<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=koi8-r">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.3825.1300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Corpora colleagues, please comment on the
following: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk Pedagog. University,
Russia. <BR><A href="mailto:yutamb@mail.ru">yutamb@mail.ru</A> <BR>Dispersion of
the Uralic language taxon from a typological viewpoint.<BR> The goal
of this research was to compute the similarity of the <BR>distribution of 8
consonantal groups (labial, front, palatal, back, <BR>sonorant, occlusive,
fricative and voiced) in the speech sound chains <BR>of different world
languages. The value of the coefficient of variance <BR>was chosen as the
measure of similarity. Let us analyse the values in <BR>some language taxa:
groups, families and super-families. <BR>The Value of the Mean of the
Coefficient of Variance (V%). <BR>Ugric group (5 languages) - V%= 27.66%
<BR>Volgaic group (4) - V% = 17.90%<BR>Baltic-Finnic group (7) =
23.24%<BR>Finno-Ugric family (20) = 23.91%<BR>Samoyedic family (4) =
16.30%<BR>Uralic super-family (24) = 28.31%. <BR>The value of the mean of the
coefficient of variance of the Ugric <BR>group (27.66%) is really great. We can
compare it to the analogical <BR>means of the groups of the Indo-European
family: Baltic (2 languages) <BR>- 9.08%; Iranian (8 languages) - 11.69%;
Slavonic (12 languages) -<BR>15.78%; Indic -20.40%; Germanic (6 languages) -
24.51%.<BR>It is possibele to explain the great value of dispersion of<BR>the
Ugric group by the fact that the structure of the Hungarian <BR>speech sound
chain is too different from those of Mansi and Hanty.<BR>The fact that the value
of the mean of the coefficient of variance in the <BR>Samoyedic language taxon
may tell us that the languages of the <BR>Samoyedic origin are more
typologically similar, than those of Indic <BR>or Germanic origin. If we unite
the Finno-Ugric languages (23.91%) <BR>and the Samoyedic languages (16.30%) into
one language taxon, <BR>called Uralic, then the dispersion increases to 28.31%,
which is much <BR>greater than those of the Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic families
taken <BR>separately. It means that typologically these two parts are quite
<BR>different. This is why, one should be cautious to unite them. They <BR>seem
quite different from the point of view of the distribution of the <BR>consonants
in their speech chains. Usually, genetically related <BR>languages have similar
speech sound chains, that is, they are <BR>typologically close. Basing on the
typological data, it is possible to <BR>suppose that Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic
languages have gone into <BR>different directions and this distance is rather
great. <BR>I'd like to hear comments of colleagues concerning the distances
<BR>between the languages inside the language groups, families and
super-<BR>families based on the typological data. I wish I could co-operate with
<BR>the linguists who may be interested in my method. It is possible to
<BR>study the density and dispersion of the language taxa of American <BR>Indian
language taxa or the taxa of the Aboriginal languages of <BR>Australia, etc.,
etc. Looking forward to hearing from you soon to <BR><A
href="mailto:yutamb@mail.ru">yutamb@mail.ru</A> Remain yours sincerely
Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk <BR>Pedagog. University, Novosibirsk, Russia.
<BR></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>