§ Широкогоровы §
toggle menu

42. Conclusions

From the inspection of the above-given lists of words which conventionally may be recognized as being Tungus words, it may be seen that the outcome is not so great as the work that has been required for such an elaborate and large construction which greatly satisfied A. Sauvageot when he refers to a great number of parallels. One must not expect me to reproach A. Sauvageot for his lack of familiarity with the Tungus material and knowledge of dialects, which is evident from the previous sections, for this phase of his failure is a minor phase as compared with other phases. Yet the question whether A. Sauvageot is in full possession of the language or not has even no importance from the point of view of further investigations along this line, for to study one more language, even as a group of dialects, for a person devoting himself to this class of work is only a question of time. My idea is that even with a perfect knowledge of dialects one cannot accomplish the task put forward by A. Sauvageot by himself. The task itself would also be of little interest if proposed by A. Sauvageot alone, for theoretically it is hopeless; yet the interest in this task cannot increase owing to a great number of other contributors; but there is another side of the task which attracts my attention; namely, the mechanism that is responsible for giving life to the idea of such a task — an ethnographical subject — and the positive results obtained, i.e., correctly established common words in a group of languages, which throw light on the problem of the formation of ethnographical complexes and the history of ethnical groups and units. Owing to this, I shall proceed with my further analysis of the case discussed.

In the Introduction A. Sauvageot has addressed his reproach to the opponents of the Ural-Altaic hypothesis who, according to him, confine themselves to the polimique verbale. However, in his conclusion he goes further. True, he admits and expects that the majority of his parallels will not be valid; but, according to him, even a small number of them (une poignee) will be sufficient «a prouver que les langues considerees ne sont pas etrangeres les unes aux autres» (op. cit., p. 139). Later he becomes aggressive towards his imaginary opponents and requests that the theoreticians must give a more satisfactory explanation of facts than that proposed by himself. Yet he admits that they may be successful even in this task, but he covers himself with a new warning to them «qu'ils n'oublient pas que c'est la totalite de nos rapprochements qu'ils devront interpreter d'une autre maniere» (op. cit., p. 141); i.e., he practically refers to «the great number of parallels» and his phonetic «laws.» He says: «Nous ne croyons pas qu'il soit possible de trouver entre deux ou plusieurs groupes d'idiomes totalement etrangers les uns aux autres un ensemble de 'coincidences' aussi considerable et aussi developpe que l'ensemble des rapportslex icaux presentes ici» (op. cit., p. 141).

In this statement of the problem there is nothing new in so far as argumentation is concerned. If there is any difference, it is that of quantity of cases. However, as shown, polimique verbale has a certain reason too. Under this name is evidently figured the general theoretical treatment of the problem which for A. Sauvageot is as clear as it may be to a believer. However, just from this point of view his position is not safe, and 1 shall touch this point once more. The above-given analysis of his parallels was not a polimique verbale and it has shown that the fundamental idea of A. Sauvageot as to the parents des langues ought to be taken under suspicion more than it has ever been taken before, at least in reference to the Tungus languages.

From the very beginning of the present work, I have kept before myself the aim of defining the relationship between the Tungus languages and other languages in basing my work on the parallels brought forth by A. Sauvageot. This relation is confined to a few words which are common. From the series presented by A. Sauvageot we are facing fifteen words which are common for Tungus and other languages, but, let us add, which have been admitted to be so on the condition of agreeing with the hypotheses of A. Sauvageot. If the latter are not so, then the number of common words will be. still smaller. In fact, I have shown that G. Ramstedt's hypothesis in reference to the Tungus languages cannot be admitted as valid, so that five cases out of the fifteen must be excluded. Some other cases where the phonetic alterations are only hypothetic and where the semantic variations are too wide must also be dismissed. Yet, in most cases (nine out of fifteen) the parallels from Turk are lacking. In a third of the cases the Mongol parallels are lacking. After all, there remain two words; namely, «side» and «snake,» which are met with in all compared languages and which do not need any preliminary hypotheses to be admitted.

Such a small result is not surprising at all if we remember what has been formulated in reference to the common words in different languages. These two common words (there may be twenty and even fifty, as well) may have their common origin not only from the direct transmission through the mechanism of tradition from the populations spreading over the territory, but they may be a result of a mere chance of combinations and permutations, without speaking of migrations of words, etc. So that as a proof of «common origin» of languages compared they are not only too scanty (they may be much more numerous without having any value as evidences showing common origin of languages); but they cannot be convincing, for their history is unknown. It is evident that there will be many more «common words» if the Finno-Ugrian languages are eliminated; yet their number will be still greater if the Turk languages are eliminated. Their number will still increase if the Mongol language is eliminated, yet again increase if the Southern Tungus and the Northern Tungus are considered separately.

An impartial analysis of the parallels brought forth by A. Sauvageot leads us to the conclusion that the Tungus languages, in so far as the lexic analysis goes, must not be included into the «Ural-Altaic family» on the ground of existence of common words.

 
Электропочта shirokogorov@gmail.com
© 2009 - 2021