p.9), 
configu[r]ation (p.12), Yensieian (p.17), Yenisieian (p.314), Athapaskan, 
Athabaskan, Athabascan (p.20), Yuork [Yurok] (p.21), pedagocial 
[pedagogical] (p.22), toutes [routes] (p.24), Berling [Berlin] (p.24), 
geneticly (p.106). Transliteration from Russian is often terrible: iikh [i 
jih] ‘and their’ (p.22). The same work: Starostin (1982) is transcribed in 
several ways, sometimes erroneously: enisejskix (p.32), Enisejskikh (p.117), 
enis[e]jskikh (p.98, p.359).

The evaluation does not cover the internal peer-reviews which are described 
in the summary.

[Paper2] A Siberian Link with Na-Dene Languages

To put it simple and short the scientific value of Subsection3 dealing with 
morphology is very low. There are considerable problems.

1. A general problem with the YE+ND connection is that EJV leaves previous 
proposals undiscussed. According to EJV “the position of Ket in Inner 
Eurasia has remained as enigmatic as that of Basque in Europe, Zuni in the 
American Southwest, or Burushaski in South Asia.” (p.36) Actually the 
position of YE is not “enigmatic”. YE has been compared with Caucasic, and 
Caucasic with Salish, so if a new link is added between YE and ND, then 
Salish and ND, which are geographically contiguous, should be closely 
related. Apparently nobody proposed a Salish+ND group, not even the boldest 
“macro-lumpers”.

2. Another problem is the huge and increasingly exasperating gap between a 
number of claims and statements made in the section and the failure to 
deliver anything concrete and real. Formal equations can be found between 
Indo-European languages: Latin crE-dEre = Old Irish cre-tim = Sanscrit 
s'rad-dadhAti  = Avestic zrazdA ‘to put the heart in > to believe’. Formal 
equations between *attested* languages have the virtue of being highly 
suggestive and self-explanatory. One equation between Eyak and Athabaskan is 
presented in another paper (p.212). It is not clear (and maybe doubtful) 
whether such formal equations are possible between YE and ND languages. In 
all cases none is presented. Instead of concrete comparisons one has to read 
an abstruse meta-linguistic discourse, where it is most of time impossible 
to disentangle description, comparison, reconstruction, hypothesis and sheer 
speculation.

3. The argumentation is mostly abstract and based on *reconstructed* 
patterns. One would like to see the real data which are accounted for by the 
reconstructions. It is often unclear if the forms are EJV's own creations 
and interpretations or taken from ND specialists' internal reconstructions 
based on ND data alone. Most forms have no references or are allegedly 
“based on” other people's works.

4. Another methodological problem is this sentence: “The Yeniseian 
perfective/stative suffix is productive in both Ket/Yugh and Kott, showing 
that it belongs to the oldest [sic] layer of the verb morphology.” (p.42) 
The reasoning is egregiously false. As taught by the comparative method, 
only synchronically non productive forms belong to the potentially oldest 
layer of morphology. It is most of time unclear what substantiates the 
claim(s) that YE forms should be considered old or fossilized. Neither the 
synchronic descriptions nor the diachronic reconstructions of the YE+ND 
languages can be easily grasped or assessed. A similar and relevant critique 
is expressed by one of the internal reviewers (p.318). The claim that YE 
shares “a system of morphological homologies with the oldest [sic] layer of” 
ND is  pointedly questioned by one reviewer. See Paper14.

5. The severest problem is the confusion of synchronic / typological with 
diachronic / inherited features.

The backbone of the theory is that YE and ND supposedly share the feature of 
having a prefixal verb pattern. The reasoning can be described as follows: 
[Step1] EJV compares Ket and Proto-YE with other patterns: Sumerian, 
Caucasic, Burushaski, Bantu. EJV concludes that these patterns are different 
from YE and therefore dismisses any “southern Eurasian” links. [Step2] ND is 
also different from other Native American prefixal systems displayed by 
Algonkian, Caddoan, etc. [Step3] YE and ND patterns are similar. Therefore 
it teaches us something genetic about them. [Step4] Some of the elements 
which fill the slots are similar. Hence: proven.

As reminded by BC (p.30) and EJV himself (p.34) this slot pattern is a 
typological feature which exists in a number of languages, including French 
which is not mentioned: for example je lui en ai donné, etc. Even though the 
elements are separated by orthographic blanks, the rigid slot pattern is 
there for all tenses and moods, including non finite forms. French is 
interesting because it shows that this feature can easily and rapidly spring 
out of a language, like Latin, where it did not exist. My objection to EJV's 
reasoning is that any of the cited languages, from Caucasic to Caddoan, can 
have tinkered and divergently created its own pattern, just like French did 
out of Latin material. In addition it is hardly believable that this 
typological feature could be preserved for milleniums by Na-Dene and 
Yeniseian from their proto-languages.

