<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: PA, PNI, PI, MSV, etc. "bow"</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
When people talk about 'Proto-Algonquian', they mean the ancestor language <BR>
of <I>every</I> Algonquian language, all the way from Blackfoot to Micmac, but <B>not</B> <BR>
the California languages.<BR>
<BR>
The internal divisions of Algonquian are still controversial. It's now <BR>
agreed on that there is a genetic grouping called 'Eastern Algonquian', <BR>
which includes all the languages of the Eastern seaboard, from Nova Scotia <BR>
to North Carolina. It shares a significant amount of phonological, <BR>
morphological, and lexical developments. The morphological innovations are <BR>
probably the most compelling.<BR>
<BR>
It's also agreed on that Blackfoot is by a big margin the most divergent <BR>
member of the family, to the point where it's not used much in comparative <BR>
or reconstructive work. Often it's hard to make sense of its innovations and <BR>
to relate them to what's happening in the rest of the family.<BR>
<BR>
Beyond that, the internal divisions get very controversial. It's clear that <BR>
Bloomfield's 'Central Algonquian' (Cree, Ojibwe, Fox, Menominee) is <B>not</B> a <BR>
linguistic/genetic grouping, but just an areal grouping.<BR>
<BR>
Similarly, there is no linguistic/genetic grouping 'Plains Algonquian' -- <BR>
Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Blackfoot are no closer to each other than they are <BR>
to any other languages. However, there is some evidence for early borrowing <BR>
back and forth between Arapaho and Cheyenne.<BR>
<BR>
However, some of us Algonquianists recognize a probably-genetic grouping <BR>
that is variously called 'Eastern Great Lakes' or 'Core Central'. This <BR>
consists of Ojibwe-Potawatomi, Shawnee, Sauk-Fox-Kickapoo, and <BR>
Miami-Illinois. These languages share some intriguing phonological <BR>
developments, but it hasn't been investigated too deeply.<BR>
<BR>
Eleven years ago Ives Goddard published a nice little piece that said that <BR>
the divergences among the Algonquian languages suggest strongly that the <BR>
family originated in the west, like in the northern Rockies or the Plateau, <BR>
and then moved east, sort of shedding languages as it went along. The first <BR>
language it split off was Blackfoot, followed by Arapaho, Cree-Montagnais, <BR>
Menominee, Cheyenne, the 'Core Central' languages, and last, Eastern <BR>
Algonquian. The reference is the following:<BR>
<BR>
Goddard, Ives. 1994. <I>The West-to-East Cline in Algonquian Dialectology</I>. In <BR>
William Cowan, ed., Papers of the 25th Algonquian Conference 187-211. <BR>
Ottawa: Carleton University.<BR>
<BR>
As for the California languages Wiyot and Yurok, they're very distantly <BR>
related to Algonquian (and to each other). They're not called Algonquian <BR>
languages -- rather, the two of them plus Algonquian proper are said to be <BR>
in a larger grouping called 'Algic'. It's an ongoing controversy as to <BR>
whether Wiyot and Yurok are themselves a subgroup. My opinion is that they <BR>
are ('Ritwan' is what this group is called), but others don't agree.<BR>
<BR>
Hope this clarifies things.<BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> I wonder if I could get a quick clarification from the Algonquianists on what <BR>
> all "Algonquian" and "Proto-Algonquian" covers.<BR>
<BR>
> My understanding, picked up in bits and pieces over the years, is that <BR>
> Algonquian is divided into four major branches: Blackfoot; Cheyenne; Arapaho; <BR>
> and eastern or Great Lakes Algonquian, which includes all the rest. Blackfoot <BR>
> is supposed to be especially divergent. The big eastern group is supposed to <BR>
> be divided between a northeastern seaboard group and a more central Great <BR>
> Lakes/subarctic/prairie/eastern woodlands group. I've also heard that there <BR>
> are supposed to be a couple of small Algonquian-related languages in <BR>
> California.<BR>
<BR>
> So when we talk about Proto-Algonquian, are we talking about the protolanguage <BR>
> of all the Algonquians, or just of the big eastern group? Or is my <BR>
> information/classification as given above notably incorrect?<BR>
<BR>
> Thanks for any quick tutorials on this!<BR>
<BR>
> Rory<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>