To put it bluntly the whole reasoning is hopelessly flawed. It transforms a 
typological feature into an inherited feature. French shows that the 
(dis)similarities that EJV uses to extract a YE+ND perimeter out of a huge 
set of Eurasian and Amerindian languages presenting that feature prove 
utterly nothing. It is not even clear why the closest relatives of YE or ND 
should be looked for preferably among languages with a prefixal verb 
morphology, because this typological feature is irrelevant for genetic 
studies as is exemplified by French.

6. The premice that Proto-YE had a prefixal pattern does not seem coherent 
with the examples given (p.49). Kott has verbal suffixes and does not seem 
to support the “reconstruction” presented (p.37). The table (p.50) cites a 
form i- ‘P2Sg’ for Ket but the only attested form is k(u)-.

7. §2.2.2 about pronouns does not show any transparent isolated or systemic 
look-alikes between YE and NC. As noted by EJV “Dene-Yeniseian differs from 
established families (as well some more speculative ones) in the relative 
inscrutability of its pronominal morphology.” (p.53) Even though the resort 
to pronominal forms may be excessive in comparative linguistics, this is one 
more (potentially serious) hitch.

8. In addition the morphemic comparanda are conspicuous for being often made 
up of only one consonant such as l, n, x, s, y, which can be the worn-out 
residue of about any kind of complex morphemes and more marked phonemes. 
Their testimony is therefore exceedingly weak.

In other words, and as a conclusion about grammatical features, it is 
impossible to adhere to the reasoning and the conclusions proposed in the 
section. There are massive obvious flaws and the kind of data, comparanda, 
reasonings and requirements that a comparative linguist would like to read 
is missing. The wording is abstruse and there is almost no real substance.

The last part of the section deals with lexical items and potential sound 
correspondences. It is much more concrete, even though it raises several 
issues as well. [Issue1] The Proto-ND consonant inventory is two or three 
times richer than the limited Yeniseian inventory. That situation contains a 
serious potential for bogus matches by chance coincidence. [Issue2] There is 
no table of sound correspondences. [Issue3] The comparisons are atomistic. 
What are the systems of vowels and consonants of Proto-YE and Proto-ND and 
how do they match? It is possible that a different reconstruction of ND 
could rearrange phonological features so as to have fewer consonants and two 
more vowels accounting for palatalized or labialized features of consonants. 
Such a reanalysis might make ND more easily manageable from a comparative 
point of view, be it with YE or another group. [Issue4] As a rough 
indication of lexical relationships one would like to see a wordlist of 
basic vocabulary, for example that of Swadesh-100 with primary data from all 
languages involved in the study. The claim (p.53) that “evidence of the 
genetic connection comes more obviously from [...] basic vocabulary” remains 
unsupported. See Paper3. [Issue5] Another problem is the system of 
correspondences and its internal coherence and plausibility. Apparently ND 
has a three-way contrast: voiceless ~ aspirate ~ glottalized. Some of the 
“cognates” proposed by EJV are: ND *t'ik'y ‘ice’ = Ket tik and Kott thik 
‘snow, ice on the ground’, that is to say ND glottalized is YE voiceless. 
This can be compared with PA*ts'əq ‘finger’ = Ket tə'q, where YE glottal 
stop appears near a ND voiceless consonant. The glottalized and voiceless 
features seem to be inverted. This problem of inverted glottalization is 
mentioned by Comrie (p.30) [Issue6] Several items are in my opinion borrowed 
from Uralic into Yeniseian and certainly cannot be counted as cognates 
between YE and ND: PY *ses ‘river’ < PU *sos ‘wet’, PY *se's ‘larch’ < PU 
*sokse ‘cedar, pine, conifer’, etc. In addition these two borrowings show 
that the theory developed (p.70) about Proto-YE glottal stop is wrong. 
Glottal stop is and was a segment (PU [ks] > PY ['s]). The attempt to get 
rid of that phoneme as “optional” to facilitate comparison with ND is 
unacceptable. The phonemic status of glottal stop in (Proto-)YE ruins the 
system of correspondences proposed in the paper.

As a conclusion, the section proves nothing about YE and ND's relative 
genetic positions. It is not even suggestive of a possibly close 
relationship. There are counter-intuitive features such as pronouns being 
completely dissimilar, tentative sound correspondences being inverted and 
some “cognates” being Uralic loanwords. All these features are disturbing to 
say the least. The premice that Proto-YE used to have a prefixal verb 
morphology similar to that of ND is not even proved. In addition the theory 
proposed is not a credible alternative to previous suggestions that YE may 
be related to Caucasic, which has also been suggested to be related to 
Salish, and these connections make sense in my opinion. (See Paper4) The 
claim that YE is a close (or the closest) genetic relative of ND is near 
doubtless false in my opinion. People who might be attracted by the DE-YE 
connection must be aware that pronouns, kinship terms and basic vocabulary 
have nearly nothing in common and that there is hardly any transparent 
formal equation between these languages. As a matter of fact the rest of the 
book shows that no real support for this claim can to be found in other 
fields like genetics, anthropology, etc. It is fascinating (and cruel...) to 
see how scholars try to handle a (near doubtless) false hypothesis in the 
rest of the book.

[Paper3] Yeniseian, Na-Dene, and Historical Linguistics

The section confirms that EJV is not familiar with the methods and issues of 
historical linguistics and with the historiography of the field. It is now 
well-known that Jones' “famous” conference in Calcutta in 1786 is certainly 
not a starting point for the study of the Indo-European family (Cf. Boxhorn, 
Leibniz, Ten Kate, etc.). It is also amazing to read that “Yeniseian-Na-Dene 
cognates are probably no more than 10 percent of the basic vocabulary”. 
(p.115) That level is notoriously that of random and it tears apart the 
claim that the YE-ND connection is “proved” by basic vocabulary. It can also 
be noted that “the most striking proposed cognate [...] Ket qy'j and 
Proto-Athapaskan *q'ëj” (p.106) for ‘birchbark’ is no less strikingly 
similar to Uralic *koj-wa, koj-ku, koj-ma ‘birch, birch-bark (vessel)’, 
which undermines its status as a potential isogloss between YE and  ND. 
Quite obviously EJV underestimates the issue of (Uralic) borrowings in 
Yeniseian (p.). According to my own preliminary surveys Uralic (especially 
Ugric) loanwords into YE are certainly not “an inconsequential percent of 
the vocabulary.” (p.101)

[Paper4] Genes across Beringia: A Physical Anthropological Perspective on 
the Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis

The conclusion is coherent with the premice that genetics and linguistics 
are most often correlated: “there is no specific gene, haplogroup, or dental 
trait that provides a direct link between the Kets and any Na-Dene speaking 
population.” Unsurprisingly genetics and physical anthropology confirm that 
the ND-YE connection is (most probably) false. Haida would also be confirmed 
to be unrelated to ND. The section also brings support to the hypothesis 
that Salish and Northwest coast “Indians” have European features (a variant 
of mainly European gene X2).

[Paper5] Archaeological Patterning in Northeast Asia and Northwest North 
America: An Examination of the Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis

Among potential problems, some areas are nearly terra incognita and the 
differences in Russian and American academic traditions and the lack of 
descriptive standardization are also hindrances to synthesizing available 
archeological records. The section is modestly not presented as a “lead 
article” by BAP who is also editor of the book but it certainly deserves to 
be considered one. A key point is that there is no indication of human 
migrations between ca. -14000 and ca. -5000 calBP between Siberia and North 
America (p.154). This conclusion has a clear bearing on any ethno-linguistic 
scenario linking Amerindian languages with Eurasian families. On the whole 
BAP tends to accept a strong correlation between archeology and 
ethno-linguistics and is mildly supportive of the ND-YE connection.

[Paper6] The Palatal Series in Athabascan-Eyak-Tlingit, with an Overview of 
the Basic Sound Correspondences

This section could also be considered a “lead article”. The addition of 
palatal(ized) stops increases the already high number of ND proto-phonemes 
and tends to make ND yet harder to handle in the Nostratic framework, to 
which Amerindian languages will inevitably be integrated in a way or 
another. It would therefore be interesting to tackle the distribution of all 
the phonemes, the root structure of ND and try to determine potential 
reductions of the exceedingly high number of proto-phonemes.

[Paper7] The Concept of Geolinguistic Conservatism in Na-Dene Prehistory

Athabaskan is extraordinarily homogeneous. JK explains this situation with 
the typological peculiarities of Athapaskan verb and noun morphologies, 
which are also embedded in toponyms. Athapaskan toponyms are nearly always 
meaningful and they used to play a major role in (inter-tribal) economy and 
wanderings. JK favors a high chronology for ND (much earlier than 8000 BP), 
especially in the perspective of external links with Siberian languages like 
YE.

[Paper8] Dene-Yeniseian and Processes of Deep Change in Kin Terminologies

Plain terms like husband, wife, mother, etc. are replaced by symbols, which 
makes the whole section unnecessarily hard to read. It is unclear what the 
authors really want to say. The section is interesting but somewhat lacks a 
linear thread.

[Paper9] Selecting Separate Episodes of the Peopling of the New World: 
Beringian–Subarctic–Eastern North American Folklore Links

This section is extremely interesting and tends to show that comparative 
mythology shares with historical linguistics a large number of issues and 
reasonings among which the dichotomy: diffusion or heritage. It appears that 
the usual syntheses involving mainly linguistics, genetics and archeology 
overlook the potential input provided by comparative mythology. 
Unsurprisingly there is no mythological theme that YE and ND speakers would 
specifically share.

CONCLUSION

On the whole the book is extremely interesting to read and contains a wealth 
of information. The Dene-Yeniseian connection is in my opinion false but 
this should not deter potential readers from looking at the numerous papers 
which generally have rich and interesting contents more or less independent 
from this connection.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Arnaud Fournet, unaffiliated scholar, La Garenne Colombes (France)
His research interests include (historical) phonology, descriptive 
linguistics and macro-comparison, especially in the Nostratic perimeter.